bekahcubed

Categories Faith, Politics

The Secret Socialist (Part 3)

Leave a comment by

I have heretofore described the Scriptural role of the government to administer justice and the Scriptural call to the church to be agents of mercy. Here, I shall attempt to describe what I see as the union of the two.

We are aliens in this world.

Whenever a Christian enters into the realm of politics, he must realize that in doing so he is stepping out of his native land into the affairs of the land in which He is a sojourner.

A Christian belongs to the kingdom of God–a kingdom firmly established on mercy, love, and nonaggression. This is the kingdom whose people decry self-defense, instead offering their cheeks to be struck. This is the kingdom whose citizens give to those who steal from them. This is the kingdom whose people would much rather be cheated than go to court.

The kingdoms of this world, on the other hand, are kingdoms (established by God) for the carrying out of justice. They are responsible, first and foremost, (at least inasmuch as Scripture reveals God’s plan for the kingdoms of this earth) for the punishing of wrongdoers and praising of the righteous.

The two kingdoms could not be more different.

The kingdom of God recognizes that Christ has borne the whole punishment for all sins–against God and against mankind–and therefore demands that citizens extend mercy to all. The kingdom of the world still labors under the fallenness of sin–and must punish wrongdoers lest injustice prevail.

The question, then, is how a Christian is to go about dealing with the political world. How is a Christian to navigate these opposing worlds of justice and mercy?

There are three common “takes” on a Christian’s involvement in politics.

Some take the conservative view, demanding justice on this earth–politically and personally. People should get what they deserve and nothing more. This is the view of the harsh disciplinarian, the uncompromising taskmaster, the down-with-the-welfare-state-up-with-the-military-state politico.

Others take a liberal stance, arguing for mercy at all costs. These are the bleeding hearts, the fairness police. They want redistribution of wealth, equal access to everything, a mother state who babies her citizens, and a non-aggressive foreign policy.

Still others urge avoidance. Best to stay out of politics, they say, lest you forsake the kingdom of God in your involvement with the kingdoms of this world.

But are these the only options for Christian involvement in the world?

My personal take lies outside of each of these. I believe that inasmuch as God’s revealed will for the governments of this world is that they be ministers of justice, I as a Christian should work to promote justice in political affairs. And inasmuch as God’s clearly revealed call to His church is that they be ministers of mercy, as a citizen of the kingdom of heaven, I should seek to live a life marked by mercy.

What does this mean for me?

In my political involvement, I fight for justice–laws that reflect just practices, punishments that befit crimes, honest court systems. Yet as a citizen of the kingdom of God, I would never dream of making use of these courts to demand justice for myself. I am called to extend mercy to those who misuse me.

As an American citizen, I support just war (of course, the definition of just war is fuzzy and must be considered carefully) entered into by the state, whether preemptive or retaliatory. But as a citizen of the kingdom of God, I clearly recognize the call to never take justice into my own hands and wage war on my own accord. I could never bomb an abortion clinic or assassinate even the most evil of characters.

I disapprove of the governmental redistribution of wealth in order to secure social programs as an injustice to the deserving and the undeserving alike (punishing those who have earned their money justly and rewarding those who have failed to justly earn money). But as a citizen of the kingdom of God, I seek to liberally give my own money, goods, and services indiscriminately.

From my conception of God’s plan for the kingdoms of this world and for the kingdom of heaven, I am politically conservative and personally liberal. I work to promote a political system that is founded on justice–and seek to always live a life marked by mercy.

Of course, I like all people, am fallen–and regularly fail to live up to this goal. Too often, I demand justice for myself when I ought to extend mercy to others. And too often I request mercy of the political system, when I ought to accept and promote justice. But the above is my ideal–and I pray that by the grace of God, I might grow more and more to walk mercifully as a citizen of the kingdom of heaven–and to promote justice in this nation in which I am an alien.

Categories Book Notes, Theology

The Cross: Righteousness and Peace Have Kissed

Leave a comment by

Notes on John Stott’s
The Cross of Christ
Chapter 4: The Problem of Forgiveness

In chapter 4, Stott addresses the question of why the cross was necessary to grant us forgiveness of sins. In essence, the question is:

Why can’t God forgive us without requiring a bloody, gruesome death of His Son?

This is a common question and one that is frequently brought up by Christians and non-Christians alike. The cross is detestable, disgusting, reprehensible. If God is love, how could He do such a thing? How could He cause the cruel death of His Son? Many people would like to believe in a universalist God–all Teddy Bear, no judgment. Others decry God as taking sadomasochist pleasure in torturing His Son.

