October 26, 1990
An editorial, clipped from The Record a few years ago, tells about a local ministerial meeting. After reviewing ideas that the group tossed around concerning joint activities, the article ends with the editor’s suggestion: instead of discussing theology or projects, they ought to get out and do something for the betterment of the community.
Obviously the church is not what a lot of people think it should be. While average non-Christians can hold higher standards for it than do most Christians, different views are sometimes more a matter of priorities and personal felt-needs.
A few people focus on the importance of drafting theological statements because doctrine is related to life; what we believe affects how we act. For that reason, an important task of the church is to make God’s truth known so as to counter the errors of sinful attitudes. Jesus said, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” Thus, some think the church should concentrate on its message.
Others consider the primary purpose of the church is to meet practical needs by serving those who are in need. They point to Scripture such as, “Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others....”
A third focus is the matter of education. Parents take or send their children to Sunday school to learn about God. North American schools began through the work of the church and some private schools try to continue their tradition. Jesus invites even adults to “come and learn of me....”
Some think the church is a place for encouragement, the “refueling depot” at the end of a busy week. They want a boost to their personal progress and sense of hope. Paul wrote a local church and said, “Encourage one another and build each other up....”
Another perspective on the purpose of the church is gathering money and other material necessities for the poor and needy. Paul commended the church at Corinth for excelling in faith, speech, knowledge, complete earnestness and love, then added they “also excel in this grace of giving.” Thus, because of the inequalities of life, the church is supposed to share.
One more focus people take is related to organization. For the church, this is an internal matter (church affairs need to be organized) but it is also important to the church’s reputation in the community. Regardless of the many other things that churches might do, if they are done in chaotic, disorganized fashion, they will not be honoring to God. The Bible says “God is not a God of disorder but of peace.”
Perhaps the most important perceived and valid function of the church is the expression of compassion. Whatever else Christians do, this is the one thing that is expected of us, both from outsiders and from within. Life hurts; most people need personal and emotional support at some time or other. We readily admit social service programs cannot heal our hurts but much of the time we fail to understand that proclamation, having our practical needs met, teaching, many forms of encouragement, money, and organization do not do it either.
Perhaps that is why some think the church is irrelevant; doing good things but not the right things, at least not the right things in the minds of those who have written it off. All of us need to take another look at the list. The capacity to do, and to benefit from, all these functions is there, in the church.
Monday, February 15, 2016
Friday, February 12, 2016
Where did the idea of God come from? ............. Parables 392
October 19, 1990
Have you seen the marvelous mouthwash commercial featuring a rooster who takes a swig, swishes it around, gargles, then breaks into song? What a delightful example of our incredible capacity to create. We see more of it everywhere, in art galleries, book stores, advertising, every place human hands have touched.
With this remarkable creative capacity, some conclude the idea of God is another one of our inventions. With that suggestion, some definitions are in order. First, which god is meant?
Some have observed there seems to be a force in the universe that permeates all and holds all things together. Plato and Socrates articulated this vague concept. Some have called it “god”.
Another “god” has been defined as an extension of a universal force that permeates the soul and being of all men, the so-called god-within. By this explanation, Shirley McLean claims there is a “god”, even that she is herself “god”, as do many others who embrace the religion of the New Age.
These are two concepts conceived by creative thinkers who may possibly be trying to understand a Something that they are certain exists. For them, it appears there is a god but the nature of its identity is impersonal and open to interpretation. In other words, “god” is up to human definition.
On the other hand, Christians believe there is a Being called God who created us in His image. Because of that, we have this capacity to create other things. We believe if God is someone man created, then man is god, and God amounts to little more than nothing.
Far from nothing, our understanding of God includes a universal force, that is He is infinite and omnipotent; His power pervades all of the cosmos, but He is more than a force. We know that is true because He did not leave us guessing about His nature; He revealed Himself, an element that makes Him different from man-created gods.
Why would man invent a god like this God? If we are that inventive, why not create something that is tangible, something we can see as well as worship, something that can be proven, and dissected and completely understood in any human language?
Looking at it rationally, how could we invent someone that is all we are not? We create based on what we know, observe and experience with our senses. While we may imagine things we have never seen, like roosters gargling mouthwash, we have seen roosters and we know about gargling mouthwash.
The God of the Bible is all that we are not. He is omnipotent or all-powerful. He says, “Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?” (Jeremiah 32:27) There are too many impossibilities in my world to imagine or invent a Being who is thwarted by none of them.
