Avoiding the Word

"Words mean things."

That's what the great philosopher and theologian Rush Limbaugh said on many, many occasions. Truer words have never been uttered.

"1984," being one of the most important novels ever written, and a personal favorite, should be read by every American. And everyone!  I have read it more times than I can say. (I think it may be about time for a reread.)

Words are what separate us from the animals. They allow us to think and grow as rational beings. With words we formulate thoughts and prayers. (Although, yes, some prayers are unutterable.) With words we attempt to express our joy, our sorrow, our hopes and our anguish. The most discomfiting thing for many a man is trying to find the right words.

I remember my dad telling me that the most frustrating thing about being a father, when we boys were infants, was that, when we hurt, we couldn't tell him what hurt. He had to try to guess and discern. (Fortunately, mothers do truly seem to have an instinct for such things.) I found that when I became a father and my baby girl was making her, shall we say, discomfort and dissatisfaction known, I experienced the same frustration.

Many a lover's quarrel and ultimate break-ups come from a failure to communicate. Businesses have been ruined and wars started over nothing more than simple misunderstandings of words. Misunderstood words have also lost more than a few battles. Obversely, many victories have been won and the tide of battle turned because just the right soldier thought that his command was "advance" when it was actually "retreat." 

Holy Scripture says, "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." God gave us His Word. Pretty straightforward, right? There was nothing more precious, or more binding, to the all-rational, all-eloquent, all-knowing God who made all things than to give to us the One by whom all things were made. He gave us the best part of Himself. His Word.

Now, it is worth noting, and a large part of my point, that this is not the first appearance of the Word of God. Obviously, His Word is eternal. (Sorry, Catholics and the SBC, the Son is not eternal.) He, yes, He, appears to us in the earliest parts of God's Holy Scriptures. We see Him referenced in even the very first verses of the book of Genesis.

"And God said..."

It should not be a continental leap of theology to realize that when God speaks, that is His Word. It would certainly be ridiculous and contradictory, I believe, not to see this expression of God as such. He spoke the world into existence. "All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made." (John 1:3) This speaking is very God! Trinitarian or Oneness, you would certainly, methinks, have to have your mind, heart and eyes closed to not see as much.

It is not long thereafter that we see, perhaps rather, hear this One appearing again. On the sixth day, God made man and told him the good news, the Gospel, as it were. He told him of all the things He had made for man's pleasure and joy, but warned him of the one thing God wanted to reserve to Himself. 

It's another blog to discuss the things that God reserves to Himself.

I've heard much discussion from some theologians over whether or not, had the Holy Couple not sinned, would have ever granted them the knowledge of good and evil. They seem to forget, this was God's plan all along. (Rev. 5:6) To quote one occasionally wise theologian: "God has no Plan B." 

Strange, it seems, that God would not want His newborn son, Adam, to know the difference between good and evil. Right and wrong. 

I ponder, would we want our little children, fresh from the womb, to be saddled with the responsibility of having to make the choice of what is and isn't good? Knowing as an infant the things that adults must contend with? Wouldn't we want them to retain their innocence as long as they could? Wouldn't we want them to be children, our children, as long as possible? To not grow up too quickly?

God, sets rules, boundaries and parameters for our own protection and demands, yes, demands, that we operate within them. You know, much like the no running or pushing rules at the pool. Society, today wants to pervert the process and rush children to physical adulthood, though, of course, not emotional, rational adulthood, as quickly and early as possible. Though, it's only for their own nefarious reasons. 

So, the Word soon appears again. He is walking as the Voice of God in the cool of the day. Apparently, not finding Adam where Adam normally would be, He called out for him. The Word, the Voice, the part of God that made all things cried out for his little boy saying, "Adam! Adam! Where are you?"

He knew with a breaking heart exactly where the man was and exactly what he had been doing. Adam, as if he had never even met his Father, made a miserable attempt to cover his shame and hide from the One he least wanted to disappoint.

We know the story of the curse and the promise. We know the death and shame both brought. We also know of the glory ultimately obtained.

I want to talk a little more about the silly man trying to cover his nakedness with leaves from a fruit tree, hiding behind a tree, (is that a blog?) as if he didn't know God would find him. As if he was stupid enough to think he could avoid the very Word that had made him. As if he had something to fear.

Well, did he?

Men today fear words. Nay, they are terrified by them! Most men stumble and mumble through a conversation, doing, for the most part, little more than Tim Allen caveman grunts, feebly attempting to express themselves. Scared to death that someone might see the dirty-faced, frightened and sinful little boy inside. Still trying to pathetically hide his nakedness from God.

Our nakedness is uncovered in our actions, but, mostly, by our words. We know nothing, but try to hide it behind the garbage we pitifully stitch together, feebly, ineptly, trying to cover our weakness and exposure. What we make leaves us, (pardon the pun,) uncomfortable and in worse condition than if we had merely just stood there naked and defenseless. It is a never ending source of amazement to me how we so easily choose our own horrible way of dealing with our problems rather than the simple, effective words of God.

It's been pointed out, (I believe it was R.C. Sproul,) that the idea of being naked implies an absence of clothing. An absence of covering. Almost as if there was suddenly, as in a change, something missing. As if something was there before, but is gone. Before it is absent. One word used in one dictionary is "deprived." The connotation seems to me that they were covered only to be uncovered.

What is it that would've covered them before they became uncovered? They were naked, but, yet, covered?

When speaking of the nation of Israel on the Mount of Olives on Palm Sunday, our Lord pined that He would have covered them as a mother hen does her chicks, had they only allowed Him to do so.

Luke 13:34 KJV

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

Are we not all covered by God? If we will only let Him do so? Like little children, in their ignorance, are covered under the wings of a merciful God.

