A Sweet and Bitter Providence

“Life is not a straight line leading from one blessing to the next and then finally to heaven. Life is a winding and troubled road. Switchback after switchback. And the point of biblical stories like Joseph and Job and Esther and Ruth is to help us feel in our bones (not just know in our heads) that God is for us in all these strange turns. God is not just showing up after the trouble and cleaning it up. He is plotting the course and managing the troubles with far-reaching purposes for our good and for the glory of Jesus Christ.”
(pp. 101, 102)

Dogs, pigs and sacred things

What did Jesus mean when He said, “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces” (Matthew 7:6)?

This appears to be some sort of metaphor used to forbid wasting something of value on an undeserving and inappropriate object. But it is not immediately evident what should not be wasted and on whom it should not be wasted.

Who are the dogs and pigs?

What are the sacred things and pearls?

Answering these questions will demand careful and patient investigation.

Jesus pictures a man holding a bag of costly pearls confronting a pack of wild pigs. The man takes out his pearls and throws them to the animals as if he were throwing feed to them. The animals instinctively pounce on the pearls as if it were food. Upon realizing that the pearls are too hard to chew and not something to satisfy their hunger, the wild animals spit out the pearls, turn on the man who throws them. They tear him to pieces.

Two despised animals:

The dogs Jesus mentions were not cute little domesticated house pets. They were half-wild hounds that roamed the streets—often in savage packs—in search of food.

The pigs were not only an abomination to the Jews, they were likely descendants from the wild boar and potentially very violent. Able, as Jesus said, “to turn and tear you to pieces.”

Too obvious?

Jesus chooses two animals (both despised, both ceremonially unclean) and he demands what seems incredulously obvious: don’t give what is sacred/holy (perhaps sacred meat) to the dogs and don’t cast your pearls (costly jewels) as feed to pigs.

Literal reading?

Clearly Jesus is not intending for this to be taken literally with regard to dogs and pigs. It would be ridiculous. So we must ask who Jesus wants to be identified as dogs and pigs and what should be withheld from them. In principle, we are told to withhold something of value from an unworthy object, from dogs and pigs. But how this should apply is not immediately evident.

Context:

In context, Jesus has been dealing with the matter of relating to other people. In verses 1-5, He taught His disciples not to judge others in a hypocritical way but to offer constructive help proceeded by careful self-judgment.

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:1-5, NASB).

Directed to His disciples:

The fact that Jesus invites them to call on God in prayer in verses 7-11 would imply that this teaching is for His disciples, for those who have a right relationship with God.

“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. 9 “Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! (Matthew 7:7-11, NASB).

John R. W. Stott comments:

“The context provides a healthy balance. If we are not to ‘judge’ others, finding fault with them in a censorious, condemning or hypocritical way, we are not to ignore their faults either and pretend that everybody is the same. Both extremes are to be avoided. The saints are not judges, but ‘saints are not simpletons’ either. If we first remove the log from our eye and thus see clearly to take a speck from our brother’s eye, he (if he is a true brother in the Lord) will appreciate our concern. But not everyone is grateful for criticism and correction.” (Emphasis mine)

Truth too precious to indiscriminately offer:

Although it might challenge misguided notions of Christian compassion, according to Jesus, there are some people, who like dogs and pigs, are unworthy of the holy and valuable things of God. In verse 6, our Lord appears to be warning that the truth is far too precious to indiscriminately offer to everyone without exception or that our critical help should not be indiscriminately dispensed.

But we need to clarify the identity of the dogs and pigs—and exactly how the Lord intends for us to apply this prohibition. A variety of suggestions have been made concerning the intended application of Jesus’ words:

Three views:

1. The early fathers applied Matthew 7:6 to unbelieving, unbaptized people who were barred from communion. An early second century document reads: “Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, ‘Give not that which is holy to the dogs’” (chapt. IX Didache).

Is this what Jesus meant in Matthew 7? The decision to withhold communion from unbelievers is appropriate but it is highly unlikely that Jesus had this specific application in mind when He spoke these words.

2. Others appeal to Jesus’ parable on “the pearl of great price” and conclude that God’s salvation offered in the gospel is what should be withheld from dogs and pigs.