This God is also omnipresent, everywhere at once. The psalmist said, “Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?” He is that because He is, as Jesus said, Spirit. We cannot imagine that. We can imagine a ghost roughly shaped like a human being but we cannot envision Someone who occupies all space yet is not any of the things in that space, never mind an omnipresent God who is also personal. He has no head, no feet, yet He loves us. How could we make up something like that?
God is also omniscience, or all-knowing. The psalmist wrote, “O LORD, you have searched me, and you know me. You know when I sit and when rise; you perceive my thought from afar.... You are familiar with all my ways. Before a word is on my tongue, you know it completely.... Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to attain.”
Exactly!
Have you seen the marvelous mouthwash commercial featuring a rooster who takes a swig, swishes it around, gargles, then breaks into song? What a delightful example of our incredible capacity to create. We see more of it everywhere, in art galleries, book stores, advertising, every place human hands have touched.
With this remarkable creative capacity, some conclude the idea of God is another one of our inventions. With that suggestion, some definitions are in order. First, which god is meant?
Some have observed there seems to be a force in the universe that permeates all and holds all things together. Plato and Socrates articulated this vague concept. Some have called it “god”.
Another “god” has been defined as an extension of a universal force that permeates the soul and being of all men, the so-called god-within. By this explanation, Shirley McLean claims there is a “god”, even that she is herself “god”, as do many others who embrace the religion of the New Age.
These are two concepts conceived by creative thinkers who may possibly be trying to understand a Something that they are certain exists. For them, it appears there is a god but the nature of its identity is impersonal and open to interpretation. In other words, “god” is up to human definition.
On the other hand, Christians believe there is a Being called God who created us in His image. Because of that, we have this capacity to create other things. We believe if God is someone man created, then man is god, and God amounts to little more than nothing.
Far from nothing, our understanding of God includes a universal force, that is He is infinite and omnipotent; His power pervades all of the cosmos, but He is more than a force. We know that is true because He did not leave us guessing about His nature; He revealed Himself, an element that makes Him different from man-created gods.
Why would man invent a god like this God? If we are that inventive, why not create something that is tangible, something we can see as well as worship, something that can be proven, and dissected and completely understood in any human language?
Looking at it rationally, how could we invent someone that is all we are not? We create based on what we know, observe and experience with our senses. While we may imagine things we have never seen, like roosters gargling mouthwash, we have seen roosters and we know about gargling mouthwash.
The God of the Bible is all that we are not. He is omnipotent or all-powerful. He says, “Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?” (Jeremiah 32:27) There are too many impossibilities in my world to imagine or invent a Being who is thwarted by none of them.
This God is also omnipresent, everywhere at once. The psalmist said, “Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?” He is that because He is, as Jesus said, Spirit. We cannot imagine that. We can imagine a ghost roughly shaped like a human being but we cannot envision Someone who occupies all space yet is not any of the things in that space, never mind an omnipresent God who is also personal. He has no head, no feet, yet He loves us. How could we make up something like that?
God is also omniscience, or all-knowing. The psalmist wrote, “O LORD, you have searched me, and you know me. You know when I sit and when rise; you perceive my thought from afar.... You are familiar with all my ways. Before a word is on my tongue, you know it completely.... Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to attain.”
Exactly!
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Crash go the idols ............. Parables 391
October 12, 1990
Fans easily make idols of movie stars and sports personalities; they meet an inner desire for heroes, they seem so perfect. Of course, holding them in reverence lasts about as long as they stay in the spotlight. Should a hockey player stop scoring goals, even for a game or two, or should a star fail to shine, fans begin booing instead of cheering.
Other things can be treated like idols also, particularly if they seem to meet genuine needs. Some people-groups honor images of supposed gods with the assumption these influence their prosperity. North Americans, while more sophisticated, tend to put whatever gives a sense of security and well-being into idol-status too, whether it be jobs, houses, cars, or friends.
Sometimes people even idolize institutions and their leaders. For instance, those who went through the Great Depression of the 1930's saw political and social organizations rise to stardom. Through them, economic prosperity was restored, then improved. During boom years, people began to trust governments and business to take care of meeting their needs.
It is becoming increasingly apparent these stars are falling. Business, political and social institutions (including all their programs and the people who lead them) are no longer able to keep us in the comfort which we have enjoyed. Instead we suffer cut-backs, high taxes, unemployment, and lowered lifestyles. As a result, people are disillusioned and angry with government and big business in general, political leaders and their own employers in particular.