I'm sure I have covered, pun again, in another blog, or will, my thinking on why children, along with the adult ignorant, go to the same Heaven as those of us who are born again. In short, it has everything to do with that "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Rev. 13:8)

So, so many, like father Adam, choose otherwise. Alas, we intuitively choose our own utterly inadequate covering rather than the glorious, righteous, holy, complete, perfect covering offered to us by the Savior.

Yes, I am almost off the surbject here, but the fact remains, that we, like him, try to hide from the Truth. We create our own little religiosity, struggling to ignore the fact that we are poor, blind and, yes, naked. (Revelation 3:17 KJV)

It's an ongoing battle for me on Fascist-Book, and elsewhere, trying to provoke my fellow Christians to drop their pride, stop pretending like they inherently know the meaning of every existing word and actually invest some time and effort into researching them, or maybe even actually trouble themselves, (O, bother) to look them up in a good dictionary! Perish the thought!

Now, why would anyone want to be, not blissfully, but willfully ignorant of something so basic as what the words they use mean? How could one be so disinterested in having the most basic ability to both understand and convey abstract thought? To be able to communicate!

I have a theory or two on this matter. 

Yes, there is always laziness, poor teachers, a lack of inspiration, a lack of intelligence, a lack of proper experiences and the simple fact that other, less disturbing things, often fill the mind of man. Sports, music, fishing, cars, women, etc., always occupy our consciousness, making it difficult to make room for, shall we say, the things requiring more mental discipline. All those distractions that I talked about keep men as the shallow puddles that, sadly, we are. We fill our lives and thoughts with those less important things. We think, we convince ourselves, it's enough. 

Since we don't really want to invest the effort in covering our nakedness in a Godly manner, we try to cover our nakedness with our own convention and invention.

We need more work and concentration on the things that matter. We need more fasting and praying. (Mat. 17:21) And all the NIV people say, "What?"

Since Adam, men have tried to hide from the Word. We fear what the Word might have to say to us. We fear the truth that He might bring. The truth that we are most ineptly attempting to avoid. 

Men still not only fear the presence, the knowledge of the Word, but we even fear words. Just good, old-fashioned, regular words. 

We really don't want to know. We only want to know, or, rather assume we know, enough to be able to close our minds to a world that rages around us. We sing, "I Wanna Know More about My Lord." The problem is, we don't know what we don't know. And we are quite content in that lack of knowledge.

We make bad choices to only double-down on the bad choices we've previously made. Adam didn't obey God's Word, so he looked around for something he stupidly might've thought would hide him.

Scratchy fig leaves make for a terrible, perhaps, itchy substitute. They're not only insufficient, they're uncomfortable. (No, I've never worn clothes made from fig leaves or any leaves, for that matter, but they would never be my first choice for fabric. Cotton breathes, ya know.) The very fact that they invested so much time and effort into stitching these crummy outfits together suggests that they put more time and effort into fashioning clothes than they did into thinking whether or not they should have ever eaten that furshlugginer fruit!

Would this have any connection to why Christ cursed the fig tree? Sounds like maybe another blog?

So many substitutes are out there for the true Word. Man has been incredibly creative in his attempts to avoid words. (I'm not sure when I should be capitalizing "word" at this moment.) He has replaced words, muddied the meaning of words, changed the meaning of words, (not through natural, societal evolution, but by fiat,) has concocted words, (not coined,) and has done all that he could conceive through stubbornness and malice to convince himself that his ideas (logos) are correct and good, never admitting how sticky and uncomfortable they actually are.

I laugh when I hear people, generally, young men who are wannabe nerds, professing their utter boredom. They sound like Vyvyan on "The Young Ones." "Bored! Bored! Bored!" He would cry out these words while breaking up the furniture and knocking holes in walls.

I usually take this as my opportunity to tell them, "I don't believe I've ever been bored in my life. But I've got a secret and most people just ain't interested in it."

For those few who are curious enough to bite and ask my secret, I say, "I'm always talking to God. How can I be bored when I'm talking to God? And if I am still bored? That's because I'm talking too much and ain't listening enough. He's got great stories, ya know."

Most respond incoherently, merely shrugging me off. It seems to be more than they are willing to invest. Surprise! Surprise!

Even as I write these words, I wonder, am I doing more talking than listening? It's such an easy trap to fall into. The danger is ever present.

Adam, of course, assumed he knew what was right. Hadn't he eaten of the tree that gave him knowledge of good and evil? Of right and wrong? Shouldn't he have known now? Didn't he now have a clear understanding and what was the right way? Didn't it seem good to make some uncomfortable clothing and try to hide his sin? Adam proved he was a man: he assumed he was right. Well, he may have been wrong, but he was never in doubt.

Adam's first sin was in disobeying his Father. His second was in thinking he could fix the problem.

Did he maybe check with the Source? Did he ask God what to do now that he had fouled up his entire life? No, he just guessed and he most certainly guessed poorly. He did what he did out of fear, arrogance and sheer stubbornness. Imagine that! A man being stubborn?

Also, typical of a man, deep down he knew his plan was a stinker. If he had thought the fig leaf clothes were such a good covering, why did he hide in the trees too?

Adam's pride kept him away from his father. He didn't want to admit his wrong, because he was embarrassed at the situation in which he had placed himself. He pathetically tried to cover his guilt and shame with his own ideas about what a covering should be. When the Voice of God called him from the tree he was hiding behind, He showed him, with the sacrifice of a Lamb, what is the Truth. (Or, of course, rather, Who.)

Whether it's a plan, an idea or, yes, even a word. If you presumptuously think you understand and are just too intellectually lazy to actually consider that you might be wrong and that finding the answer might take research and maybe some prayer and fasting, you are letting the flesh rule you and are missing out on the true word/Word. You're missing out on the Truth!

