We’re Shooting Ourselves in the Head
There is a grievous misunderstanding in the modern church that Christ calls us to revolution of action and that there is where He stops. It is similar to Israel’s misunderstanding that the Messiah would overthrow governing bodies and establish a kingdom on earth. Christ calls us to so much more than a mere revolution of behavior- he calls us to a revolution of the heart.
God’s Word tells us “I will give you a new heart…” in Ezekiel 26:36 and, by the look of things, it has been reworded so that many read it, “I will give you a better behavior.”
This unnoticed editing has done so much damage. It has weakened the power of the Gospel because the Christian, when focused on behavior, is unconcerned with those who are perishing (1 Cor. 1:18). We have allowed it to remove the spiritual potency of the weapons of our warfare (2 Corinthians 10:4). It has reduced the capacity of the Christian from taking every thought into captivity to taking every action into captivity for the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5). We have allowed ourselves to believe that the righteousness our good behavior displays is ours. We have forgotten how Isaiah put it so eloquently in his chapter 64,
…all of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. No one calls on your name or strives to lay hold of you; for you have hidden your face from us and made us waste away because of our sins.
Here, Isaiah tells us what our righteous acts really accomplish: We shrivel up, the wind sweeps us away, God hides his face and we waste away. Maybe they aren’t so good after all?
I think a lot of fellow believers have the opinion that our behavior, whether good or bad, has some over-arching reach that affects God’s opinion of us. For example, you do a bad thing and God is displeased. He frowns and shakes his head. He cries. You may hear from other Christians about how God is disappointed with you. You made God cry. You should be ashamed.
On the other hand, you may do a good thing and feel that you made God smile. He’s up in heaven, nodding his head approvingly. He wants to give you a high-five!
These two views are both caricatures but, to some measure, they are also popular ways of looking at the consequences of the things we do. We tend not to think about our behavior in a context of love relationships with people. We think about it in a context of making God smile or cry. It is easy to completely forget about loving other people with that at the front of your mind.
What Just Happened?
Paul talks about why God sees us as righteous in the book of Romans. He makes it clear that our deeds do not affect God’s opinion of our righteousness:
But people are counted as righteous, not because of their work, but because of their faith in God who forgives sinners. David also spoke of this when he described the happiness of those who are declared righteous without working for it: “Oh, what joy for those whose disobedience is forgiven, whose sins are put out of sight. Yes, what joy for those whose record the Lord has cleared of sin.” (Romans 4:5-8)
How we should feel upon being declared righteous without deserving it is blessed. Paul quotes David’s opinion of the situation as well: “Oh, what joy for those…” So when you think about being declared righteous, you should feel joyfully blessed. You should not feel like you have something left to prove, or that God declared you righteous because he knew you would make up for it in the future with your good behavior.
The last line of that passage indicates something that many people may find terrifying: we have a record. Not just any record, either. A criminal record. Those same people may feel there is something not quite right about being declared righteous when they didn’t do anything to deserve it. I think this touches on a key part of what it means to be a weak, fallen person: we like to feel as though we deserve everything God has given us. So we go off and try to live a life of good behavior. We do this with the purpose of showing God we were worthy to receive all he has given us. But this is pointless because Isaiah already made it clear that our righteous acts are like filthy rags. Are we going to accept God’s gift of pure garments and try to reimburse him with torn, filthy, worn-out cloth? They won’t prove anything other than our unworthiness to receive the gift in the first place.
Further on in the same chapter of Romans, Paul uses Abraham as a prime example of someone
…being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness- for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead (21-24).
It is so vital to realize that those words “were not written for him alone, but also for us!” are written for us! The same righteousness that God credited to Abraham so long ago is also credited to us. We have that same standing because of what God chose to do, not because of anything we ourselves have done.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not for a minute saying our behavior doesn’t matter. I’m only saying it doesn’t matter in the context of self. And far, far too often a church will lecture sternly from the podium on the personal merits of good behavior. This is yet another area of wholly misguided teaching, because good works are only good insofar as “…they see your good deeds and praise your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16).
A lot of Christians seem to think that ‘good deeds’ are just good, no matter what. If that was true, Jesus probably would have said “…they see your good deeds and praise you.” So you could sum up the understanding of many Christians to be: People should notice how well-behaved and nice I am, and that I always speak in a civil tone because that is true Christianity. They couldn’t be more wrong as a Christian.
The church seems to believe that self-discipline is a valid way to connect with God and to really commune with Him. Or, to sum it up in a line I heard last February from a former pastor of a traditional, fundamental church, “The secret to Christianity is trying to be a little better each day.” Lectures on the topic of Christ’s perfection in action abound. He never sinned! His behavior was perfect and that’s why God accepted him as the sacrifice for sin, so we all must strive for perfect behavior too, because that is Christ like! The church couldn’t be more wrong, either.
The Only Perfect Sacrifice that Ever Talked Back to Mom
Well isn’t that true, though? Wasn’t Jesus perfectly well-behaved? He wasn’t. He caused some measure of grief for his parents, according to Luke 2:48-50. Imagine yourself coming in late at night. Your mother and father have been waiting up for hours. They’ve looked everywhere and called all your friends. Just as they’re ready to call the police, you come waltzing in. They just gawk at you and say “We were worried sick! Where were you?” Imagine their response if you replied “Didn’t you know? I was busy doing God’s work.” The Bible doesn’t elaborate on what Mary and Joseph did when Jesus gave this response, other than to say they didn’t understand.
Another time, when Jesus is older, he attends a wedding with his disciples and his mother. His mother asks him to perform a miracle. She wants more wine and figures He is just the guy for it. He responds with “Dear woman, that’s not our problem…” (John 2:4). That’s a damn cheeky way for a well-behaved person to talk to their mother!