Clearly, this is an important point to grapple with–and our conclusions regarding it have far-reaching implications for how we view God and humanity.

In order to understand the necessity of the cross for securing our forgiveness, we must become aware of the righteousness of God, the gravity of sin, and our culpability as sinners.

Why can God not “simply” forgive sinners?

God cannot “simply” forgive sinners because sin is a big deal. Sin is not simply a “mistake” or a “mess-up”. Sin is an act of rebellion against God. Sin is defiance not only against God’s law, but against God’s very nature.

God cannot “simply” forgive sinners because sinners are culpable for their sins. We are not automatons “forced” into rebellion against God by no choice of our own. True, our wills have been corrupted by original sin. But even still, we will to rebel against God. God did not create us sinners and then punish us for the sin He created us to do–no, we chose sin, chose rebellion, and willingly walk in it.

God cannot “simply” forgive sinners because God is righteous. He is completely pure, spotless, without blemish. He is far above and is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, just and unjust. He is holy, separate, distinct from evil. He cannot embrace the impure, the spotted, the blemished, the wrong, the unjust, the profane, the evil–or else He will no longer be righteous and holy.

God’s holiness demands that He cannot merely “forget” our sins and embrace us. Our sins must be punished. What’s more, because we are sinners, not only our actions but our selves must be punished. Our sins–and we as sinners–must bear the wrath of God.

This is the beauty of the cross

In the cross, Jesus Christ bore our sins, became our sin–and fully bore the wrath of God in Himself. God’s wrath satisfied, He is now free to forgive without compromising His nature. In the cross, righteousness and peace have kissed.

“Mercy and truth have met together;
Righteousness and peace have kissed.”
Psalm 85:10

(See more notes on The Cross of Christ here.)

Categories Book Notes, Theology

Why Did Christ Die?

Leave a comment by

Notes on John Stott’s
The Cross of Christ
Chapter 3: Looking below the surface

I feel a bit guilty to be merely summarizing Stott’s main points in this chapter–yet his points are so good, I feel they require little comment from me. This is a fantastic intro to the significance of the cross, from Jesus’ perspective.

What is the significance of the cross?

1) Christ died for us.
2) Christ died to bring us to God
3) Christ died for our sins
4) Christ died our death

Jesus on His death

The Last Supper

1) Jesus affirmed the centrality of His death

  • The Last Supper, a commemoration of the death of Christ, was the ONLY commemorative act commanded by Jesus

2) Jesus affirmed the purpose of His death

  • Intended to create a new covenant
  • Intended to obtain forgiveness of sins

3) Jesus affirmed the necessity of personally appropriating His death

  • The disciples were commanded to eat and drink–to receive the work of Christ on their behalf

Gethsemane

4) Jesus agonizes over the wrath of God soon to be poured out on Him

  • Jesus’ agony in the garden was not over the prospect of physical pain and death, but in contemplation of the impending “cup” of God’s wrath to be poured out on Him.

The Cross

5) Jesus experienced true separation from the Father on the cross

  • In His cry “My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?”, Jesus expresses true agony at the true, necessary, voluntary separation of Himself from the Father

Conclusions

When we look at the cross of Christ, we are forced to make three conclusions:
1) Our sin must be horrible
2) God’s love must be wonderful
3) Salvation must be free

“…We preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”
I Corinthians 1:23-24

(See more notes on The Cross of Christ here.)

Categories None

Counting to 843 on 2 hands

1 Comment by

My mother-out-law said my brother had told her she could count into the hundreds with just two hands. I corrected her/his faulty value. Using binary, you can count to 1023 using only two hands.

My brother-out-law asked me to demonstrate (smart-alec!) I explained that I didn’t have the time to count all the way up from 1 to 1023, but if he’d like to choose a number within that range, I’d be pleased to demonstrate.

He chose 843.

Here it is:
843 on two hands (in binary)

The technique is simple.

First you need to choose a side to begin with. I chose to have my right pinkie represent the ones place.

In binary, this means that each finger represents the following place values:

binary place values on two hands

If a finger is extended (the “1” position), this means that you sum in that value. If a finger is not extended (the “0” position), you do not sum in that value (or you add in zero, if that’s easier for you).

Thus, the above image (in which all ten of my fingers are extended) represents
512+256+128+64+32+16+8+4+2+1
which is 1023

When I demonstrated 843, I extended the fingers that represented
512, 256, 64, 8, 2, and 1
512+256+64+8+2+1=843

Easy as pi, right?

That’s the interpreting. If you want to do the counting, I find it easiest to work from the top down, subtracting as you go.