If this pearl is a reference to the gospel, Jesus isn’t saying that the gospel should be withheld from unbelievers (or, at least, from all unbelievers). This would contradict the commission of Matthew 28:19-20 to go to every nation and make disciples. Is it possible, however, that dogs and pigs should have a more restricted focus on certain types of unbelievers?

In keeping with this possibility,

3. Some have suggested that the immediate application was intended for the gentiles because the Jewish people used the designations dogs and pigs for gentiles. Even Jesus used the designation “dogs” this way when the gentile woman approached Him asking help for her daughter. Jesus answered her cry for help by saying, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” She responded, ‘Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their master’s table.’ Then Jesus answered and said to her, ‘O woman, your faith is great; be it done for you as you wish.’ And her daughter was healed at once.” (Matthew 15:21-28; cf. Philippians 3:2; Revelation 22:15) (NASB)

There appears to be a legitimate connection here but it would be a mistake to use Matthew 7:6 as an instruction to generally withhold the gospel from the gentiles because the book of Matthew itself reveals the gospel progressively going to the gentiles and closes with a command to make disciples of all nations. During the extension of the church, we see the apostles turn from the Jews to the gentiles because the Jews hardened their hearts against Jesus. But, maybe in this, we have a closer connection with an intended point of Jesus’ words.

Illustrating this turning to the gentiles, consider Acts 13:44-51 (Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary journey):

“And the next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of God.  But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy, and began contradicting the things spoken by Paul, and were blaspheming. And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. For thus the Lord has commanded us, ‘I have placed you as a light for the Gentiles, that you should bring salvation to the end of the earth.’” And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. And the word of the Lord was being spread through the whole region. But the Jews aroused the devout women of prominence and the leading men of the city, and instigated a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district.  But they shook off  the dust of their feet in protest and went to Iconium.” (NASB)

A similar experience is recorded from the second missionary journey:

In Macedonia, “Paul began devoting himself completely to the word, solemnly testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ.  And when they resisted and blasphemed, he shook out his garments and said to them, ‘Your blood be upon your own heads!  I am clean. From now on I shall go to the Gentiles’” (Acts 18:5-6; cf. Acts 28:17-28) (NASB)

Jesus taught this same principle when he sent the twelve out:

“And whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet. Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.” (Matthew 10:14-15, NASB)

Jesus said the same thing when he sent out the seventy:

“But whatever city you enter and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, “Even the dust of your city which clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you; yet be sure of this, that the kingdom of God has come near” (Luke 10:10-11, NASB)).

Jesus pronounced judgment against cities that refused to repent after receiving exposure to His ministry:

At the end of His pronouncements, Jesus lifted up His voice in prayer saying, “I praise Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and intelligent and didst reveal them to babes.  Yes, Father, for thus it was well pleasing in Thy sight” (Matthew 11:25-26, NASB).

After Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, “the disciples came and said to Him, ‘Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?’” (Matthew 15:12, NASB). How did Jesus respond? Did he say, “Oh, I’ll go explain that I didn’t mean to offend them”? No! He said, “Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind.”  This is a good application of Matthew 7:6!

Cultural obstacle:

In our effort to understand this teaching, we face a strong cultural attitude that could hinder us. In a pluralistic society, we have been nurtured on the idea that all people should be treated equally, that all should have equal opportunities whether they deserve it or not!

The thought of purposefully refusing to continue to reach out to someone is hard for contemporary Christians to accept. The quality of discrimination was considered a praiseworthy quality many years ago. Now it is used only in the pejorative sense, leaving the impression that any act of discrimination is evil. But Christians are in great danger when they refuse to be discerning; when they are unwilling to make proper judgments.

D. A. Carson comments:

“It is easy to see how new danger arises. The disciple of Jesus has been told to love his neighbor as himself, and to love his enemies. He is to mirror God’s graciousness, the God who even-handedly sends his rain upon both the just and the unjust. He has been told never to adopt a judgmental mentality. As a result, he is in chronic danger of becoming wishy-washy, of refusing legitimate distinctions between truth and error, good and evil. He may even try to treat all men in exactly the same way, succumbing to a remarkable lack of discrimination.”

Some should not receive ministry?

In Matthew 7:6, Jesus seems to teach that there are some people who should not receive our investment of ministry. The proverbs taught something similar by warning us not to “reprove a scoffer,” but to “reprove a wise man” (Proverbs 9:7-9).