When it came to his closest relationships, Jesus wasn’t afraid to mix it up, either. He didn’t try to exude social nicety. No one could possibly argue that it was polite of Jesus to tell Peter, “Get behind me, Satan!” in Matthew 16:23. Pretty rude, don’t you think? But it was completely necessary, since Peter had just finished trying to discourage Jesus from talking about his own crucifixion, saying “Heaven forbid, Lord! This will never happen to you!”
Jesus knew his purpose. A lot of Christians don’t know theirs. They aren’t sensitive to the Holy Spirit and frequently are confused about their purpose and mission. They would certainly never follow the bold example of Christ and tell even their closest, Christian friends “Get behind me, Satan” if the situation demanded it.
Evidence of Jesus being a ‘bad boy’ is most evident with even a cursory glance at how he interacted with the religious leaders of his day. They hated him and he knew it. These were the most respected leaders of Jewish society. They were the men with the money, power and popularity. They set status quo. Their influence was far-reaching. Then here comes Jesus, a country bumpkin from some backwater little corner of Israel who starts telling them things like “You cancel the word of God for the sake of your own tradition…” (Matthew 15:6) and that “Only an evil and adulterous generation would demand a miraculous sign” (Matthew 16:2).
Jesus saves his strongest language for these respected leaders. In Matthew 23:25 he tells them “…you are so careful to clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside you are filthy—full of greed and self-indulgence!” He follows it up in verse 27 with a similar onslaught of rudeness, saying, “…you are like whitewashed tombs—beautiful on the outside but filled on the inside with dead people’s bones and all sorts of impurity.” If Jesus really, truly wanted Christians to be nice people, he sure doesn’t set a good example.
A Real Example to Follow
That is why I don’t think that is what he calls us to do. I think Jesus came to tells us to love people, regardless of who they are, where they are from, how they treat us and whether or not we like them.
Jesus tells Peter to do this in John 21:15-17:
After breakfast Jesus asked Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love (agapao) me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” Peter replied, “you know I love (phileo) you.”
“Then feed my lambs,” Jesus told him.
Jesus repeated the question: “Simon son of John, do you love (agapao) me?”
“Yes, Lord,” Peter said, “you know I love (phileo) you.”
“Then take care of my sheep,” Jesus said.
A third time he asked him, “Simon son of John, do you love (phileo) me?”
Peter was hurt that Jesus asked the question a third time.
He said, “Lord, you know everything. You know that I love (phileo) you.”
Jesus said, “Then feed my sheep.”
What is interesting about this passage is that there are two kinds of love at play. There is the love Jesus wants Peter to have for him and there is the one Peter actually has.
When Jesus starts off the conversation by asking “Do you love me?” the Greek word for love used there is ‘agapao,’ which means ‘to love dearly.’ When Peter responds by saying “You know I love you,” the Greek word for love used there is ‘phileo,’ which means ‘to like.’
An illustration might help. We’ve all had experience with those pointless relationships that happen in high school. If you were never in one yourself, chances are high that you had a friend or two who did and they may have talked about it with you. Usually the problems that centered on a particular girl or guy had to do with these questions: “Does she like me or love me? And if she only likes me, does she like-like me, or just like me?”
Jesus doesn’t make any distinction here. There is one category of devotion. However, even when Peter makes it clear that his devotion only goes as far as liking Jesus, Jesus tells him to go ahead and feed the sheep anyway! Jesus wants to use that! But he also wants us to grow in our love and change. He wants our ‘liking him’ to become ‘loving him dearly,’ which can only happen in the heart.
He even had love for his most bitter enemies. In Mark 3, Jesus is about to heal a deformed man’s hand. The Pharisees are watching to see what he does, because it is the Sabbath and they want to see if he ignores their laws. Before breaking their laws and healing the man, “…he looked around at them angrily and was deeply saddened by their hardened hearts.”
That almost seems contradictory, doesn’t it? How can you be deeply saddened by someone who makes you angry? A lot of Christians don’t understand the struggle Christ is involved in at this point. It is a struggle of the flesh, embodied in the Pharisees, versus the spirit, embodied in Christ. Many times in contemporary Christianity, the struggle is seen as one of flesh versus flesh.
The Secret War
An often overlooked facet of the Christian life is that the struggle is not flesh versus flesh but is flesh versus spirit. In the book of Galatians, Paul offers advice to those who don’t know how to deal with this bizarre war:
So I say, let the Holy Spirit guide your lives. Then you won’t be doing what your sinful nature craves. The sinful nature wants to do evil, which is just the opposite of what the Spirit wants. And the Spirit gives us desires that are the opposite of what the sinful nature desires. These two forces are constantly fighting each other, so you are not free to carry out your good intentions. (5:16-17)
Paul goes on to list what he calls the ‘sins of the flesh’:
“When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures, idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these…”(5:19-21).
Then he contrasts these sins of the flesh with their godly counterparts, the ‘fruit of the Spirit:’
“But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against these things!” (5:22)
I fear that so many Christians have blurred the lines between the sins of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit that the categories have become ‘good behavior’ and ‘bad behavior.’
When you examine these two lists, you may notice a few interesting things.
First, notice that the ‘Spirit’ by which these fruits are produced is not our spirit. It is not a spirit of self-discipline. It is only by God’s Spirit that these can be produced.
Second, notice that the activities which follow ‘sins of the flesh’ are largely action- oriented. They describe actual physical behavior. Then notice the ‘fruit of the Spirit.’ Although these certainly have behavior which is connected to them, Paul does not make a list of loving actions, joyful actions, nor kind actions etc.