Perhaps we need to look again at the first of God’s most well-known commandments. It deals with idols by saying, “You shall have no other gods before ME” (Exodus 20).
God knows all about our tendency to rely overmuch on (and even worship) the visible things that seem to be the sources of health, wealth, sustenance, and comfort. However, the Bible says God controls our well-being and He is the ultimate source of all that is good: “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.”
Our perception of good is being shaken. Our world is rapidly changing, shifting like shadows, and the shadows are frightening. We want things the same, even work hard to maintain (or restore) our situation. We fear anything that will rob us of the good we have enjoyed in the past.
Some politicians take advantage of those shadows. They promise to restore the good life. But can they? Is our disillusionment with those “idols” well-founded? According to the Bible, there will always be downturns, belt-tightening, and even global economic instability that fosters mistrust in leaders and their performance. Maybe it is time to take another look at who we ought trust to meet our needs.
The first Commandment is God’s way of telling us to watch out for idols, watch out for thinking anything else is better able than He is, watch out what we revere and trust to meet our needs. He alone is worthy of that veneration. Besides, He knows if we trust in something less than Him we will get hurt. The Apostle Paul says, “My God will meet all your needs according to His glorious riches in Christ Jesus.” None of our idols can make or keep a promise like that.
Fans easily make idols of movie stars and sports personalities; they meet an inner desire for heroes, they seem so perfect. Of course, holding them in reverence lasts about as long as they stay in the spotlight. Should a hockey player stop scoring goals, even for a game or two, or should a star fail to shine, fans begin booing instead of cheering.
Other things can be treated like idols also, particularly if they seem to meet genuine needs. Some people-groups honor images of supposed gods with the assumption these influence their prosperity. North Americans, while more sophisticated, tend to put whatever gives a sense of security and well-being into idol-status too, whether it be jobs, houses, cars, or friends.
Sometimes people even idolize institutions and their leaders. For instance, those who went through the Great Depression of the 1930's saw political and social organizations rise to stardom. Through them, economic prosperity was restored, then improved. During boom years, people began to trust governments and business to take care of meeting their needs.
It is becoming increasingly apparent these stars are falling. Business, political and social institutions (including all their programs and the people who lead them) are no longer able to keep us in the comfort which we have enjoyed. Instead we suffer cut-backs, high taxes, unemployment, and lowered lifestyles. As a result, people are disillusioned and angry with government and big business in general, political leaders and their own employers in particular.
Perhaps we need to look again at the first of God’s most well-known commandments. It deals with idols by saying, “You shall have no other gods before ME” (Exodus 20).
God knows all about our tendency to rely overmuch on (and even worship) the visible things that seem to be the sources of health, wealth, sustenance, and comfort. However, the Bible says God controls our well-being and He is the ultimate source of all that is good: “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.”
Our perception of good is being shaken. Our world is rapidly changing, shifting like shadows, and the shadows are frightening. We want things the same, even work hard to maintain (or restore) our situation. We fear anything that will rob us of the good we have enjoyed in the past.
Some politicians take advantage of those shadows. They promise to restore the good life. But can they? Is our disillusionment with those “idols” well-founded? According to the Bible, there will always be downturns, belt-tightening, and even global economic instability that fosters mistrust in leaders and their performance. Maybe it is time to take another look at who we ought trust to meet our needs.
The first Commandment is God’s way of telling us to watch out for idols, watch out for thinking anything else is better able than He is, watch out what we revere and trust to meet our needs. He alone is worthy of that veneration. Besides, He knows if we trust in something less than Him we will get hurt. The Apostle Paul says, “My God will meet all your needs according to His glorious riches in Christ Jesus.” None of our idols can make or keep a promise like that.
Monday, February 8, 2016
Making Genuine Predictions ............. Parables 390
October 5, 1990
An eighteenth Century author, Horace Walpole, quipped: “The wisest prophets make sure of the event first.” What Walpole didn’t define is exactly how a prophet can be certain his predictions will come true.
Some would be easy. I can predict the sunrise tomorrow and the sunset tonight. I can also predict winter and spring, even the change of coloring in the trees and very often whether or not it will rain.
Other predictions are not as easy. Picking future winners of football and hockey games or horse races is difficult. So is predicting where the wheel will stop or what numbers will come up when dice are rolled or cards shuffled. In fact, the difficulty is sufficient that a whole industry is built around the gamble.