Thus, if I wanted to represent 765, I would start at the largest place value that can fit into 765.

This is the 512.

binary place values on two hands

Extend that digit (in this case, the pinkie of your left hand) and subtract 512 from 765.

This gives you 253.

The largest value that can fit into 253 is 128.

binary place values on two hands

Extend that finger and continue on until you have:

binary place values on two hands

512+128+64+32+16+8+4+1=765

Ta-Da!

Now you’re an absolute pro and are ready to do some numbers of your own. Use the random number generator to get a number to practice with.

Please recognize that while both of my selected numbers are symmetrical, not all numbers will turn out to be such. Since my numbers were symmetrical, you could read them the same way regardless of which side was the ones place and which side was the 512s place. For non-symmetric numbers, you need to pay attention to which side the counter started from (for example, in my picture of 743, my ones place was MY right pinkie–which is the pinkie to YOUR left.)

Categories Faith, Politics

The Secret Socialist (Part 2)

Leave a comment by

Social justice.

It’s the catchphrase that’s taking the American church by storm. Maybe it’s taking the entire nation by storm.

Unfortunately, it’s not so easy to define.

Clearly, it’s involved with social issues. Social justice is applied to social issues from poverty, hunger, homelessness, sexual exploitation, and lack of access to medical care.

And it’s somehow related to justice. At least, that’s what the name implies. It implies that it seeks to apply justice to these social issues.

The problem is, the name “social justice” is often misleading.

Sometimes the things that are lumped under “social justice” are truly justice issues. Sexual exploitation is the result of someone doing a wrong to another. Justice argues that the one who does the wrong be punished. Justice–wielding the sword to punish wrongdoers. In other cases, people are unjustly denied things they rightly deserve. Justice says that they should be given what they deserve. Justice–rewarding the one who does good.

But many of the things considered to be “social justice” are not justice at all. “Social justice” argues for feeding the hungry, giving homes to the homeless, providing money to those without money. Truly, some of the hungry, the homeless, and the impoverished are there because injustices have been done to them. Others are there because circumstances outside of their (and any others’) control has placed them there (medical conditions, children born into poverty, etc.) Others are there because they have placed themselves there via drug use, laziness, or lack of discipline.

Justice demands that we work to ameliorate the suffering of those who suffer unjustly–those in the first category. But justice does not argue that we make any effort to improve the conditions of those in the second and third categories.

Does this mean that we should not interest ourselves in the social concerns of the undeserving?

Absolutely not!

As Christians, we are called to live lives not of justice but of mercy.

“But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. To him who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.

But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.”

Luke 6:27-36

Every Christian has received a great gift that he is completely unworthy of. While we were squandering our lives, abusing every gift that God had given us, God chose to give us grace upon grace–salvation of our souls, right standing before God. God poured out the judgment His justice demands on His own Son, while pouring out His mercy and grace on us.

We have been called to live in the same manner–absorbing the costs, pouring out the benefits. We have been called to live lives marked not by social justice, but by mercy.

Read my thoughts on justice and the purpose of government and continue checking back to hear me wrestle with how the issues of justice and mercy should inform a Christian’s political and non-political life.

Categories The Week in Words

WiW: On love, madness, and minstrelsy

2 Comments by

I’m late, I’m late…for a very important meme. But despite my lateness, I will be participating (briefly) in this week’s “Week in Words”.

The Week in Words

On love, madness, and minstrelsy

“‘Because that’s the only reason a lad like you would be stupid enough to cross the border into Faerie. The only ones who ever come here from your lands are the minstrels, and the lovers, and the mad. And you don’t look like much of a minstrel, and you’re–pardon me saying so, lad, but it’s true–ordinary as cheese-crumbs. So it’s love, if you ask me.’

‘Because,’ announced Tristran, ‘every lover is in his heart a madman, and in his head a minstrel.'”

~Neil Gaiman’s Stardust

Tristran is not usually the wisest of fellows–but this statement strikes true with me. For love (or infatuation, as it was in Tristran’s case) can certainly incite mad desires, wild longings, and foolish fantasies–and can send the lover into passionate songs of alternating rapture and despair.

Collect more quotes from throughout the week with Barbara H’s meme “The Week in Words”.

Categories Recap

Recap (Jun 20-26)

1 Comment by

On bekahcubed

Book Reviews:

  • The Courteous Cad by Catherine Palmer

    “I’ve mentioned my enjoyment of Regency romances at least once before. So when I saw what looked to be a romance from a Christian publisher (amazing how the covers just glare “Christian romance”, isn’t it?) with the title The Courteous Cad, I knew I wanted to read it. With the word “Cad” in the title, it had to be a Regency.”