I think the reason that he does not is given in verse 25 of this same chapter, “Since we are living by the Spirit, let us follow the Spirit’s leading in every part of our lives.” He assumes that the revolutionary Christian is already being guided by the Holy Spirit! And when that guidance is understood and followed, those fruits are produced naturally. They don’t come about as a result of manipulating the sins of the flesh to look nice!
Conversely, we can assume that sins of the flesh will be produced by a Christian who is not following the Spirit’s leading in every part of their life. That is not to say they are completely rejected by God, only that their witness and their ambassadorship (2 Cor. 5:20) will suffer greatly.
Third, you need to understand that there are two ‘trees’ growing in you: flesh and Spirit. The only thing the ‘flesh tree’ produces are sin. The only thing the ‘Spirit tree’ produces are fruit.
But I Already Love Evvverryyyoneee!
Love is a principle aspect of healthy, mature Christian life. You can have all the good deeds and nice behavior it is possible to dream up but without love, they’re useless for any purpose other than to mask deeds of the flesh. Obviously that deduction is drawn from Paul’s explanation of love in 1 Corinthians 13:1-13, although I think a majority of Christians seem to believe the ‘love’ he talks about is defined as general, generic feelings of good will. For example, you ‘love’ the cashier at the supermarket. You ‘love’ fellow drivers on the road. You ‘love’ all these people when you don’t know their names. You couldn’t be more wrong.
Again we need to explain the kind of love Paul is talking about here:
If I could speak all the languages of earth and angels, but didn’t love others, I would only be a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I had the gift of prophecy, and if I understood all of God’s secret plans and possessed all knowledge, and if I had such faith that I could move mountains, but didn’t love others, I would be nothing. If I gave everything I have to the poor and even sacrificed my body, I could boast about it; but if I didn’t love others, I would have gained nothing (1 Cor. 1:1-3)
The word ‘love’ that he uses here is the Greek word ‘agape,’ which means to have a brotherly (or sisterly) love, affection, good will, or benevolence toward someone. But its word origin is the same idea that Jesus and Peter talk about in John 21- agapao, to love dearly.
I’m not saying that it is wrong to love the cashier or fellow drivers, or that you can’t. But to interpret that kind of love as the ultimate way to live out what Paul is talking about is the same as cheating yourself out of opportunities to become truly Christ like.
The Obvious Secret
Without the context of authentic relationships with people, love cannot abound as Christ wants it to abound. He does not want to see us limited in our relationships by worrying about good or bad behavior. It is true that our behavior plays its part in leading people to Christ but that behavior is most fruitful when it is close and personal and we have invested our time, effort, sweat and blood into that relationship.
When we sacrifice, when we admonish, when we exhort and rebuke, it means something. When we are willing to go to the front lines and challenge our friend who is involved in a detrimental lifestyle apart from Christ, we love them. When we encourage a fellow Christian struggling with some sin of the flesh and let them know that they are not alone and share our own struggles with them, we love that person. When we share the Gospel with those around us, ignoring the fact that it may be awkward, they may dislike us. But we have actively loved them. When we exhort other believers around us to rally for the cause, or identify a troubled area of Satan’s influence, they benefit and we love them.
James says that “Faith without works is dead and useless” (2:20), but we have just seen that works without love are useless too. In 1 Corinthians, Paul says “Three things will last forever- faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” Works aren’t even mentioned. To some degree I think they can have an eternal effect, but the works themselves just don’t last, because they don’t do anything without love.
March 20th,2010
Do It! |
8 Comments
For some reason I have had a particular passage of Scripture stuck in my head of late. I don’t mean for the last day, or week. For the last two months or so I’ve had 1 Peter 1:3-4 just rolling around in my noggin.
I’ve been reading and re-reading and re-re-reading it. I’ve researched it online using 3 different Greek lexicons. I’ve read it in numerous translations.
Whenever I’ve got some idea or concept in my head that I can’t seem to get over, I can usually trace the reason back to some immediate necessity- maybe it was a topic of conversation with friends or the subject of study at home church. That is not the case with 1 Peter 1:3-4. I think I just woke up one morning reciting it in my head.
That isn’t the first time something like this has happened. One morning I woke up and thought about Pachelbel’s Canon in D for two hours. This is the first time, however, that the thing has stayed with me for a protracted length of time. So I decided that I might as well get some use out of this prolonged meditation. I could either be willing or unwilling, meditative or not.
I began what is basically a word study of the original passage as it is in Greek and what I found fascinated me. I’m not sure exactly why I find it fascinating. I just know I do. Maybe someone needs to know what I’ve found out, someone who would read this. I don’t know. Anyway, I decided to write my findings as a blog entry.
As my meanderings took me through different translations and paraphrases, I decided (much to my own surprise) that I preferred the King James translation over all the others. I’m not a KJV type of person, normally. But something in it clicked with me, and I consider it the best expression of the ideas in the original Greek. So here are both verses of 1 Peter 1:3-4 as the King James renders them:
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you.
I know, it sounds all dry and crusty- but it isn’t. I love how this passage starts with a blessing to God. The writer goes on to recount all that we have in our knowledge with Christ- mercy, hope, inheritance, a future. That pretty much covers it all.
What I used as the focus for my word study is that bold part, specifically the words in italics- incorruptible, undefiled, fadeth not away. Obviously they mean what they say but in another sense, they mean something else completely. When the writer says our inheritance is “incorruptible,” he doesn’t only mean that it can’t be corrupted.
I’ll explain.
Those three English words are trying to explain three ideas- (in the Greek)
- Aphtharton
- Amianton
- Amaranton
The translator rendered them as
- Incorruptible
- Undefiled
- Fadeth not away
In studying this verse it was hard for me to envision, in a productive way, the inheritance which is ours- which these words describe. We’re even forewarned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 that “…As it is written, no eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind can conceive the things that God has prepared for those who love him.”