The Apostle agrees:

Consider the instruction to, “Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him (reject or dismiss, remove from the fellowship of the Christian community). You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned” (Titus 3:10-11).

Martyn Lloyd-Jones comments:

“If our Lord had finished His teaching with those first five verses, it would undoubtedly have led to a false position. Men and women would be so careful to avoid the terrible danger of judging in that wrong sense that they would exercise no discrimination, no judgment whatsoever. There would be no such thing as discipline in the church, and the whole of the Christian life would be chaotic. There would be no such thing as exposing heresy and pronouncing judgment with regard to it. Because everybody would be so afraid of judging the heretic, they would turn a blind eye to the heresy; and error would come into the church more than it has done…so many people show a lack of discrimination and are ready to praise and recommend anything that is put before them which vaguely claims the name Christian.” (Sermon on the Mount, pp. 183-184)

John Calvin comments:

“Dogs and swine are names given, “to those who, by clear evidences, have manifested a hardened contempt of God, so that their disease appears to be incurable.”

Chrysostom…identifies the ‘dogs’ as people ‘living in incurable ungodliness.’”

“Jesus is commanding His disciples,” wrote D. A. Carson, “not to share the richest parts of spiritual truth with persons who are persistently vicious, irresponsible, and unappreciative. Their cynical mockery, their intellectual arrogance, their love of moral decay, and their vaunted self-sufficiency make them utterly impervious to the person and words of Christ. Over the years I have gradually come to the place where I refuse to attempt to explain Christianity and introduce Christ to the person who just wants to mock and argue and ridicule. It accomplishes nothing good, and there are so many other opportunities where time and energy can be invested more profitably” (Sermon on the Mount, p. 105).

Misguided understanding of Christian compassion can lead us to wrongly invest our energies and ministries. It is important that we practice Jesus’ principle of proper discrimination in our evangelism and discipleship.

Think of Jesus’ ministry:

Did he deal with everyone exactly the same way? No. Jesus was wisely discriminate in His ministry to people. He compassionately ministered to many people, but He also said to leave the Pharisees alone.

Although we cannot read the hearts of people, generally, it is wise to conclude that self-righteous, proud, arrogant, and cynical people fit into our Lord’s category of dogs and pigs. This should not surprise us because God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble (1 Peter 5:5-6).

Through Isaiah the prophet, God said, “But to this one I will look, to him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at my Word.”

John R. W. Stott comments:

“If people have had plenty of opportunity to hear the truth but do not respond to it, if they stubbornly turn their backs on Christ, if (in other words) they cast themselves in the role of ‘dogs’ and ‘pigs,’ we are not to go on and on with them, for then we cheapen God’s gospel by letting them trample it under foot” (Sermon on the mount).

Be prayerful in your application:

Obviously, we need to pray for much wisdom in this matter. We need to: “ask,” “seek’” and “knock.” Many have come to Christ—who at one time mocked His name. We must be prayerfully discerning in our application of Matthew 7:6!

The disciples, of course, practiced this principle in their evangelism—so it clearly has a place—and should be applied in our evangelism and ministry to others.

To unbelievers:

It should be sobering to realize that a person can reach a point where the gospel would be withdrawn from him. But this has happened in the past (see: Romans 1:18-26) and could happen in our times. Perhaps this is why scripture says, “Today is the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2) and “harden not your hearts” is a repeated theme of scripture.

Don’t take lightly the kindness of God (Romans 2). Turn to God’s mercy before it’s too late! Repent of your hardheartedness toward God and His grace, confess Jesus as Lord.

Steve Cornell

Advantage of Christian Psychology

“Christian psychology differs from virtually all theories of personality on offer today. Central to a Christian account of personality is the idea that the human heart needs God.”  ”…wanting something that is not among the objects of our finite life, we may not know that we want God but …the Christian understanding of the psyche is that it is restless until it rests in God; it needs a positive and happy relationship with God as a condition of its being mature and healthy.”

“The Christian psychologist agrees that we have a desire for God and that the need is a basic drive of our nature, and to deny it is to deny something fundamental about ourselves. To try to eradicate it, to class it with dispositions that we must outgrow if we are to become mature (as Freud suggested), is precisely not to move towards maturity, but to arrest our development and pervert our nature, to foster vice and not virtue, immaturity and not maturity.”