Long range predictions are not any easier. Sometimes we look at trends and can safely say we are in for a recession or hard times or wars, but the specifics are yet to be seen and predicting them makes fools out of Jean Dixon and her ilk.
However, there were some seers who enjoyed outstanding success rates. These were the Old Testament prophets, men like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea and Ezekiel. Their remarkable predictions came true with a 100% success rate, leaving only two possible explanations of how they could be so sure of the future. The book of Daniel gives one example.
Daniel was a young Jew deported to Babylon along with many others from Israel around 586 B.C. There he claimed to have visions about a leader who would come against the Hebrew people and “abolish the daily sacrifice” and “set up the abomination that causes desolation.” This prophecy is described in such detail that few doubt it refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a Roman ruler who abolished the sacrificial system and desecrated the Jewish temple in Jerusalem.
The problem is that Antiochus lived about 160 B.C. and Daniel about 605 - 535 B.C. If Daniel wrote it, as the book says (and as Jesus later affirms), how did he know of things that would happen several hundred years later?
Some say Daniel did not write this book at all. It had to be written after the predicted events actually occurred. In that way, the “prophet made sure of his events first” just as Walpole said he should.
The other explanation is what the Bible claims about itself: “All Scripture is God-breathed.... For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
The picture is God breathing His Word into men, like the wind blows into a sail, moving them in such a way that they wrote (in their own style) what He wanted them to write. The fact of God’s knowledge of all things, including the future, explains how Daniel could describe an event he had never seen. Because these men were dedicated to God in a faith-relationship, they understood that what He revealed to them was true. They may not have understood the implications of the Revelation (Daniel even asked, “My lord, what shall be the end of these things?”) but they did trust the One who revealed them. God had proven Himself faithful to them in the past; surely He would tell them truth right now, even truth about the future.
If we disregard God and dismiss any possibility of the supernatural, there is really no other way for a prophet to “make sure of his events first.”
Friday, February 5, 2016
Christians and Crutches ............. Parables 389
September 28, 1993
Nearly every school has one or more students hobbling the halls on crutches because sport programs starting in September, after a summer without them, usually mean injuries. Some sprain their ankles or break bones; others tear ligaments or dislocate a knee joint. At first, many injured don’t mind the attention their injury receives; however, the novelty of being a cripple wears off quickly. No one likes using crutches for more than a day or two.
Perhaps that illustrates why those who disdain faith in God sometimes call it a “crutch.” No doubt they remember times when life’s problems loomed large and they were helpless. At those times, they may have cried out to God for help, such as when the tornado ripped through an industrial building in Edmonton a few years ago. One survivor told me workers clutched to whatever seemed solid and everyone was praying aloud. Even though most had not prayed before (at least publicly), they desperately grabbed for some “crutches” as the building came down around them.
Who can fault them? No one. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging to God our utter helplessness and crying out to Him. They did it, at least for that moment. But their memory of a time when faith was needed reminds them of their own weakness, and who wants to think about that, hence faith is only a crutch.
This temporary faith is relatively common. The first time I grabbed that crutch was when my favorite childhood pet went missing. After a tearful but unproductive search, I prayed God would help me find it. I even promised to believe in Him if the kitten showed up. It was a clear case of a temporary “limp” because I didn’t keep my promise, at least not at the time.
In contrast, the Bible tells us we are to “pray without ceasing” because we trust Him without ceasing. That means we call on Him daily, crisis or not, and even implies we need crutches a lot more than we think we do.
From this, I see faith has at least two dimensions. There is trust in God for the crisis situations only, which I have already called “temporary faith” and trust that is more permanent. It could be called “eternal faith.”
Eternal faith could be further defined as a trust that understands we have a permanent limp. (Those who accuse us of needing a crutch are right but not exactly.) Eternal faith realizes there is a crisis not directly related to falling down under the trials of this life. It is a large problem that looms ahead and all are helpless to solve it. This unseen calamity requires more from us than a now-and-then cry for help when we feel weak.
This unmanageable crisis is rooted in the past to another kind of Fall, unlike those that merely break bones and scrape knees. Romans 3 says it like this: “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Because of that Fall, we are without strength to meet the inevitable, the crisis of God’s judgment.