So here in 1 Peter, we’re getting a more thorough explanation of what has been prepared- our inheritance.
It’s even worth noting the way these Greek words are spelled and that there is alliteration present in the Greek. We see the presence, in all three words of the “ἀ,” the Alpha or as we call it, the letter “A.” In Greek, the alpha is the negative. For example, in the word “atheist,” we see it in the negative position of the “Theos.” So we can rightfully conclude that the literal translation of the word “atheist” to be “Negation of God,” or “Without God.”
In this passage from 1 Peter we can start by assuming that
- Aptharton
- Amianton
- Amaranton
Are conveying the negation of the idea they would imply in their non-alpha form. (I don’t know any Greek, so bear with me here.)
- Aptharton: This literally indicates the lack of ability our inheritance has in terms of decay, basically the negation of decay. Anything “decay” is, our inheritance isn’t. In studying the term I’ve come away with the (hopefully correct) idea that to even ask the question “Can our inheritance decay?” would be meaningless and is unanswerable. The idea of decay does not have any bearing whatsoever on such an inheritance as this one reserved in heaven for us.
- Amianton: literally describes a state of the absolute negation of the Greek “miano,” which means “to taint.” The closest way we could say this in the English language would be to say it is absolutely pure. Again, with the presence of the Alpha we may safely conclude that not only is our inheritance pure, it is not even possible to talk meaningfully about it outside of a state of complete, absolute purity.
- Amaranton: I think this is the most interesting of the words used because it has an association with horticulture. This literally indicates the lack of ability our inheritance has to wither and fade, such as plants do. It is sourced from the “Pthio” idea- to wither. It is not insensible to say that amaranton is the negation of withering.
I’ve walked away from this word study with a much deeper understanding of what 1 Peter is trying to get across- within the first five verses no less!
Those who grew up singing hymns may notice similarities between those songs of yore and the writing style I adopted for this poem. I don’t like singing hymns but I cannot deny the talent and the Spirit-filled way in which those writers were able to convey a message of truth to a lost and dying world.
The Withered Hand Retracts
j. ramsey
If Christ is all that all men need
To cleanse their hearts of sin
Then ask yourself “Why tarry we
In His freedom to bring?”
Freedom is the heart-felt cry
With which the sinner pleads.
For it is Christ alone who breaks the chains,
And Christ who sets us free.
To each person is apportioned faith-
Some much, some almost none at all.
But to each also is given
The burden of the fall.
This weight so heavy, who can bear
The cost that it demands?
Put what little faith you have
Into His bloodied hands.
Sufficient grace alone is His
To disperse to whom He choose.
His will is that you be among
The sinners He won’t lose.
A love so strong it caused His death
And took Him to the cross,
That man whose love is great enough
That death set Him not at loss-
He will be the one in whom my faith
Is placed day after day,
For I know in Christ I am secure
Come trials though they may.
So wind or gale,
So stormy seas,
So hurricanes of might
Shall not usurp the rightful place
Of the King of Light.
August 29th,2009
Poetry |
2 Comments
I wrote this poem about 8 years ago while working night shift making printing plates. My supervisor was lax enough that I could frequently get away with breaking the monotony of my work duties by penning epics such as this. In remembering the writing of this poem, I can only recall that it came so quickly my pen could barely keep up with the thoughts.
Shiver Slave.
j. ramsey
Frostbitten fairies full of winter’s woe,
Descending softer than the lightest snow,
Regretting dwelling in the forest deep,
Now so in need of warmth they know I keep.
I hearken fairies rapping at my door,
I answer knowing what does lie in store.
I freely give to them the warmth they crave-
Their greatest fear to be the Shiver’s Slave.
As we are gathered in the firelight,
Suppressing coldness from the moonlit night,
They bide their time recounting stories old,
With tales of demons, dwarves and dragon’s gold.
Epic wonders in their history,
True but unbelievable to me.
Questions spawning, so I voice my mind-
“In what eon did you turn from mean to kind?”
As the eldest fairy clears his voice to speak,
He’s interrupted by a quiet shriek.
A satyr, entranced by the golden glow,
Has joined our company of woe.
_____
As faces turn to him, I raise my head.
His visage locked in a look of dread,
He tells us how this killing coldness comes,
Harvesting warmth to make a midnight sun.
The fairies quiet and myself in thought,
My heart is twisted to a celtic knot.
The creature says, “It seems we have no choice.
We’re Shiver Slaves, and we’re without a voice.”
At last the time has come to share the Key!
But something keeps it down inside of me.
How do I share the warmth I hold
With this camaraderie so cold?
As I’m pondering upon a plan,
A fairy voice utters, “You there, Man!”
So I’m broken out of quietness
To join the revelry of my guests:
“Have you any truth to share,
Or news to tell from a source that’s fair?”
But sorely vexed at his intrusion, I
Spitefully begin to weave a lie.
_____
I deny them any words that free,
And hold the warmth still deep inside of me.
Their attention turns to another, so
Again I’m left to lie inside sorrow.
What is binding all the warmth to me?
Why can’t I speak the truth to help them see?
“These ghastly shivers in my neck…” I sigh.
And not a single one there wonders why.
But as I reach out to the ember’s flame,
I wonder why I spoke the Shiver’s name.
I have the warmth way down inside, deeply.
How then is coldness killing me?
With a new dilemma surfacing,
I realize I must go before our King.
But before proposing Royalty
As the solution to the scene,
I’m contemplative of reactions wide,
But know there is no time to bide.
The freezing coldness of these dreary days
Is well past its time of welcome to stay.
_____
“My friends, I think I’ve solved the mystery.