An unrealistic distortion:

Freud’s proposal that we accept a model of maturity that contains no transcendent comfort is the one that is unrealistic, a distortion of our nature. Freud calls our need for God infantile, and thereby denigrates it; the Christian psychologist calls our need for God infantile, and thereby commends it. Some aspects of the attitude of the child are commended in the Christian tradition as features of human maturity (Mark 10:13-16). We are to become like little children because that is what we are: derived, dependent beings.

On Freud’s account, the concept of God (and thus God himself) is a creation of the human mind in response to the pressures of an infantile need. A Christian view would say that, “the concept of God is an idea to which the human psyche is compelled by self-transparency (an aspect of human maturity) to give credence, on pain of despair.”

Transparency and humility:

“…there is something eternal in the human self, a deep-rooted longing that is difficult, if not impossible, to evade. And if one takes it seriously, as Christians must, then to try to eradicate it must be the most perilous and foolish thing a person can do. Cultivating this restlessness, and letting ourselves become transparent in it, is not a proud seeking to be something we aren’t, but just the natural expression of the kind of creatures we are.”

The response of science: you are an accidentally united little lump

…in this sphere of knowledge the only answer to my question, “what is the meaning of my life?” was:…”you are a transitory, casual cohesion of particles. The mutual interactions and changes of these particles produce in you what you call your ‘life.’ That cohesion will last some time; afterwards the interaction of these particles will cease and what you call ‘life’ will cease, and so will all your questions. You are an accidentally united little lump of something. That little lump ferments. The little lump calls that fermenting its ‘life.’ The lump will disintegrate and there will be an end of the fermenting and of all the questions.” “So answers the clear side of science and cannot answer otherwise if it strictly follows its principles.” (p. 31)

History opens the way:

“With positivism behind us, perhaps the major reason since the Modern period for thinking that Christian belief is epistemically substandard has been undermined. The Christian psychologist today is able to give doctrinally orthodox and biblically rich readings of the human desire for God and for its frequent failure to be well developed or conscious.”

(From: Robert Roberts, Spiritual Emotions: A Psychology of Christian Virtues).

What in the world is wrong with us?

Shakespeare makes Hamlet break into eulogy: “What a piece of work is man!” “How noble in reason! How infinite in faculty! In form, in moving, how express and admirable! In action, how like an angel! In apprehension, how like a god! The beauty of the world, the paragon of animals.”

There is some truth to this. Yet we know all too well that it doesn’t tell our whole story. It conceals a much uglier side to the beings we call human.

The other side: Where is man?

A prisoner in Auschwitz, the most notorious German concentration camp, gripped by the horror of his circumstances asked, “Where is God?” To which a fellow prisoner replied, “Where is man?” At the liberation of Auschwitz, one of the American soldiers said, “We knew man was evil but hadn’t suspected he was that evil.”

Confessing the truth about mankind:

“Man,” observed Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “seek the author of evil no longer. It is yourself.”

“Man,” wrote David Hume, “is the greatest enemy of man.”

Ambrose Bierce suggested that, “The defining feature of humanity is inhumanity” (The Devil’s Dictionary).

“We talk of wild animals,” wrote G. K. Chesterton, “but man is the only wild animal. It is man that has broken out.”

Man dishonors the beasts:

Upon his return from the Rwanda Massacre, U.S. Ambassador Robert Seiple said, “There are no categories to express such horror. Someone used the word ‘bestiality’—no, that dishonors the beasts. Animals kill for food, not for pleasure. They kill one or two prey at a time, not a million for no reason at all.”

In the story of humanity, Shakespeare’s man of dignity and beauty is quickly overshadowed by human depravity. But it is of interest that in the face of horrific evil, we expect more from God and man. Why?

The line dividing good and evil:

We understand the words of the Russian dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who even after his horrific experience in the Gulag wrote: “If only there were evil people somewhere, insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

From the Gulag, he noted how that, “The victims hated their victimizers with the hatred by which they were victimized. And as hatred beget more hatred, the whole world became a concentration camp imprisoned and stoked by hatred.”