There are so many times in the Bible where men have fled the word, like when the nomadic Israelites, having gathered at the mountain of God to hear His Voice, fled to their tents, telling Moses, "You speak to us and we'll listen, but don't let Him speak to us or we'll die." (Yeah, I wrote about this in another blog.) Saul hid from his calling as king among the "stuff," and Elijah, well, he hid in a cave. Peter hid behind lies and Judas hid behind a kiss.

We too find ways to hide. (As if we could.) We hide behind ceremonies, catechisms, or even sometimes chaos. How many times have I heard a Christian say, "We had a great service today. The preacher didn't even get to preach!" Been there; done that. 

Many dance and shout and jump the pews. They think they are "dancing" in the Lord, but it's not so unlike something you might see at a pagan ritual or a Saturday night honky-tonk. It's about the show. Mostly, it's about being seen. Few can see past the facade that hides the emptiness within.

Millions of Christians today hide from God behind verbal fig leaves. They try to cover their ignorance, lack of curiosity and fear of true knowledge and experience in a cacophony of noise that a century or more of preachers, using Scriptures out of context and some witty phrases, have convinced them is the highest form of praise, the most special exchange, the very pinnacle of a relationship with God. 

Will we never allow ourselves to simply be quiet? To be still, to be quiet, and know that He is God. The outlook after years of talking to the average Christian? It ain't looking good! 

I was infuriated by a woman recently on Focus on the Family. (A high estrogen show that I can hardly stomach to listen to anymore.) The sad, silly, simpery voiced woman advised Christians that when they get "stuck" praying and don't know what to say, just start quoting Bible verses.

Sheesh!

Doesn't she understand that's exactly where God wants us to be? Is it all that difficult for us to just shut up and let God speak to us? Don't we understand that we can't hear Him when our mouths are open? 

All the words, syllables and sounds emanating from our mouths cannot draw us one inch closer to Him. All the noise is no more than a tinkling brass or a sounding symbol.

I know, it's terrifying, but He truly wants us to know His heart! We can't be quiet and know Him when we are drowning out His Voice with our own frivolous clamor. 

Be quiet and experience that I am God. Psalm 46:10 ADV 

Baptists, Pentecostal, Methodists, et al., all make their own brand of noise to muffle what God might actually have to say to them. We don't want Him messing around in our, er, knowledge. What we know, we hold near and dear to our hearts. After all, it's our own. Our precious!

We talk and talk until we run out of anything to say, but we keep talking. Like the Pharisees who thought they'd be heard because of their long prayers. Mark 12:40

Many believers continue to seek ways to hide from the Word. (As if we could.) We hide behind ceremonies, catechisms, or even sometimes chaos. Millions of Christians today hide from God behind verbal fig leaves, claiming that the pinnacle of their relationship with their Savior is expressing themselves, to put it bluntly, in gibberish. They try to cover their ignorance, lack of curiosity and fear of true knowledge and experience within a cacophony of noise.

They just don't really want to listen to the Voice of God!

Not to pick on Charismatics, but I once spent over three hours on my knees in a Charismatic prayer room. After an hour, or less, of praying for everyone I could think of, I spent the rest of the time just listening and marveling. No, I couldn't understand a word they were saying, but they seemed passionate in their endeavor.

It didn't occur to me then, but I now realize that they were all simply sewing fig leaves together for aprons that they thought would hide their nakedness. I mean, who wants to be naked in front of God, right? So, like little children, like us all, they concoct futile methods for hiding their true selves from God. 

If you've ever failed to lock the door properly and had someone walk in while you're on the throne, as you desperately reach for anything, pants, that magazine you're reading, vainly attempting to cover yourself, well, you know how embarrassing it is to be, literally, caught with your pants down. You realize too late, that you should have followed the rules and made sure the door was locked.

I remember my daughter, peeking out from behind the kitchen table leg when she was a toddler. As if, even as small as she was, that table leg would hide her. No, the table leg didn't hide her very well at all. I would pretend like it did, though. She was adorable and it was a fun game. No harm done. 

Alas, much harm was done in Adam's case.

It seems to me that God was much less concerned about our progenitor's lack of clothing than He was about how Adam & Eve had suddenly acquired the knowledge that they didn't have any. He wanted them to tell Him where they obtained that little piece of information.

"Who told you you were naked?"

Yes, we know about the excuses made by the Holy Couple, the buck that was passed and who Adam ultimately blamed. God! 

Still, God being God, didn't worry too much about their excuses. He merely offered a solution. God never avoids the issue!

Alas, to this day, men, even Christians, avoid the word/Word. They don't want to actually know the meaning/Truth of most things. Particularly spiritual things. To know as much brings responsibility. Knowledge is power, they say. And you know what Uncle Ben said about what comes with great power. 

So, if you trifle and guess and presume and assume, then you can believe things mean whatever you want, whatever suits your fancy at any given moment and then you, like father Adam, can be like God. You can govern and decide in your own way. Make up your own rules. Your own ideas. Your own definitions. Nobody is the boss of you. Certainly not Webster and certainly not God.

Back to the Shack

One day, a couple of years ago, while scrolling through a free movie weekend on HBO, I came across the movie, "The Shack." The family was asleep in bed, so I thought that this would be a fun and interesting movie to watch. I knew nothing about the movie other than it was supposed to be a Christian movie and the idea was that a man meets God in a shack. I expected something a little light-hearted and humorous that would inculcate some useful and important homily. Boy, was I mistaken!

I was not prepared for what happened. This movie was an emotional roller-coaster ride that took me places that, frankly, I didn't care to go. (Yes, I just used a cliche, but it fits so well.)

By the time I had finished this, er, movie, my theology had been, no hyperbole, shaken up. I have ever so rarely come across anything that effected me in such a manner. 

After it was over, I immediately went to Amazon and downloaded the book. Something I'd never done in response to a film before.