I shall travel to the golden sea.
I’ll beg our case before the Magistrate.
Perhaps he’ll grant me enter through the gate.
From there I’ll journey to the throne
Of He who calls the castle ‘home.’
I’ll tell Him of our problems and our pain,
I’ll tell Him winter’s driving us insane.”
Quiet first, the masses seemed to think,
Then broke out in laughter echoing.
Ignoring looks of death and looks of spite,
I trudged across the land that night.
Not a single fairy went along with me,
So in fatigue I fell down to my knees,
And found myself transported instantly
To the throne of He who holds the Keys.
“Speak,” He said. One word, that’s all.
I rose, but found myself still feeling small.
“My Lord,” I said, “I fear our land is dead.
This Coldness came, and off it rent the head
Of the sunlight, therefore vanquishing
All it gave within its light- giving.”
“Let me understand this right,”
The King spoke with a kingly might.
_____
“You want a new sun to give you light?
Illuminating, and to warm your night?”
“Yes, Your Grace.” I answered hastily,
Thinking now that what I asked- obscene!
How, the King, could He succeed at this,
Within His limits, He’s not limitless!
“I see your thoughts, and what you think of Me,
I am King of Impossibilities.”
“I shall grant you your request, my son,
If you relay the message of the One
Who set your heart on fire in time of chill,
Who’s there for you and so conveys His will,
Whom you approached upon your bended knee,
Allowing your voice to be heard above the greed.
Your friends, they wait, so ‘Return!’ I say.
End this, for them, upon this winter’s day.”
_____
“Yes, my King,” I humbly reply.
And although earlier my well was dry,
I find I have a brand- new source of life,
Which reaches out to me to quell the strife.
A new peace I feel inside my heart,
Though there before, now I can see it start.
The warmth, it spreads away from me
It melts the snow and causes blooms in trees.
I reach my hovel, where they’re gathered still,
Listing ways to have this coldness killed.
They silenced are when I at first appear,
But soon their faces show no signs of fear.
One look and they can tell I saw the King,
And that He pitied all our suffering.
Now I have the means to share the Light,
Warmth-giving and planting new life.
A renovation to refresh the land-
As creatures gather hand in hand,
The bitter winter, gone forever, stays
Far, far, far away.
The end.
August 29th,2009
Poetry |
2 Comments
Preface:
WordPress does not have any way to format actual footnotes, so I had to invent my own way of doing it. Keep in mind that this entry is complete satire. I wrote it trying to be silly. I hope you think it is funny! Enjoy!
________________________________
“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” Right? To a degree, I would say. Really this only applies to subjective beauty versus objective beauty. By Subjective Beauty I mean that Person A might find attractive qualities in a certain painting that Person B would not. Or perhaps B likes a different painting altogether. This is also true in what I broadly term “Mate-Seeking.” This is something most of us have experienced- both male and female humans alike have probably dated someone of the opposite sex which our closest friends, and/ or family members did not find attractive in the least and sooner or later excused the match by saying “Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder (1).
Subjective beauty applies to things like Other People (2), Works of Art, a Cityscape, One Person’s View of A Particular Species of Animal, and such like this. What we should say is “Subjective beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” We don’t say this though, because it’s redundant. When the qualities of a thing are interdependent upon the person interacting with it, it is subjectively qualitative, no matter what the quality is, be it beauty, largeness, smallness, even color to a degree.
The sky might be blue but ask one guy he‘ll say “What a light shade of blue.” and ask another and he might say “What a wonderful blue that is.” The thing is that they agree it is blue, just hold to different ideas as to what constitutes the “blueness” of a thing. That’s really what subjective means- it depends on who’s looking at it. What this phrase has come to mean is “All beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
This is most obvious in terms of animals, specifically the excrement of animals. Some people (3) will look at the waste of a particular animal and utter that vague phrase “How cute!” The male counterpart, whether it be Dad or Boyfriend, Husband or Grandfather, will merely nod in agreement. Their thoughts will proceed something like this: “It looks like shit to me.” As near as I am able to discern, the following animals produce a potty endeared by women the world over: kittens, rabbits. Apparently the cuteness of the animal is directly proportional to the cuteness of what comes out of the animal. A large mastiff named “Killer” does not have a cute toilet. A baby rabbit named “Mr. Thumpers” most certainly does. His toiletry habits would be referred to as darling and precious while the act of relieving himself would be called “potty-wotty.” Killer the mastiff, on the other hand, would have toiletry habits referred to as annoying and immense whilst the act of relief would be referred to as “a mudslide” or “the great deluge.” To reduce the idea to its lowest denominators: Big potty bad, small potty cute.
So would it follow that, if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, ugliness must be as well. If you don’t agree with your buddy that his girlfriend is the prettiest in the galaxy, say to him “Well, ugliness is in the eye of the beholder.” Then, to extract yourself from the predicament you’ve caused by saying the word “ugliness” in what he mistakenly believes to be a reference to his girlfriend, explain how you’re actually saying this phrase to reference yourself, not her. He’ll probably punch you in the eye anyway, just because he’s that kind of person.
See, when we say “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” we’re always talking about the other person’s eye. If you say “Ugliness is in the eye of the beholder,” (at least in the same context that you would normally say “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,”) you’re talking about your own eye. In the first, the beholder isn’t you. In the second, it is.
Most notable of this phrase is the predilection of those who utter it to only use it in reference to other people. No one says “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” in reference to a natural landscape, or a particular monument created by man. Neither does anyone (4) look at themselves in the mirror and think “I wonder if anyone looks at my girlfriend, then looks at me, then back and her and says ‘Beauty is in the eye of the beholder’. I must embark on a quest to avoid having this phrase uttered by anyone in reference to me or in reference to anyone I know.”