Those with eternal faith know we limp. We cannot walk like we ought — the standard of measurement is Christ — and we cannot make our way into eternity with God after we die. Heaven is a place of perfection and we are spiritual cripples; heaven’s door slams shuts in our faces. But He opens it for a faith that goes beyond an occasional plea for help.
Our choice is simple, but not easy: do we limp on — with or without a sense of having fallen? Do we cry out only when we feel weak and ignore Him when we feel strong? Or do we step into a walk with Him — happy that He offered us a crutch?
Nearly every school has one or more students hobbling the halls on crutches because sport programs starting in September, after a summer without them, usually mean injuries. Some sprain their ankles or break bones; others tear ligaments or dislocate a knee joint. At first, many injured don’t mind the attention their injury receives; however, the novelty of being a cripple wears off quickly. No one likes using crutches for more than a day or two.
Perhaps that illustrates why those who disdain faith in God sometimes call it a “crutch.” No doubt they remember times when life’s problems loomed large and they were helpless. At those times, they may have cried out to God for help, such as when the tornado ripped through an industrial building in Edmonton a few years ago. One survivor told me workers clutched to whatever seemed solid and everyone was praying aloud. Even though most had not prayed before (at least publicly), they desperately grabbed for some “crutches” as the building came down around them.
Who can fault them? No one. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging to God our utter helplessness and crying out to Him. They did it, at least for that moment. But their memory of a time when faith was needed reminds them of their own weakness, and who wants to think about that, hence faith is only a crutch.
This temporary faith is relatively common. The first time I grabbed that crutch was when my favorite childhood pet went missing. After a tearful but unproductive search, I prayed God would help me find it. I even promised to believe in Him if the kitten showed up. It was a clear case of a temporary “limp” because I didn’t keep my promise, at least not at the time.
In contrast, the Bible tells us we are to “pray without ceasing” because we trust Him without ceasing. That means we call on Him daily, crisis or not, and even implies we need crutches a lot more than we think we do.
From this, I see faith has at least two dimensions. There is trust in God for the crisis situations only, which I have already called “temporary faith” and trust that is more permanent. It could be called “eternal faith.”
Eternal faith could be further defined as a trust that understands we have a permanent limp. (Those who accuse us of needing a crutch are right but not exactly.) Eternal faith realizes there is a crisis not directly related to falling down under the trials of this life. It is a large problem that looms ahead and all are helpless to solve it. This unseen calamity requires more from us than a now-and-then cry for help when we feel weak.
This unmanageable crisis is rooted in the past to another kind of Fall, unlike those that merely break bones and scrape knees. Romans 3 says it like this: “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Because of that Fall, we are without strength to meet the inevitable, the crisis of God’s judgment.
Those with eternal faith know we limp. We cannot walk like we ought — the standard of measurement is Christ — and we cannot make our way into eternity with God after we die. Heaven is a place of perfection and we are spiritual cripples; heaven’s door slams shuts in our faces. But He opens it for a faith that goes beyond an occasional plea for help.
Our choice is simple, but not easy: do we limp on — with or without a sense of having fallen? Do we cry out only when we feel weak and ignore Him when we feel strong? Or do we step into a walk with Him — happy that He offered us a crutch?
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
Wise Giving ............. Parables 388
September 21, 1993
Siamese twins shared vital organs so one of them had to die that the other might possibly live. Not a happy situation. Aside from the moral and ethical difficulties of the decision made by their parents and the doctors who did the surgery, the father of these twins created another ethical dilemma.
Apparently, money donated by concerned people to pay medical expenses was used for purposes that had little to do with the needs for which they were given. The twin’s father spent some of those funds on drugs to supply a personal addiction. In this case, would those who raised the money have done more good by giving it directly to the hospital?
Granted, anyone under the stresses he no doubt experienced could be expected to make some irrational decisions. We can hope he has found help to overcome his problems. However, this situation raises a question that those who give to charity often have to answer: does giving, in the true sense of the word, mean the recipients can do whatever they please with the gift?
Imagine buying a box of chocolates for another person, only to see them deliberately destroy it. Even if we told them the gift was theirs to do with as they pleased, we might feel a sense of outrage or at least disappointment. However, if the other person had an extreme allergy to chocolate, we would think twice about giving that kind of gift. True giving wants to benefit the receiver, not harm them.