I've had so many discussions on-line and with people I know concerning this movie and book. (The book was pleasantly similar to the movie.) Discussions I've renewed repeatedly. I've thought about it and prayed about it and struggled over it. Why? Because, though I highly recommend it, there is something about it that didn't set quite right with me.

If, as I can't imagine, someone who hasn't seen the movie or read the book was to read my thoughts on this, it seems only fair to give fair warning. (Frankly, I cannot imagine anyone other than my immediate family even seeing this post.)

SPOILER ALERT!

Now, the things that bothered me did not necessarily include presenting God as a black woman and the Holy Ghost as an Asian woman. That was explained as, well, real, but also a vision, I suppose. Besides, I decided to treat it as metaphor and just went with it.

The thing that has really vexed me for so long, though, is what the author was trying to say about forgiveness. I understand why people claim he was pushing universal salvation. Though, I didn't really think so myself. Besides, "Papa" kept reiterating that she doesn't like slaves.

Though, a YouTube interview I saw recently with Paul Young seemed to indicate the possibility that he may actually subscribe to a form of "universalism." In short, and trying to paraphrase fairly, he said that he wouldn't be surprised if God was the kind of God who would make a way for all mankind to ultimately come to Him and share His love. 

Personally, I would think one would have to ignore a lot of verses in the Bible about Hell. That would include much preaching from our Lord. To believe that there is any possibility that all will ultimately live in the eternal bliss of Glory flies in the face of everything the Holy Scripture says about the Justice of God. And, yes, God is just!

One scripture reference here: John 3:16. Why would Christ talk about those who believe "would not perish" if, after all is said and done, none perish?

Anyway. Back to the shack!

In the end, the real, ultimate problem was that "Papa" wanted the man to forgive. Okay, but even to the point of forgiving the man who had destroyed his daughter? (Kill is not strong enough of a word.)

Now, honestly, this entire thing is very emotional for me. As a father of a daughter, or, I suppose, for a father of any child, for that matter, the idea of a man hurting my baby is more that my mind wants to ponder. Hurt me, okay. We'll deal with that. But my child? That's quite a different story.

I probably don't need to quote a bunch of Bible verses to make the point that God wants us to forgive one another. (And even ourselves.) He wants us to forgive others. Others who have hurt us. Yes, even hurt us terribly. But with no qualifications?

A year or two ago, there was a shooting at, of all things, a Texas church. Several were killed. Even the pastor's small granddaughter. It was dreadful. Horrible!

One of the most asinine reporters I've ever seen on television was asking questions of the pastor and his wife just a couple of days after the shooting. I can't remember all of his questions, but one really stood out as historically stupid. The man coldly asked, "Have your forgiven the shooter?"

The pastor feebly answered in the affirmative and the clip cut back to something else related to the story. 

Me? I only wished that that idiotic reporter could hear the things I called him!

Why, in the name of all that's holy, would he ask such a heartless question? The poor couple's granddaughter was not even in the grave yet and some jack ass is asking him about forgiveness?

I can guarantee you that if they had not been Christians, if he had not been a pastor, no one would've asked him if he had "forgiven" anyone. But since they were believers, at least with the world, it's perfectly fine to be a thoughtless cad to the recently bereaved. Sheesh!

Now, at that time, I can remember thinking, "Who said the shooter wants forgiveness?" (I can't recall, but I think he was taken alive.) Did anyone ask him if he wanted to be forgiven? Did he ask to be forgiven? Did he think he did anything wrong?

To me, it just seemed like the same old drivel I've heard time and again about "forgiveness." It's almost like the word is magical and somehow saying, "I forgive you," grants as much to whomever we consider the offender.

More later.

Back to "The Shack."

Here is a story about a man, "Mack," who lost his little girl in the worst way imaginable. And he is supposed to forgive this serial killer who doesn't think he's done anything wrong? Someone tell me how that works?

I'm not sure how much time I should spend discussing here what it means to be a reprobate. I could  ask why the Bible talks about them if there is no such thing? People seem to give the concept pretty much no thought.

More later.

I've heard story after story of people "forgiving" those who've hurt them. Those who, at least in their minds and maybe truly, have hurt them in ways that will be with them until their dying day. But, they say they've forgiven them. How?

How do you forgiven someone who thinks they've done nothing wrong. In other words, how do you grant forgiveness to the unrepentant? Can you?

I won't try to quote the number of Bible verses that explain that God's forgiveness is ready and waiting, but we must repent, admit our wrong, and ask forgiveness for the sins we've committed against Him. It's not complicated. He freely grants mercy to those who ask for it. 

What of those who don't repent? Who don't confess? Who don't, who won't, ask for forgiveness? Again, there are a lot of verses about Hell in the Bible too.

There is an almost, methinks, equally important part to this conundrum. How do we deal with the hurt, the pain, the confusion, the anguish when someone doesn't want forgiveness when they've wronged us?

Perhaps we earnestly desire to forgive them. Sometimes it's for our own desire to be relieved of the struggle of not knowing what to do. Sometimes the pain and frustration is so bad, we'll do or believe anything to relieve it. Sometimes people just fake it.

The author described the grief the family was stuck in after the disappearance of the child as the "great sadness." What an apropos name. The guilt, the shame and the loss the family endured was something to which all too many can relate. I thank God I cannot!

Firstly, bearing in mind that it's impossible for us to be unbiased and we, being human, tend to think first of ourselves and our own needs. Still, we must be sure as we can be that we are the injured party and not just suffering from our own poor choices. (This part requires much prayer and fasting.) Alas, we do tend to conflate the two.

That is one thing the author did brilliantly, he chose a hopeless scenario where there could be no doubt about who was at fault. Yes, the parents, being good parents, felt guilt for the mistakes, that they imagined, incorrectly, they made. They, no doubt, were actually, certainly the innocent, injured parties. Theirs was a hurt that they did not ask for in any way.