The next time you go to Colorado to see the Rocky Mountains and as you stand on a scenic overlook someone nearby says “What a glorious view” counter this proposition by responding, “Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” I would not be surprised to hear that you were pushed over the side of the mountain. But don’t worry, no one will look at your pulpy remains and utter, “Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
No one says it about car crashes, or a person who dies of a drug overdose. It isn’t said in reference to an episode of war, or a bloody battlefield. But if beauty really, truly is in the eye of the beholder, it would, could and should be said about all these things.
In a sense, beauty is like truth. Some things are beautiful and some things are not. Some things are true and some things are not. Some things have elements of beauty to them but do not, on the whole, present a compelling picture of beauty. Some things have elements of truth to them but do not, on the whole, present a compelling picture of truth.
This is why a great response to someone who claims truth to be a non-thing is to sidle up next to them and loudly declare there is no such thing as beauty either. You’ll see them hastily build an argument for the existence of beauty and just as hastily build an argument for the nonexistence of truth.
Of course, the most expeditious way to dismantle the claim that truth is nonexistent is to merely tell the person making the claim how beautiful you think their claim is. If they respond with “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” you’ve got them right where you want them.
The real reason to produce a completely useless argument is, of course, merely for the sake of the arguer’s amusement. What I suggest as a starting point for such an argument is naturally the phrase “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
It is most vital to appropriate such information that the common person would not usually possess, namely about some country’s current attempt to eradicate one kind of ethnicity utilizing those of a nearly-impossible-to-distinguish-ethnicity.
Those with a natural predisposition to the casual art of subterfuge will find it an infinitely(5) easier task than those who are not given to such inane “talents.”
Regardless of which kind of person you are, what you should do is quickly establish yourself on such a topic as you have researched. It is important that the topic be rather horrific and that you have read enough material on the matter to recall from memory some specific instance of annihilation.
Once you have established your authority on the subject, pick an even more horrific abstraction from within the mangled maze of death and destruction and pontificate on it for the rest of the time anyone is willing to listen to you talk. Then, when you have reached the limit of their willingness to listen, continue blathering for at least another third of the time you’ve already blathered.
For example, you are talking about Dictator So-and-So, and his ability to encourage one group to kill another group. “Boy, that’s terrible that happened,” you say. “Such death and murderous rage exacted upon one people by another. Awful.” you say. At this point your audience is nodding in collective agreement. “Terrible,” you go on saying (6), “But it is really wonderful when mankind works together for one grand purpose.”
Now your audience begins the sacred art of looking at the trees and guessing which one has the strongest branch capable of holding your body as it swings at the end of a rope. But you’re just getting started: “I know, I know. Hah! No, seriously though, it is just too bad they killed all those people. I am just the kind of person who looks at a group of people who formerly had no direction at all and see what they are now able to do. If only we could redirect their efforts in a positive way where there isn’t so much genocide…”
Oh sure, they’ll lynch you, but you’re right to try to encourage dialogue. Forget about dying with dignity or nobility. Forget about asking them to show a shred of human decency or asking them not to commit “monocide (7).” Just die accurately and in dying accurately, you also die correctly because that is a synonym for accurately (8).
————————————————-
Footnotes
1) Interesting side note here: by and large this phrase is uttered as a last resort, when all practical reasons for one person’s taking to another without any obvious physical beauty of a certain party has been exhausted. We don’t start by saying this phrase- we finish with it. Kind of like a throwing up of the hands in surrender to an ideology we realize we cannot fully comprehend.
2) We should see each other as objectively beautiful by virtue of our being created in the image of God and as such we are each bearers of an intrinsic dignity. But with our being fallen this has tragically worked its way out of our instinct.
3) Women, usually. My wife, even more usually.
4) Unless they are particularly given to pointless ramblings about the experiential ramifications of a certain phrase- me, for instance.
5) Well, ok, not infinite, but so near infinite that we might as well call it infinite, because the word “finite” would be terribly misleading and cause no small confusion. Maybe the best thing to do would be to intentionally mispronounce the word “infinite,” instead saying “in finite.” Thus, if you are challenged, you can safely play the card that you didn’t say “infinite,” you said “in finite” and as such are free from any obligations which might arise from using the word “infinite” in a totally inappropriate context.
6) Because you’re the kind of person who doesn’t know when to shut the hell up.
7) Monocide- the act of killing one person really thoroughly. I made this up.
8) You also would have the pleasure of dying exactly, precisely, regularly, faultlessly and rightly.
August 13th,2009
Humorless |
1 Comment
Several astute readers have pointed out the seeming discrepancy between my two most recent blogs posted before this one. In one blog I identified the reason for my hesitancy in committing to Xenos- cussing. In the next blog I posted a diatribe written by me while I still attended a church of the institution- and it was filled with cussing (as those same astute readers pointed out)! So why did I cuss at my old church and then come to Xenos and say “I don’t like this church because they cuss”? I am going to try as best as I can to explain. I can’t really explain how but I think I can explain why.
So here’s the final blog of this miniseries, the “one blog to rule them all.”
I’ve been trying to identify the way I was thinking. Sure, it was bad. I was cynical, bitter and unloving ad infinitum.
In trying to pick apart my attitude-in-remission, I can only agree with Keith’s assessment, which he so eloquently posits in a brief comment following the “Harbinger…” blog. He calls it a “Rich Young Ruler Syndrome” and that’s exactly what it is. I probably have a different idea of what exactly Keith means by that phrase but I’ll try to explain what I think he means.