Absence of peace:

Looking at this world through any lens (or mirror) leads one to conclude that we human beings are not at peace or truly reconciled with anything or anyone in an unhindered way. If we reach some measure of peace, it’s not maintained effortlessly and soon disappears. This is true on all dimensions of existence. You are not at peace with:

• Your body – It is threatened by many opposing realities. This is why we diet, exercise and contract diseases.
• Your mind – It is threatened by anxiety, depression, evil thoughts and much more.
• Your environment – Nature itself threatens to destroy us if we don’t respect its powers and our dependency on it: We can have too little or too much rain; too little or too much sun. The destructive forces are many (tsunamis, earthquakes, tornadoes, etc…).

• Your self – Sometimes we observe people who never seem to be able to get their “act” together and we ask, “What’s her problem?” Someone answers, “Oh, she’s got issues.”  Other times, after years of struggling, we’ll say of someone, “He’s finally at peace with himself.”
• Your relationships – There are endless difficulties with family, friends and neighbors. Is there ever guaranteed peace and reconciliation between people? No. It’s almost always the opposite: conflict, hostility; revenge and war. Whether it is individual to individual, race to race or nation to nation. Absence of peace is real and even tragic.

The absence of peace (shalom) runs like a fault-line through human history and through every human heart.

Not the way it’s supposed to be:

“Human life is not the way it’s supposed to be. And so…the world’s great thinkers often diagnose the human predicament and prescribe various remedies for it. They diagnose oppression and prescribe justice. They diagnose the conformism of bad faith and prescribe the freedom of authentic choice. A few look at the world, fall into a depression, and put their prescription pad away. Christians think that the usual diagnoses and prescriptions catch part of the truth, but that they do not get to the bottom of it. The real human predicament, as Scripture reveals, is that inexplicably, irrationally, we all keep living our lives against what’s good for us. In what can only be called the mystery of iniquity, human beings from the time of Adam and Eve (and, before them, a certain number of angelic beings) have so often chosen to live against God, against each other, and against God’s world. We live even against ourselves.”

“Near the beginning of our history, we human beings broke the harmony of paradise and began to live against our ultimate good. We once had a choice. We now have a near-compulsion—at least, that’s what we have without the grace of God to set us free. Over the centuries we humans have ironed in this near-compulsion, with the result that each new generation enters a world that has long ago lost its Eden, a world that is now half-ruined by the billions of bad choices and millions of old habits congealed into thousands of cultures across all the ages. In this world even saints discover, in exasperation, that whenever they want to do right “evil lies close at hand” (Romans 7:21). We are conceived and born in sin. This is a way of stating the doctrine of original sin, that is, that the corruption and guilt of our first parents have run right down the generations, tainting us all” (C. Plantinga Jr. Not The Way It’s Supposed to Be).

Beings capable of choice:

“In short, the Bible places responsibility for sin, which opened the floodgates to evil, squarely on the human race—starting with Adam and Eve, but continuing on in our own moral choices. In that original choice to disobey God, human nature became morally distorted and bent so that from then on humanity has had a natural inclination to do wrong. This is the foundation of the doctrine that theologians call original sin, and it haunts humanity to this day. And since humans were granted dominion over nature, the Fall also had cosmic consequences as nature began to bring forth “thorns and thistles,” becoming a source of toil, hardship, and suffering.”

“When God created the first two human beings, Adam and Eve, he set a moral limit: ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die’ (Genesis 2:16-17).  Adam and Eve were free either to believe God and obey his law or to disobey him and suffer the consequences.”

“To create personal beings capable of this kind of relationship, however, God had to create beings capable of choice. These were not human puppets dangling from celestial strings but morally significant agents who are capable of altering the course of history by the choices they make.” (How Now Shall We Live?, Chuck Colson).

Peace needed and offered:

History offers endless proof that peace is the essential need for fixing what is broken in this world. We experience occasions of peace (which in itself testifies to our dignity) but disruptions, disturbances and wars are never far away. Whether relating to family, friends, neighbors or our own selves, peace doesn’t come easily and must be protected from corrupting forces. And peace with God is so far out reach that God had to come to earth to make it possible.