The awful thing the perpetrator had done had showed him as someone certainly on the road to Hell. The dichotomy between himself and the family was a clear demonstration that he was as guilty as they were innocent. He was certainly a man in need of forgiveness.

So, how do we cope when people just ain't interested in our forgiveness? They don't believe they've done wrong or they just don't care. Even with someone so lost as a sociopathic killer.

There is a question worth actually considering: What if the offender is a reprobate. Certainly, in my mind, the serial killer in the story is such. Reprobate means, simply, abandoned of God. To paraphrase that, I would  say that such people are so cold and numb to the Holy Ghost that God doesn't even trouble Himself with them. (How horrible would it be to be so depraved?)

These people would be rare, of course. Quick names like Hitler, Stalin and Mao come to mind. Still we don't have to look any farther than our own Congress to find such people. A politician who thinks it's perfectly fine to murder a defenseless baby for simple convenience and would campaign on as much betrays a diabolical lack of heart and conscience. The abortion doctor, the serial rapist and pedophile are so far in the flesh, I don't know if there is any hope for these people. 

God's mercy is deep and wide, so, occasionally, I find myself praying for them. Hope springs eternal?

We so struggle with what is often today called "closure." (I hate that term!) The word was used in the movie. 

We want to escape the pain, whoever may be at fault. So we search for any means to mollify or alleviate it. We just want it to go away. We want release. The problem is, what do we do when the pain just won't go away?

Pain is only a part of life. It is inevitable. We feel it in our tummies whenever we've missed a meal. We feel it in our bones as the years pass and we grow old and grey. We feel it in our hearts when we lose something or someone we love. Pain is just pain.

We seek our escape, but it follows us wherever we go. It's there like an old friend, or enemy, who never lets us get too far removed. It holds onto us and wakes us in the night to tell us the most unpleasant stories of days gone by. It even haunts us in our dreams. It's wherever we are. It's part of us. It just is.

We like to say we forgive those who've hurt us because we think it will give us peace. The problem is, it does not. We may live in denial, but the pain is still gnawing at us. We can't get shed of it. At least not so easily. 

Christ taught his disciples to forgive "seventy times seven." Obviously, this is not literal, but a principal. We are to be forgiving to our brother no matter how many times he hurts us.

Scripture says that, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." "Confess" being the operative word. (Yes, I did just reference a particular verse. Finally!)

The question remains: Can we forgive those who do not confess? Those who do not repent? Those who, in their own eyes, have done no wrong? Can we? 

Can God?

Entire Christian denominations are founded on the principal of what is aptly, if over-simply, called "irresistible grace." The idea is that we have no part in our salvation; we don't, can't, even choose God. He strictly and simply chooses us. We are saved because a Holy God, in His wisdom and righteousness, makes us so. We can't lose our salvation because we never claimed it. It was simply granted to us. It is irresistible.

Now, remember, Papa doesn't like slaves. ("Papa" said "prisoners." "Jesus" said "slaves." We are, in my mind, most definitely slaves if we have no choice who we love. Choices can, regrettably, be bad, but they must be ours and we must be free to make them. Otherwise, there is no such thing as free will. 

The Calvinist believes grace is irresistible. The Armenian believes, even after accepting it, grace is rejectable. Both are wrong. The former believes that we cannot love God while the latter believes God cannot love us. Love is a choice and it is everlasting or it isn't love at all. Otherwise, It's just some unpleasant thing that controls us as opposed to us controlling it.

So, again, can I forgive those who stubbornly refuse to ask? I certainly don't mean that they must come crawling to me, begging my forgiveness and that I will then condescend to grant it. No, I mean that their heart and mind must agree that they've done wrong and they must desire forgiveness with sincerity. We too must be ever ready to receive them and love them with a contrite heart and with no haughtiness or pride. We must, at the first sign, be ready to freely give the forgiveness they desperately need and we desperately need to give.

Now, can God forgive the unrepentant. The Holy Scriptures cry out, "NO!"

God's mercy is deep and wide, but if we simply refuse to drink the water, we will die of thirst. Remember the old adage about leading the horse?

Christ became our intercessor on the cross. He died that He might be the propitiation between God and man. He prayed, "Father, forgive them. They know not what they do." With that prayer to His Father, He granted forgiveness to every sinner who had ever breathed and those yet to draw breath. But what if we simply don't want His forgiveness? Is it possible to refuse the God of the Universe?

Studies by smarter men than me calculate that every time we inhale, we inhale a molecule of oxygen that Christ exhaled with His dying breath. Mind boggling! 

Imagine if a man simply refused, for whatever reason, to inhale. If he could somehow just stop breathing. He would die and that very quickly!

It's a simple and inadequate metaphor, but so many treat God's grace the same way. It's there for us to simply inhale, but pride, earthly desires, lusts, anger and a myriad of other devices lead men to hold their breaths like spoiled little toddlers until it's too late. They refuse to breath; so they die.

Hell is full of those who refused the offer of salvation. 

Yes, it's a heady thought, but we can actually refuse this great gift of mercy and forgiveness. We can refuse God's love. We can refuse His forgiveness. We can refuse to love God. Otherwise, it just wouldn't be love, would it?

If you believe you can forgive the unrepentant, aren't you saying you have power that God on His Throne does not? No Christian would say that God forgives without confession and repentance, so, why do we say we can? Why do people stubbornly hold onto the idea that we can forgive those who have unrepentantly wronged us? 

After years of prayer and study on the matter, I believe I've come up with an answer. It may not be THE answer, but if I had to say yes or no, I'd say it is. 

If you can forgive me without my confession and repentance, then it follows suit that God can do the same for you. No confession. No repentance. No change in attitude. Just forgiveness. Unrequested and irresistible. And very, very convenient!