The evangelical institutional church is good for (at least) one thing: educating young people. I have had the Bible read to me, by me and for me since I was a toddler. You don’t walk away from twenty-plus years of Sunday school education without retaining at least something. And I was home-schooled in a conservative Christian home where we regular Bible reading was part of my mother’s curriculum as well! With all this knowledge coming in, I retained quite a bit.
This is a blog about knowledge, particularly my knowledge.
It’s weird- in the institutional church, in the institutional church body, it’s largely a goody-two-shoes type of environment. Can we play cards? Does God have “a beat?” Is drinking beer the same thing as committing murder? Is listening to rock music sinful? Those questions are the hairpin at the heart of the institutional church. A kid raised in that environment spends his entire spiritual upbringing “wrestling” with tough questions like this!
But boy do we know our stuff. We had Bible drills when I was in junior high. They supplied the “game” portion of Sunday School. How would you younger guys like that? An old, tired, gray-skinned and liver-spotted lady at the front of the room says something like “Haggai 2:12” and all the class in unison scrambles through their Bibles hoping to be the first to find the “drilled” verse. This was our GAME TIME.
So you’re raised in this environment where all this knowledge is coming in…but no one is telling you how to apply it to your life. You are frequently at the business ends of mindless platitudes and trite Christian-ese like “Just have more faith,” or “Try to do God’s will.” It’s an environment where you’re always hearing “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15). You’re always hearing about how you can “…soar with wings as eagles” (Isaiah 40:31). Everyone in the church is on that unending quest for the next verse that will look great carved in a block of wood and sitting on the mantle at home.
Knowledge, knowledge, knowledge. This stuff is drummed into you from the time you can understand the English language! Everyone around you lives this nicey-nice life where apparently they have overcome every human temptation and recognize sin as something only other people struggle with.
So how the fuck does a Christian teen rebel against all that institutionalized bullshit? He writes cuss words in his diary while sitting in the main worship service of the same church that taught him cussing was sinful, and then feels guilty about it.
In that atmosphere of nicey-nice, you want to be seen as the NOT NICE one. So you might cuss every now and then so all your nicey-nice friends look at you and go, “Ooh, he’s the worldly one…” The other guys’ moms shake their heads when they walk past you in the narthex, muttering to their husbands about how they overheard you say H-E-double-hockey-sticks last week.
So you want to be seen in the institutional church as the “bad boy.”
Then you come to a church where everyone is a rebel and your entire rebellion is dismantled.
The only option is to self-righteously proclaim “What the Bible actually says,” and how you know this because you were raised in the church. You were raised in the church, which means you’re better! You’re not like these, these, little filthy-filthkins and their cussing.
You fucking Pharisee. You fucking god-damned Pharisee.
You couldn’t fucking love your way out of an empty fucking room.
This is why my blog is called “I Incriminate Myself.”
I’m prefacing the main entry of this blog with a few notes.
First, the reader should be aware that I originally penned this in approximately 2003. At that time I was still largely connected to the institutional church- I even wrote it during a Sunday morning service!
In trying to recall what it was that set this tirade off, I can only remember that the minister told us to stand for corporate prayer and that word- corporate- really pissed me off. So, sitting there in Sunday morning church next to my mother, while all the other congregates were singing “Oh, How I Love Jesus,” I was angrily and bitterly penning the following words:
———————————————————
Is this what God intended?
We even say “corporate” worship- like the church is a business or some silly shit like that, as though God/ Jesus is our fucking boss and we’re his employees not his followers. As though Jesus was the one who started this “business” of Christianity and now it’s all the church body’s responsibility, duty, job function, whatever, to keep giving money to this corporation to keep the lights on and the heater running. What a crock of bullshit. I fucking hate Sunday.
And what’s up with these songs? I fucking swear it sounds like a dead person is setting the tempo. God forbid we sing anything from our own time. For some reason no one wants to oust that shit from the annals of our corporation’s fucking melting pot. Why? Because they’re fucking tradition, that’s why. Our holy ass ancestors wrote that shit and today, hundreds of years later, we still sing that shit. Well, I’m sick.
———————————————————
The same notebook which contained the rant above also contains several poems. Some, I think, are insightful if not cynical:
———————————————————
“If only I had forever to sing Your love
I’d waste it all on loving myself.”
———————————————————
“Compare:
Like what is He?
Not like: me
Nor like: he
Nor: she
Nor all of us: we.
He is I AM.”
———————————————————
“Roaring from 24 comes this pain- I need no more.
I’ve realized I’m memorizing
Every vice- myself enticing…”
———————————————————
“Bourgeoise and proletariat- all are reeds within His love.”
———————————————————
“I’m a diamond. No one cuts but He who set me free.”
———————————————————
In retrospect, my mindset at this time could be best explained with another poetic analogy. I am sure you will recognize the source of this one:
“There’s no earthly way of knowing
Which direction we are going.
There’s no knowing
Where we’re going
Or which way the boat is rowing.”
What the *#$! Is Wrong With Cussing?
When I first starting coming to Xenos, my biggest point of conflict with the group was not the smoking. My problem did not lie with the group’s condoning of alcohol or the absence of singing. I already was a smoker and took the occasional nightcap. In my former church, I had sang enough worship choruses and hymns to successfully fill my mind with a loop tape of “Lord I Lift Your Name on High” and “Battle Hymn of the Republic” until the day I die, so I wasn’t mourning their loss either.
My singular biggest problem with the Xenos fellowship was the cussing. I mentioned this to my wife on several occasions. I would allow, “They might be right in everything else they do,” but would then conclude, “But they cuss.” As if in that conclusion all the seeds planted and the fruit harvested was all swept away in one legalistic brush of my fundamental hand.
Her response was one of grace tempered with logic. “Well,” she began, “When someone comes around who has never heard of Christ or does not know how to love, we focus on the way they relate to people- not whether or not they cuss.” I would buckle to this. What rational person would not? However, I still secretly maintained my stoic attitude that “Christians shouldn’t cuss.”