Our only hope:

“For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, no longer counting people’s sins against them. And he gave us this wonderful message of reconciliation.  So we are Christ’s ambassadors; God is making his appeal through us. We speak for Christ when we plead, “Come back to God!” For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ.” (II Corinthians 5:19-21)

When we come to know peace with God through Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1), we experience the peace of God in our hearts and our relationships. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God” (Jesus Christ, Matthew 5:9).

Steve Cornell

After thought: Was Nietzche right?

Friedrich Nietzche argued that, “Christianity needs sickness and making sick is the true hidden objective of the church’s whole system of salvation. One is not converted to Christianity, one must be sufficiently sick for it.” In part, Nietzche was correct: the “sin-sick” find their cure in the Christian message of salvation. “Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners,” (I Timothy 1:15).

But Nietzche had it wrong when he accused the church of making people sick to convert them. Scripture aligns with reality when it declares that, “All have sinned,” and “No one is righteous, not even one” (Romans 3:23, 10). People do not need to be made sin-sick, they need to recognize that they are sinners in need of salvation.

Spiritually stuck: how to move on…..

We all know people who profess faith in Christ but seem to be stuck—not moving on to maturity? Why? And how can they move forward? What is it that holds them? What is one of the main obstacles to spiritual progress? You might be surprised by the answer:

Audio message:

http://www.millersvillebiblechurch.org/_audio/Be%20Renewed%20in%20the%20Spirit%20of%20Your%20Minds%20(pt%209)%201-31-10.mp3

Steve Cornell
Senior Pastor
Millersville Bible Church
Millersville, PA. 17551

Atheism and Cynicism fail the test

Atheism: Too simple

“How had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist-in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless- I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality-namely my idea of justice was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning.” (C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity)

Cynicism too superficial–too tidy:

“There is something too superficial about cynicism. It seemed too complete in its tidy and convenient dismissal of virtue.  I realized that many of the key cynical judgments I had made were overreaching what I could actually know.” (keyes)

Christianity: No rose-colored glasses

“Unlike other worldviews that I had considered, I never felt the God of the Bible was asking me to put on rose-colored glasses. Even the heroes of the Bible were described unsparingly in appalling moral failures—lies, sexual aberrations and murders.  I did not have to give up the honesty and realism that I had valued.  Cynicism claimed that the world— both inside and outside of our heads—was profoundly broken and bent. I realized that the Christian faith had been saying this for two-thousand years, and Judaism for longer than that.”

Thought:

Scripture teaches us to allow for a world God prescribed (the goodness and innocence of Eden); one He permitted (the violence and rebellion of Cain) and a world He will providentially make new (the new heavens and earth).

Steve Cornell

Cynicism in life and marriage

Dick Keyes, director of L’Abri Fellowship in Southborough Massachusetts, unmasks the pervasive and destructive realities of cynicism.  “Cynicism,” he wrote, “does not get the scrutiny it deserves…it has some privileged position that makes it immune to serious challenge” (Seeing Through Cynicism: A Reconsideration of the Power of Suspicion).

“In some groups, particularly those associated with media and higher education, cynicism seems to have the status of common sense or self-evident truth. It becomes the default setting of many conversations. We don’t think to question it when it is all around us. We don’t see our eye-glasses, we only see everything else through them.”

“Some embrace cynicism with pride and defiance. Others suffer from a cynicism that they do not want but feel forced to adopt by honesty. Still others fight against it with whatever they find handy, and far more drift into it by accident with little awareness of what has happened.”

But, as Keyes observes: “Attempts to escape our own internal cynical voices are not easy.” But escape we must escape—if—we are people who believe in Almighty God, the maker of heaven and earth.  Yes, we must be honesty and discerning.  We must strive to see through triviality, hypocrisy, flattery, evil agendas and false motives.  We must not be gullible and susceptible to con-artistry and sentimental optimism.  Yet, we dare not allow ourselves to become ridden with suspicions and hardened by cynicism.

Keyes acknowledged that there is “something too superficial about cynicism. It seemed too complete in its tidy and convenient dismissal of virtue.  I realized that many of the key cynical judgments I had made were overreaching what I could actually know.”

Describing his own journey:

“I should say a word about my own history with cynicism.  It goes back as far as I can remember.  On a scale with cynicism at one end and sentimental optimism at the other, I have always been much closer to the cynicism pole.  My instincts and internal voices have always gravitated toward suspicion when there is any doubt.”