Now, isn't that a way to live? No repentance and no remorse. Just go on with your life as you always have and God will just forgive and forgive and forgive. That, my friend, is the way to Hell!

Sure, no one who believes in one-sided forgiveness is going to agree with my assessment, but two plus two still equals four. If I don't need to repent, then neither do you. Anything else is illogical and denial of intent.

Papa encouraged Mack to repeat the words, "I forgive you," to the perpetrator, who wasn't even around to hear the words. He told him that he would have to say it many times until he could truly forgive, but that that was the way to begin. Ya know, as if the words are a mantra and, if oft repeated, will help you reach nirvana.

Papa even explains, in, I'll call it, the discovery scene, that "forgiveness doesn't create a relationship." Really? How can someone have a relationship with me when I've hurt them and won't admit it? In all fairness, the movie doesn't explain this hypothesis as well as the book. Still, though forgiveness is certainly the first step in a relationship, it is the most essential part of it. I cannot be an unforgiven child of God and neither will God force His forgiveness on me.

Words mean things. Or they mean nothing.

Forgive means forgive. Forgiveness is not about me; it's about the sinner. The offender. It's not about making me feel better; it's about granting pardon to a wrongdoer.

Forgive! Forgive freely, readily and quickly. 

Most of all, pray. Pray! And then pray some more. Maybe after enough prayer, you'll shut up and start listening. 

Then, when things make no sense and the pain just seems to continue, if you look around you'll see One on a cross beside you promising He'll be with you to the very end. 

And then...Paradise!

p.s. In writing something of this nature, the hardest part, perhaps, is looking inward. I try to sincerely ask myself if I'm only giving reasons in vain hope of begrudging forgiveness to those who've hurt me and mine. 

All I can do is pray and hope that I'm being open and honest. I'm only trying to point out that, for us lowly humans, forgiveness is difficult at best. And it needs to be the real deal!

Father God, on the other hand, is an expert at forgiveness. Of course, that's what makes Him special.

Yeah, if you think forgiveness was easy for Him, allow the Holy Ghost to remind you of just what it took to enable Him to forgive us pitiful sinners.

Single Mother?

I was reminded recently of an episode that occurred as a child when my father was pastoring a small country church. It was a typical little congregation, filled with saints and sinners.

One Christmas season, as we were preparing for whatever festivities that were going to be presented, arrangement was being made for the manger scene. This is where the problem began.

It so happened that a teenage girl in the congregation had recently given birth to a little boy. This is a wonderful thing, except that she hadn't bothered to marry the father. In spite of this little, shall we say, issue, the parents, more so the mother, of the girl approached my Dad with what they thought was the wonderful idea of using the little boy as Baby Jesus in the church pageant.

Now, my Dad was a Godly man who loved sinners and worked and prayed for their salvation. He was a moral man who felt that sexual activity and child births should be within a marriage. So, he tried, gently, but firmly, to explain to the parents and the young girl that he thought that that would be a really bad idea. He expressed, as best he could, that he believed that, while a child is just a child and certainly no fault lay with the child, it would set a bad example for the young ladies of the church to, (my words,) celebrate and glorify this birth and carry on as if there is actually nothing amiss in the given situation.

Needless to say, the parents and the girl did not understand nor share his views on contrition and humility. I don't recall them leaving the church, but I've known people to leave for less.

I thought of this because I recently read a post that someone placed on Face Book that shared an unnerving sentiment that I have heard expressed elsewhere. It caused me no small amount of consternation and it took what little self control I have to keep from lashing out at the poster.

The post itself, although it may have had good intent, was written by a good pro-lifer who was discussing our Christian attitudes toward women who had "unwanted" pregnancies. It went on to talk about how we need to love them and encourage them and do all we can, with compassion, to discourage them from aborting their innocent children. I was in pretty much full agreement until Mother Mary was dragged into the thesis and the author stated that even she was an "unwed mother." Sheesh!

I was incensed! As I said, I've heard this asinine argument before, but am constantly befuddled how someone of good intelligence and education can make such a statement. Even a quick study of the scriptures and a modicum of knowledge about Hebrew history tells us that, when she first became pregnant, Mary was legally betrothed to Joseph. Any honest definition of betrothal makes it clear that, for all intents and purposes, it is a legally binding marriage. Simply put, it is marriage without the benefits. The bride and bridegroom are to keep themselves pure for a the year or so until their actual marriage ceremony as, if nothing else, a sign that it was not a marriage of necessity. It would have even been necessary for Joseph to "put away," legally divorce, Mary, as it was his plan to do when he first learned of the child.

Fast forward to today's society. We live in a world where debauchery is the norm and many, too many women and men are breeders as opposed to truly being parents. For some years, I've heard a term tossed around carelessly that has become a gross misnomer and is bandied about in a most politically correct and abused manner. It is the term "single mother." I hear preachers, politicians and even people I work with using it in a fly-away fashion with no thought as to what it might truly imply.

Today, a "single mother" is defined, mostly, as a woman with a child where the father does not live with her. Now, that definition is scary at best. If a woman has a man's baby, but doesn't marry him, she is considered a "single mother." If a woman has a man's baby and lives with a different man, she is considered a "single mother." If a woman has a man's baby and is married to another man, she is considered a "single mother." One other definition might apply: If a woman has a man's child and he is deceased, she is likely considered a "single mother."

So, what's the difference? Simple enough!

If a woman is promiscuous and finds herself pregnant, if the man isn't present in her life, she will be considered a "single mother." If she marries a man, becomes pregnant, and tires of him or argues with him or whatever, if they divorce, she will be considered a "single mother." It matters little how involved or uninvolved in the child's life the man is.

I, incidentally, work with a young girl who seems desperately trying to become impregnated by the twice-her-age degenerate with whom she is keeping company. If she manages to do so, will she be considered a "single mother"? Certainly!