    Read the rest of my review.

    • Whom Not to Marry by Father Pat Connor

      “Are you a single lady seeking to discover whether the man you’re dating is “marriage material”? Are you trying to decide whether you should commit to marriage with him?

      Allow me to summarize Father Pat Connor’s advice to you in three words: “Don’t do it.””

      Read the rest of my review.

    Photo Albums:

    Recipes:

    On the web

    Books for the TBR list:

    • Scratch Beginnings by Adam Shepard
      What would you do if all you had was $25, a sleeping bag, and the clothes you’re wearing right now–and had to make a life for yourself? I hope I never find myself in that situation, but Adam Shepard chronicles his year long experiment in which he does exactly that. I’m eager to read this book!

    News to take note of:

    • Intimacy, empathy decrease as social media overtakes face-to-face communication

      “It’s possible that instead of fostering real friendships off-line, e-mail and social networking may take the place of them — and the distance inherent in screen-only interactions may breed feelings of isolation or a tendency to care less about other people. After all, if you don’t feel like dealing with a friend’s problem online, all you have to do is log off.”

      HT: Challies.com

    Thought-provoking posts:
    The following are a collection of three arguments about TULIP’s “L”–limited atonement (which states that Christ died for the sins of the elect, but not for the sins of the non-elect). I found all three of these articles via Justin Taylor’s Primer on Limited Atonement.

    • Justin Taylor weighs in on the “pro” side, citing logical arguments, quoting John Owens, Loraine Boettner, and John Piper

      “In other words, it is impossible to reconcile the proposition ‘Christ paid the punishment for all the sins of all people’ with the idea that ‘Some people will pay the punishment for their sin in hell.'”

      This argument is a very good logical argument for a theology of limited atonement. I can see the quoted authors’ perspectives that both Calvinism and Arminianism limit atonement: one limiting it quantitatively, the other limiting it qualitatively.

    • Randy Alcorn weighs in on the “con” side, citing Scripture.

      “Furthermore, 2 Peter 2:1 speaks of false teachers who bring swift destruction on themselves, and describes them as “denying the sovereign Lord who bought them.” Either Christ died for all men, including those who aren’t elect, or the false teachers who bring destruction on themselves are elect. I just don’t know how else to interpret this passage.”

      Very good point–the “whole world” doesn’t mean “whole world” argument doesn’t really hold up here.

      “Whether we like it or not, there seem to be two components in salvation, first Christ’s provision of the gift and second our acceptance of the gift. Regardless of our profound failure to understand how those work, and what we may believe about the extent of free will or how He empowers us to choose salvation, Scripture itself does not demand that Christ’s death to offer us a gift automatically saves us, only that it offers us salvation that we may or may not accept. “Whosoever will may come”—well, if Christ didn’t die for him, can he come or not? (Of course, I believe that due to depravity and election and grace, we cannot accept it on our own, but only through a drawing, convicting, supernatural work of the Spirit.)”

      My current viewpoint probably stands closest to this four-point position espoused by Alcorn (not that I’m not open to having God conform my mind!)

    • Doug Wilson weighs in on the “pro” side, citing postmillenialism (of all things).

      “So I don’t want Calvinists to throw away their logic, or as Alcorn put it, their “western” logic. I want them to pick it up. Follow it out farther. No points without five points, yes. And no five points without the sixth point of postmillennialism. This means the starchiest five-point amill guy is in the same logical position as the four-pointers.”

      I don’t have much of an opinion on eschatology (except that if premillenialism is correct, I’m gonna expect a post-tribulation rapture)–but I don’t understand Wilson’s line of reasoning at all. I don’t feel he developed his argument well enough that I can even comment on it. Okay, so postmillenialism is the answer–How?

    Yes, maybe I’m a bit obsessed with Calvinism these days–the joys of coming from an Arminian background but being profoundly dissatisfied with the low view of God (and God’s sovereignty) that the Arminian argument allows or even encourages.

    Videos worth seeing:

Categories Faith, Politics

The Secret Socialist (Part 1)

1 Comment by

Last night, my siblings were discussing the apparently dead-in-production film version of The Hobbit and Peter Jackson’s lawsuit against New Line.

Several siblings remarked that Peter Jackson didn’t really NEED more money.

Their remarks struck me wrong for whatever reason and I added my comment: “The question isn’t whether Peter Jackson needs more money, but whether he deserves more money.”

It’s not an issue of who needs what or of “fairness”. It’s a matter of justice.

(Please realize that I know VERY little about this particular court case–I cannot even begin to answer the question I posed. That’s not the point.)