“I became a Christian in my early twenties both because of my cynicism and in spite of it.  Unlike other worldviews that I had considered, I never felt the God of the Bible was asking me to put on rose-colored glasses…”

“Even the heroes of the Bible were described unsparingly in appalling moral failures—lies, sexual aberrations and murders.  I did not have to give up the honesty and realism that I had valued.  Cynicism claimed that the world— both inside and outside of our heads—was profoundly broken and bent. I realized that the Christian faith had been saying this for two-thousand years, and Judaism for longer than that.” (pp.15-16)

Scripture on Cynicism:

Hebrews 12:15 offers a needed word of warning:  “Be watchful” (over each other-an implied community responsibility) that no one misses (or “fails to grasp”) the grace of God (misunderstands God’s grace; see: 12:1-11)—that no bitter root grows up—like an unnoticed weed in the garden of your heart—to cause trouble and defile many.  Bitter, cynical people are troubled and defiled souls who are infectiously poisonous.

Marriage application:

Many marriage relationships have been poisoned by cynical and bitter attitudes.  When a husband or wife is full of cynicism or permeated with a negative, critical spirit, the marriage is troubled and defiled.

“He’s always so negative,” a wife sighs.  “She is so critical of everything I do,” a husband says. Would you agree that negative, critical, cynical and bitter attitudes destroy joyful companionship?  Many marriages suffer unnecessarily under the strain of these destructive attitudes.

I know we can all have our “down moments” where all things seem to be against us.  And, when I do, I thank God for an encouraging mate to help lift me and help sort things out.  I also know discouragement can grip us for seasons of life.

But, surrender to cynicism, negativity and bitterness must never be an on-going choice for those who know God and are known by God. Return to God’s grace. Meditate on it! Live in it! “See to it that no one misses (fails to grasp) the grace of God…” (Hebrews 12:15). “It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace” (Hebrews 13:9). “Approach God’s throne of grace with confidence…to find grace to help you in your time of need” (Hebrews 4:16). “Draw near to God and He will draw near to you” (James 4:8).

“Trust Him at all times, O people, pour out your hearts to Him for God is our refuge.”  (Psalm 62:8; see also I Peter 5:7 and Philippians 4:6-7).

Cynicism grows on naïve expectations:

Now, applying this to marriage, here’s another side to consider–Keyes raises the following question: “Could it be that cynicism also grows out of expectations that were naïve and doomed to disillusionment from the start?”

Then, he quotes social historian, Daniel Boorstin who (back in 1962) wrote about “Extravagant Expectations.”  His words seem even truer today.

“When we pick up our newspaper at breakfast, we expect—we even demand—that it bring us momentous events since the night before. We turn on the car radio as we drive to work and expect “news” to have occurred since the morning newspaper went to press…We expect our two-week vacation to be romantic, exotic, cheap, and effortless. We expect a faraway atmosphere if we go to a nearby place; and we expect everything to be relaxing, sanitary and Americanized if we go to a faraway place…”

“We expect anything and everything. We expect the contradictory and the impossible. We expect compact cars which are spacious; luxurious cars which are economical. We expect to be rich and charitable, powerful and merciful, active and reflective, kind and competitive. We expect to be inspired by mediocre appeals for “excellence,” to be made literate by illiterate appeals for literacy.

We expect to eat and stay thin, to be constantly on the move and ever more neighborly, to go to the “church of our choice” and yet feel its guiding power over us, to revere God and to be God.” “Never have people been more the masters of their environment. Yet never has a people felt more deceived and disappointed.  For never has a people expected so much more than the world could offer.”  (pp. 23-24)

Keyes suggests that: “Extravagant expectations…guarantee a disappointment that makes fertile ground for [cynicism] to grow.”

Do we expect more from this fallen world than it can offer? Do we even expect more from marriage than it can offer? Fallenness makes togetherness challenging.) Most couples learn to make adjustments in their expectations. And, if we are adjusting in the right direction, it is always away from self-centered expectations and toward godly and other-centered concerns.

Make a choice:

If the choice is between pessimism, realism and optimism, let’s choose “optimistic realism” based in the one who is, who was and who is to come.

Steve Cornell

Know who you are!