Politicians and talking-heads are constantly throwing this phrase around to describe women who, not so many years ago, would have been described merely as having low moral character. It would have been said that they had been better off if they had only practiced a little self control. Yet, if you say they should do so, you will be called, mean, heartless, insensitive and worse.

This entire line of reasoning has come to bother me more and more over the past few years. We have had to watch as thousands of young patriots have given their lives overseas, leaving wives and children behind who are left to struggle with the loss of a beloved husband and father. I think of Chris Kyle and his friend who were murdered by a deranged man leaving behind weeping and grieving loved ones. Many more have had similar losses over the years and we, (although the term seems to be more or less new,) refer to them as "single mothers."

The problem? Is there not a difference between a woman who finds herself in these circumstances through her own actions and woman who loses her husband in the line of duty as a soldier, fireman or policeman? Does the former really understand the situation of the latter?

Please don't misunderstand. I am glad today, when it is so easy to do otherwise, when a woman chooses life over death. Still, we have more choices than to simply praise them for their sin. We can love them in spite of their sin! We should be honest and set a moral example, making it clear that wrong is wrong and right is right, but praise the good choices while condemning the bad ones. Like my father, we should avoid elevating the sinful action without condemning the sinner.

Alas, today, political correctness and the desire for votes and viewers have declared that any woman, under any circumstances, who has a crumb-cruncher and no present father, is a "single mother." Her behavior and lack of self-control are never, ever called into question. She is given praise, acclaim and a government paycheck. All she is asked for in return, is her vote!
　

Out of the Closet?

The preacher says, "It's easier to come out of the closet than to clean out the closet."

Sometimes it's just easier to admit we are sinners, using that as a cop out, so that we don't have to repent and do anything about it.

Extraterrestrial Hitler

I hear the shallow minded with their myopic thought processes yak and yak on the boob-tube about "E.T." and "Chariots of the Gods." It's the same old, same old about how the universe is so vast that it is, in their small minds, ridiculous to think that there is no life on other planets. They say that evolution demands that there must be life elsewhere. They say that we couldn't be alone in the universe. Some even go so far as to claim that we have been visited or are even now populated by extra-terrestrials and, of course, the "government" is conspiring to keep the truth from us. Ya-da, ya-da, ya-da! I suppose, the "truth" is hidden somewhere in Area 53. (Yes, Area 51 is meant as a distraction. Mwah-ha-ha!)


Now, for those who choose to take the flight of fancy required to accept the scant, flimsy, weak and, in actuality, non-existent evidence of evolution, the "big bang", aliens from outer space, etc., there is nothing can be said to change their minds. (See 2 Peter 3:5a) They have chosen their road because, in reality, it frees them from any pangs of having to consider an intelligent, Holy Creator who would one day require of their immortal souls an answer for the lives they have wasted. Amazingly, many Christians also assume that there is life on other planets, but not necessarily for the reasons aforementioned.

To me, it is painfully obvious that we are the lone planet in God's great cosmos that contains any life whatsoever. The reasons I shall now list are not designed, necessarily, to present scientific evidence, but more to present my rationale. I think that when I am through, you may not agree with my arguments, but I believe you might like my thesis.

Having begun thusly, please consider the following:

1. Einstein demonstrated that it’s all about perspective. What some might see as age, is nothing more than functionality. Without the juxtaposition of our galaxies, planets, etc., we could have no existence. Our own solar system protects us with a massive magnetic field from killer cosmic waves that would otherwise wipe out or simply prevent life altogether. Only the most stubborn anti-God atheist would be unable to see the purpose in our beautiful universe. Our entire cosmos would almost seem to be designed to protect our little planet. It appears, almost, that someone designed it this way.

2. I’m no astronomer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn once. (Ha, ha!) I took a year of Astronomy in junior college and, granted, it was not much more than theory and history, but I was struck by a statement once made my professor. He explained that for life to develop on any given orb, the chances would be somewhere in the neighborhood of one in one with a million zeroes to its right. That’s for each prospective planet. Yes, there is a plethora of planets out there in one stage or another of livability, but that’s some small chance! And remember, that’s for each individual planet. (He added, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, that Creationists love statistics like that.)

It reminds me of the age-old question: if you flip a quarter a hundred times and it lands heads up for the one hundred times, what are the odds of it landing heads up on the next flip? Fifty-fifty! The odds for each individual flip are not increased by additional flips. The odds are the same on every flip as the odds are the same on every planet. Believing any one of those globs of chemicals and dirt floating through space could just spontaneously, with no intelligent design, develop life is a stretch of imagination beyond my capability. In other words, that’s more faith than I have. I suppose it would take a miracle!

Furthermore, scientists “discovered” not long ago that the universe is half the age they had claimed for years. What’s ten billion years among friends? After all, they are mostly government employees and you can’t expect them to keep up with billions of years or billions of dollars. Anyway, that means that every step in evolution actually, from their point of view, had only half the time to develop that they had previously claimed. Wow! Evolution needs to speed up! Maybe one day, they’ll finally shorten the life of the universe to less than ten thousand years. Works for me!

3. Still, let’s say, yes, life is out there somewhere. If that were so, they would be, bare minimum, thousands of light years from us. Now, contrary to your average Star Trek episode, Einsteinian science seems to forgo the possibility of traveling past the speed of light and retaining our physical integrity. Therefore, that means that a visitor from outer space would have to travel thousands of light years within his lifetime to arrive at our planet. Are they even now here among us and we somehow don't know about it? Are they able to travel between our mutual planets, perhaps even inter-galactically?