This parallels some questions I’ve had to work through when asked for handouts. We used to live in a former manse next to a large church near a railway yard. At least once a week, people came to my door with one of several questions. If they asked for food, I gave them something to eat out on the large front veranda. If they asked for the pastor (whom I had never met), I gave them a small booklet about the love of God, with the pastor’s home address on the back.
But, if they asked for money, usually making it clear they “needed” it for alcohol, I refused. In that case, I thought my charity would hurt more than help them. Sometimes I would offer a meal instead, but they usually refused my offer. They were not interested in food.
It is not always easy to refuse money to someone who wears rags for clothes and looks as if they have not eaten properly for years. Some may feel it is “unloving” to deny their request; however, I’ve learned to take my cues from God. He “loves us with an everlasting love” yet never grants us that which will bring us harm or destruction.
God is such an excellent Giver because He does love us, but also because He intimately knows us and our needs. If our intentions or plans are unhealthy, He says, “When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.”
This implies two things about giving. Love must be behind the giving, but knowing the recipient and their real needs is part of the process too. For me, it was easy to assess that those asking for booze-money DID NOT need it, but aside from knowing they needed good food and a lot of care, had I opportunity, I would have discovered far deeper needs than those visible on the surface.
Because getting to know needy people is not easy, most of us give through agencies, hoping they understand whether our gifts will be misused, abused, or inappropriate. But face-to-face giving is far better. When we understand hurts and know weaknesses, we realize a gift of several thousand dollars is just too large a temptation for a person with a drug habit.
Siamese twins shared vital organs so one of them had to die that the other might possibly live. Not a happy situation. Aside from the moral and ethical difficulties of the decision made by their parents and the doctors who did the surgery, the father of these twins created another ethical dilemma.
Apparently, money donated by concerned people to pay medical expenses was used for purposes that had little to do with the needs for which they were given. The twin’s father spent some of those funds on drugs to supply a personal addiction. In this case, would those who raised the money have done more good by giving it directly to the hospital?
Granted, anyone under the stresses he no doubt experienced could be expected to make some irrational decisions. We can hope he has found help to overcome his problems. However, this situation raises a question that those who give to charity often have to answer: does giving, in the true sense of the word, mean the recipients can do whatever they please with the gift?
Imagine buying a box of chocolates for another person, only to see them deliberately destroy it. Even if we told them the gift was theirs to do with as they pleased, we might feel a sense of outrage or at least disappointment. However, if the other person had an extreme allergy to chocolate, we would think twice about giving that kind of gift. True giving wants to benefit the receiver, not harm them.
This parallels some questions I’ve had to work through when asked for handouts. We used to live in a former manse next to a large church near a railway yard. At least once a week, people came to my door with one of several questions. If they asked for food, I gave them something to eat out on the large front veranda. If they asked for the pastor (whom I had never met), I gave them a small booklet about the love of God, with the pastor’s home address on the back.
But, if they asked for money, usually making it clear they “needed” it for alcohol, I refused. In that case, I thought my charity would hurt more than help them. Sometimes I would offer a meal instead, but they usually refused my offer. They were not interested in food.
It is not always easy to refuse money to someone who wears rags for clothes and looks as if they have not eaten properly for years. Some may feel it is “unloving” to deny their request; however, I’ve learned to take my cues from God. He “loves us with an everlasting love” yet never grants us that which will bring us harm or destruction.
God is such an excellent Giver because He does love us, but also because He intimately knows us and our needs. If our intentions or plans are unhealthy, He says, “When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.”
This implies two things about giving. Love must be behind the giving, but knowing the recipient and their real needs is part of the process too. For me, it was easy to assess that those asking for booze-money DID NOT need it, but aside from knowing they needed good food and a lot of care, had I opportunity, I would have discovered far deeper needs than those visible on the surface.
Because getting to know needy people is not easy, most of us give through agencies, hoping they understand whether our gifts will be misused, abused, or inappropriate. But face-to-face giving is far better. When we understand hurts and know weaknesses, we realize a gift of several thousand dollars is just too large a temptation for a person with a drug habit.
Monday, February 1, 2016
The Greatest Good ............. Parables 387
September 14, 1993
Many a child has heard the proverb, “Two wrongs don’t make a right,” particularly after getting caught in a lie meant to deliver themselves from the consequences of some other wrong they did.
Like all proverbs, this one is generally true. The closest exception I know of was when our house contractor put an outlet and switches where a cupboard addition would cover them up (making their location illegal) and misjudged the size of a closet in the front hall.