I KNOW WHO I AM

I am God’s child (John 1:12)

I am Christ’s friend (John 15:15 )

I am united with the Lord (1 Cor. 6:17)

I am bought with a price (1 Cor 6:19-20)

I am a saint (set apart for God). (Eph. 1:1)

I am a personal witness of Christ.  (Acts 1:8)

I am the salt & light of the earth (Matt 5:13-14)

I am a member of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27)

I am free forever from condemnation ( Rom. 8: 1-2)

I am a citizen of Heaven. I am significant (Phi l 3:20)

I am free from any charge against me (Rom. 8:31 -34)

I am a minister of reconciliation for God (2 Cor 5:17- 21)

I have access to God through the Holy Spirit (Eph. 2:18)

I am seated with Christ in the heavenly realms (Eph. 2:6)

I cannot be separated from the love of God (Rom 8:35-39)

I am established, anointed, sealed by God  (2 Cor 1:21-22 )

I am assured all things work together for good  (Rom. 8:28 )

I have been chosen and appointed to bear fruit (John 15:16 )

I may approach God with freedom and confidence (Eph. 3: 12 )

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me (Phil. 4:13)

I am a  branch of the true vine, a channel of His life (John 15: 1-5)

I am God’s temple (1 Cor. 3: 16 ).  I am complete in Christ (Col. 2: 10)

I am hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:3). I have been justified (Romans 5:1)

I am God’s co-worker (1 Cor. 3:9; 2 Cor 6:1). I am God’s workmanship (Eph. 2:10)

I am confident that the good works God has begun in me will be perfected. (Phil. 1: 5)

I have been redeemed and forgiven ( Col 1:14). I have been adopted as God’s child (Eph 1:5)

I belong to God

Do you know

Who you are!?

Mugged by Ultrasound

Why so many abortion workers have turned pro-life.

“…one of the first doctors to change his allegiance was Paul Jarrett, who quit after only 23 abortions. His turning point came in 1974, when he performed an abortion on a fetus at 14 weeks’ gestation: “As I brought out the rib cage, I looked and saw a tiny, beating heart,” he would recall. “And when I found the head of the baby, I looked squarely in the face of another human being—a human being that I just killed.”

“In 1990 Judith Fetrow, an aide at a Planned Parenthood clinic, found that disposing of fetal bodies as medical waste was more than she could bear. Soon after she left her position, Fetrow described her experiences: “No one at Planned Parenthood wanted this job. .  .  . I had to look at the tiny hands and feet. There were times when I wanted to cry.”

“Kathy Sparks is another convert formerly responsible for disposing of fetal remains, this time at an Illinois abortion clinic. Her account of the experience that led her to exit the abortion industry…reads in part: The baby’s bones were far too developed to rip them up with [the doctor’s] curette, so he had to pull the baby out with forceps. He brought out three or four major pieces. .  .  . I took the baby to the clean up room, I set him down and I began weeping uncontrollably. .  .  . I cried and cried. This little face was perfectly formed.”

Jon A. Shields is assistant professor of government at Claremont McKenna College. David Daleiden is a student there.

For the full article:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/mugged-ultrasound

Deep thoughts on how Love behaves

“…love is not easily angered; …But suppose genuine injury has been done? What then? Paul’s answer is that love “keeps no record of wrongs,” a private file of personal grievances that can be consulted and nursed whenever there is possibility of some new slight.  Its stance in the presence of genuine evil precludes such accounting; for at a very deep level, love cannot bear to be censorious or hypocritical: love “does not delight in evil (verse 6)…”

“It does not enjoy endless discussions about what is wrong with the churches and institutions we serve, and takes on such subjects only when competing demands of righteousness require it.  If there is any report of something right or truthful going on, love will quickly rejoice over it…”

“…it always trusts—which does not mean it is gullible, but that it prefers to be generous in its openness and acceptance rather than suspicious or cynical. Love hopes for the best, even when disappointed by repeated personal abuse, hoping against hope and “always ready to give an offender a second chance and to forgive him ‘seventy times seven’ (Matthew 18:22).”  Love perseveres: “When the evidence is adverse, [love] hopes for the best.  And when hopes are repeatedly disappointed, it still courageously waits” (Showing the Spirit, D. A. Carson pp. 62-63).