The point is that even in some of the most conservative of us (my family is pretty conservative as a whole), there lurks a secret socialist.

Now, it may well be that I am completely blowing this out of proportion. My siblings weren’t necessarily saying that Peter Jackson shouldn’t win this lawsuit because he didn’t need the money. Rather, I am almost certain that they were asking why he was pursuing the lawsuit, as though he needed more money.

But the conversation (along with my reading of Boyd’s The Myth of a Christian Nation) got me to thinking about the purpose of government.

The governments of this earth have a God-ordained role to administer justice:

” Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.”
Romans 13:1-7

The God-instated role of government is to reward the one who does good and punish the one who does evil. In other words, governments are intended to administer justice.

The problem is that justice…well, justice isn’t always very NICE. Justice is often pretty “unfair”. Justice means that the poor man who steals from a rich man–even if he’s stealing just so that he and his family can eat–is punished and required to repay what he has stolen–even though the rich man has no need for the stolen money.

“People do not despise a thief
If he steals to satisfy himself when he is starving.
Yet when he is found, he must restore sevenfold;
He may have to give up all the substance of his house. ”
Proverbs 6:30-31

The mercy of the onlooker means he does not despise a thief who steals to satisfy himself when he is starving. The justice of the law demands that he restore sevenfold, regardless of the personal cost to himself.

Sometimes, even we conservatives look at the law and desire for it to be merciful–but that is not the purpose of government. The purpose of government is not the administration of mercy but the administration of justice.

Please don’t write me off as a hard-hearted conservative yet! I’ll be exploring this issue further in the upcoming week. Stay tuned to hear my thoughts on social justice and the role of the church in society (which is quite different from the role of the government in society.)

Categories Family & Friends

Prioritizing People

1 Comment by

I’m a goal-oriented person. I make myself a to-do list and I finish it. I have an end goal in sight and I don’t stop until I’ve accomplished it.

In doing so, I find that I can go an awfully long time without seeing or talking to people. Left on my own, with a computer and a project, I can go weeks without people.

In my push to finish one project or another (I have plenty of projects to keep me busy until I’m at least 150), I’d often forgo social events, preferring to “get stuff done.”

But a few months ago, I realized that the way I was living was not consistent with my life vision.

“My vision is to glorify God by growing daily in relationship with Him, being conformed to the image of Christ; by growing in relationships with others, taking time to invest into their lives; and by growing as an individual, always learning and practicing what I’ve learned.”

I said that I wanted to prioritize people, that I wanted to take time to invest in their lives; but I wasn’t doing it.

Something had to change.

So I put people on my to-do list. Three slots every day. I couldn’t say I’d completed my list for the day unless I’d made contact with at least three people. A phone call. A note. A lunch date or walk around the neighborhood. My day wasn’t complete until I’d made time for people.

Singing the little ditty “Make new friends, but keep the old–one is silver and the other gold”, I made a list of friends, old and new. I scheduled them in regular intervals throughout my planner–reminders so I wouldn’t let these friendships slip (as I have been wont to do in the past.)

My roommate from Bible school came up in my list this week, and I was trying to figure out how to connect with her. We haven’t seen each other for a while. She moved to Kansas City after she married, and we’ve only seen each other infrequently, when she comes back to Lincoln and we happen to run into each other. But I knew I wanted to renew this friendship. But how?

The opportunity came rather surprisingly. She and her husband just closed on a house in the neighboring city–and she posted a Facebook status asking if anyone wanted to help them paint and move.

I saw my opportunity–tailor-made by God.

I’ll help. I’ll renew this friendship. I’ll prioritize people today.

So today, I’m going to Omaha to paint. I’m ticking things off my to-do list. I’m prioritizing people.

Categories Thankful Thursday

Thankful Thursday: Unexpected Blessings

Leave a comment by

Today I’m thankful…

…for an unexpectedly quick pool set up and the pleasure of spending some time with my sister yesterday.

Setting up the Pool

…for the unexpected productivity of today’s thesis work. I felt like I was just FLYING through the articles I was reading–quite different from the slogging I had been doing.

…for the unexpected opportunity to see some old co-workers at lunch today. I had nice little chats with Jeff and Janet and was able to say hello to quite a few more.

…for an unexpected Kudos from one of my dad’s coworkers on the successful wedding

…for an unexpected chance to spend time with a former friend I haven’t seen for a while. We roomed together during my senior year of high school, but she moved to KC for college–and I stayed in Lincoln. Now she and her husband and baby daughter are back in Omaha and I get to help them paint tomorrow! Yahoo!

Thankful Thursday banner