4. Now, let's, for the sake of argument, assume that they somehow created a “warp field” and these travelers have visited us from a galaxy far, far away. Obviously, their science is far advanced to ours and we, as developed as we arrogantly believe ourselves to be, would seem less than the most backward tribes on our planet today. The divergence would far exceed that of the conquistadors, et al., with their horses and advanced weaponry, and the poor Stone Age aborigines they overran in the European conquest of the New World.

Considering this, we could assume that, as is always with intelligence, there is personality. With personality, we find ourselves surrounded by the Mother Teresa's and the Adolph Hitler's of this world. It would be the height of absurdity to think of these aliens as monolithic in their life-view. (See Star Trek reruns and you'll understand what I mean: All Klingons are the same?)

So, what we have here is a super advanced race, able to travel to our planet millennia before the Wright brothers flew at Kitty Hawk, with science vastly beyond our capabilities. All it would require is one deranged visitor to decide to take out our defenses and take over our planet. Even if these visitors-from-another-world placed safeguards to protect us, as some of the true believers would claim, every jail can be broken out of and every bank can be broken into. Someone would attempt a takeover. Who could stop him? (Think, waffling, impotent, apathetic United Nations.)

5. If there is intelligent life on other planets, is it not safe to assume that intelligent life means the presence of an immortal soul? If it has a soul, and can travel the galaxy, then it must certainly understand morality. (These beings obviously do not live naked in a Garden of Eden.) If they can comprehend moral choices, they know right from wrong and they must certainly know sin. If they know sin, they need a Savior. Isn't there only one Savior? (See Acts 4:12) Are we supposed to assume that they know no sin? If they didn't know sin before, when they get here, they'll learn it from the experts. Are we supposed to believe that God revealed Himself to them without some human to witness to them? (The Mormons might think so.) Is the Savior revealed to them by epiphany? By Divine revelation? How are they to know unless there is a preacher and how is there a preacher unless one is sent? (See Romans 10:14)

6. There was a time when the predominant thinking in the "known world” was that the earth is flat and that we are at the center of God's creation. Over the centuries, we moved to a heliocentric cosmology saying that the sun is the center of the universe, but that our planet is still a very significant part of that universe. As time passed, scientists decided that we are nowhere near the “center” of the universe, but only a small planet in a small solar system on the outer rim of the Milky Way galaxy. This being true, we found ourselves as the "center" of nothing, but only a minuscule, seemingly infinitesimal speck on the edge of a galaxy that is one of billions...trillions!

The secularists point this out as an indication of our triviality. They say that we are only a tiny grain in the heavens and that we are no more important than any other planet, object or being in existence. They say our place of existence that demonstrates our lack of merit. (Somewhat like a child in the womb has less value than a child in the crib.)

7. We are not the center of the universe: we are not the center of our galaxy; we are not the center of our solar system; we aren't an outstanding constellation in the heavens or a significant planet in size. We’re nowhere near the center of this limitless existence we call the universe. We're just the third rock from the sun. Still, we are the center of God's universe! Our importance is not based on where we live in God‘s creation, but where we live in the God‘s heart. He loved us so much that He gave His only begotten Son that if we believe in Him, we'll have everlasting life. (See John 3:16)

Is it the height of arrogance to think that God would make this great expanse for mankind only? I'll go one better than that: I'll claim that He did it all for me!

Mea Culpa

It's my fault! It's not your fault; it's not my neighbors fault; it's not the government's fault; it's definitely not God's fault. I've been a jack ass!

I've done things in my life that I am so ashamed of that I shudder when they cross my mind. They haunt me in the still of the night when I should be sleeping the sleep of the righteous. I awaken in the morning and they are sometimes the first thing to leap into my mind. I wretch when they rear their ugly heads.

I wish I could say it was someone else's fault. I'd love to look back on my life and say, "At least, I didn't do..." Yet, I did. I'd like to think that there are some things that are beneath me. It would be nice to believe that I only imagined these things, but I know they are real.

There are people I've known in my life that I used and abused through no fault of their own. If I had been any kind of man, I would not have hurt them. I've heard that AA requires their people to go to everyone they've hurt and apologize. That's not an avenue that I, coward that I am, am prepared to take.

My Daddy always tried to teach me that you can lose an entire life of confidence with one stupid move. If the one you hurt never, ever trusts you again, you have no one to blame but yourself. Is it hard? Is it tough? Is it even fair? I suppose so. Still, that's just the way it is, like it or not!


I've done the excuses and what Bishop T.D. Jakes calls a "Yeah, But Card." I would blame every body, including God, but me. I'd think, "It's not my fault I'm in this situation. God could have saved me from my stupid mistakes, but He didn't." What a fool! I'm supposed to make a mess and God is supposed to clean it up?

I hope that I have repented of my sins. (Or is that am repenting?) I hope that I am a better man than I once was. I'd like to think so.

I can't go back and fix it. If there really was a way to repay the ones I hurt and make it right, I suppose I would. Though, I really wouldn't want to stir up those old ghosts again.

The only thing that I can do is try to live the kind of life today that says that I've changed and, perhaps, even matured. I can do my best to live in a manner that says that that old beast is gone, or at least, more or less, in submission. I can only attempt to have the kind of consistency in my life that says that I am not the boy I used to be. Maybe, someday, I will be a man...a Godly man. That is my greatest hope.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is, in my own cowardly way, that if I hurt you or someone you care about...I'm truly, deeply, sorry. I apologize. I want you to know that I'm still far from perfect...very, very, very far! Yet, I hope I'm right when I say I've grown up quite a bit over the years. I certainly wouldn't even think about doing or saying some of the things I was doing some years ago.

Lastly, it is my hope that someone who knew me then and knows me now, if my time on earth were through, their final thought of me would be that I ended better than I started. I hope they believe I really did make a change and closed my life as a man who, at least, sincerely tried to be a better man.

I wouldn't blame you if you didn't, but maybe, by the Grace of God, you'll even go so far as to forgive me...maybe.