They thought they would have to rip out a huge area of ceramic tile to correct the first wrong but when they opened up the wall on the opposite side to fix the closet, they exposed the electrical wiring for the kitchen problem. They easily fixed both at the same time, but since both errors were costly to the builder and a nuisance to us, we still have to conclude two wrongs are still two wrongs.
Wrong is also wrong when disaster strikes in other, more extreme, ways. The optimists around us may say, “It will work out okay,” and sometimes it does, but unexpected financial reverses, natural disasters, traffic accidents, sudden deaths, personal failures and moral downfalls can never be called right. Adding two of them together doesn’t help at all towards making them anything but wrong.
However, that does not mean good is left totally out of the equation. A favorite passage of Scripture, Romans 8:28, affirms that God can do something about the wrongs. It says, “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose.”
Since “all things” includes tragic losses, illnesses, or other dark times in our lives, well-meaning people sometimes use this verse to try to comfort us. If we feel they are saying the wrong is good, or good for us in some way, their words hurt, and so they should; that is not what God is saying in Romans 8:28.
Pain and suffering are not His idea. Wrong things came into the world with sin as part of the package. God hates sin and He does not take pleasure in affliction or death. He would never say, “this wrong thing is good for you.” He is not cruel or sadistic.
What Romans 8:28 does say is that God can use all things, good or bad, right or wrong, for our good. In other words, wrong is never right but by the grace of God, it does not have to have the final word.
The promise of verse 28 makes more sense when we compare the last phrase “according to His purpose” with the next verse which says, “For those God foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His Son....”
In plainer English, this says God knew ahead of time about all those who would become Christians, and with that knowledge it is His plan to change them to be like Jesus Christ. His power is so great that He is able to use anything that happens to us to do it.
We need to remember God draws a line between right and wrong and never changes one into the other. Nor is it His goal that all the dirty deals of life and the wrongs that slap us down cause us to be defeated or bitter. Instead, He longs for our good. What better goal could He have, or what higher good could happen to us than becoming more like Jesus?
Many a child has heard the proverb, “Two wrongs don’t make a right,” particularly after getting caught in a lie meant to deliver themselves from the consequences of some other wrong they did.
Like all proverbs, this one is generally true. The closest exception I know of was when our house contractor put an outlet and switches where a cupboard addition would cover them up (making their location illegal) and misjudged the size of a closet in the front hall.
They thought they would have to rip out a huge area of ceramic tile to correct the first wrong but when they opened up the wall on the opposite side to fix the closet, they exposed the electrical wiring for the kitchen problem. They easily fixed both at the same time, but since both errors were costly to the builder and a nuisance to us, we still have to conclude two wrongs are still two wrongs.
Wrong is also wrong when disaster strikes in other, more extreme, ways. The optimists around us may say, “It will work out okay,” and sometimes it does, but unexpected financial reverses, natural disasters, traffic accidents, sudden deaths, personal failures and moral downfalls can never be called right. Adding two of them together doesn’t help at all towards making them anything but wrong.
However, that does not mean good is left totally out of the equation. A favorite passage of Scripture, Romans 8:28, affirms that God can do something about the wrongs. It says, “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose.”
Since “all things” includes tragic losses, illnesses, or other dark times in our lives, well-meaning people sometimes use this verse to try to comfort us. If we feel they are saying the wrong is good, or good for us in some way, their words hurt, and so they should; that is not what God is saying in Romans 8:28.
Pain and suffering are not His idea. Wrong things came into the world with sin as part of the package. God hates sin and He does not take pleasure in affliction or death. He would never say, “this wrong thing is good for you.” He is not cruel or sadistic.
What Romans 8:28 does say is that God can use all things, good or bad, right or wrong, for our good. In other words, wrong is never right but by the grace of God, it does not have to have the final word.
The promise of verse 28 makes more sense when we compare the last phrase “according to His purpose” with the next verse which says, “For those God foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His Son....”
In plainer English, this says God knew ahead of time about all those who would become Christians, and with that knowledge it is His plan to change them to be like Jesus Christ. His power is so great that He is able to use anything that happens to us to do it.
We need to remember God draws a line between right and wrong and never changes one into the other. Nor is it His goal that all the dirty deals of life and the wrongs that slap us down cause us to be defeated or bitter. Instead, He longs for our good. What better goal could He have, or what higher good could happen to us than becoming more like Jesus?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)