Why the fuck did I think this way? Partly, I thought this way because I and my siblings were not raised around cussing. Mom and Dad were very strict on this point. I’m not sure it had much to do with any biblical source material. They merely felt that nice people don’t cuss, we are nice people, so we don’t cuss.
In church I think the attitude was basically the same: Christians are supposed to be nice people. Nice people don’t cuss. DON’T CUSS. Cussing was given all kinds of scary names to make it sound really terrible. It was called “foul language,” “obscenities,” “cursing,” and other pseudonyms which really miss the mark for any kind of meaningful description.
It really is a tragedy, though. The church looks at the alienation of people from Christ and, instead of thinking “I’m fucking reaching these people if it kills me,” only thinks “This isn’t nice.” Instead of looking at the relational abuse so prevalent from person to person, it says “This stinks,” instead of “This is bullshit.” The church sounds like a dork.
The apostle Paul was no stranger to harsh language. He was of the people, by the people and for Christ. His attitude was such that he concluded, “Yes, everything else is worthless when compared with the infinite value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have discarded everything else, counting it all as garbage, so that I could gain Christ…” in Philippians 3:8. Do you know what the Greek transliteration of “garbage” is in this verse? It’s the word “skubalon,” which, roughly translated to English, means “shit.”
Cuss words, like all words, have the capacity to edify as well as the capacity to tear down. Cussing is a both-and, not an either-or.
The biblical justification for teaching people not to cuss is, unfortunately, a lopsided attempt to remove grace from the equation and exert control and power over a free willed group of people! The fucked up thing is that it often is successful because a lot of Christians don’t take the time to examine for themselves exactly what the Bible says and why it says it. They’re satisfied with status quo (that exists in the church, too, people)!
All too frequently, the verse thrown at young Christians to get them out of that terrible, awful, no good cussing habit is Ephesians 5:4 which says “Obscene stories, foolish talk, and coarse jokes- these are not for you. Instead, let there be thankfulness to God.” I don’t see any mention of cussing in there. And even if you eliminate that one thing from your life, in order to be biblical, you must replace it with “thankfulness to God.” I know people who don’t cuss. Whoopty fucking doo. They aren’t thankful, grateful, joyful, or any other kind of “ful” toward God. Except maybe “resentful.”
Even in this classically mistreated verse from Ephesians 5, I think it’s important to look at the Greek to see exactly what kind of idea the writer was trying to get across. Maybe some Bibles do include cussing in that short list of things not to talk about. Let’s see:
The three Greek transliterated words used in this passage from Ephesians are aisxrothv, mwrologiða and eutrapeliða. Literally translated, they mean filthy obscenity, foolish talking and ribaldry (sexually suggestive or grotesque) respectively. Now I’m no professor of language but it seems to me that even though cussing can be used to accomplish all these things- cussing can be obscene! Cussing can be used to talk foolishly! Cussing can be used to graphically describe sexuality! It just doesn’t automatically follow that all use of cussing is these things!
Some fundamental Christian out there might be preparing to gnash their teeth and sit amongst the ashes while draped in sackcloth. Don’t bother. I’m sitting in the ashes already- and I don’t even own a sackcloth! Before you prepare to dismantle my argument, let me just say that I am not arguing that everyone should cuss! I’m not arguing that cussing is always appropriate! In this blog I did not set out to address the rules of modern decorum- merely to show that, biblically speaking, you cannot say a Christian should never, ever, ever cuss.
Just think about things a little more critically- you might be surprised. Is your church giving you rules to have rules? A lot of churches do this. The battle cry of the institutional church seems to be “We need more rules!”
Well I, for one, am very fucking tired of that bullshit. Now grab your hymnals and turn to page 359, where we’ll sing “On a hill far away stood an old rugged cuss.”
What a great Summer Institute! There were so many great speakers, it was difficult to listen to them all in person- you were almost guaranteed to miss out on something. Thank God for the technology of the internet, so we who did not get to listen firsthand can still benefit from the talks!
I have noticed a few brothers and sisters in our fellowship seem to be somewhat joyless lately.
That is a real tragedy and I want to take a few minutes to build you up. I am going to share my own thoughts about joy and how I go about “feeling joyful.” I hope it helps you in some way.
I have found great joy in bearing the burdens of others. Whether a brother or sister is excited about sharing the Gospel for the first time, or really seems to be beaten down by some trials in their relationships, nothing brings me more joy than drawing alongside them to share in the excitement or in the sorrow. Some may remember a recent CT at which I asked Keith where we draw the line in “rejoicing with those who rejoice and weeping with those who weep,” and his response was merely to read what that particular verse said. I decided to throw out the window terms and definitions and any “technical” mode of thought- because that was so unloving and really I was hindering myself at reaching out to people. I have (I think) begun to be in more of a mindset of a risk-taker than a risk-avoider. I’ll never get anywhere in my relationships and I’ll never run any farther in this race if I’m always trying to be smart enough not to get in that situation! To paraphrase Joni, “Let’s get messy!”
I find that my relationship with Sarah brings me great joy. To see the way our God has transformed her from an unsure, shy and withdrawn person into this marvelous advocate for the heart-changing power of the Gospel of Christ brings me wonderful joy! To confess my sin to her and to experience such a gracious forgiveness that it can only be Spirit-led brings me joy!
To look at people in our home church who once were lost but now are found, that brings me joy! To see those same new Christians reaching out immediately to the lost in a real and powerful way brings me excessive joy!
To encourage my closest buddies to be bold in their strivations to build a new friendship- and then to see them exercise spirit-filled boldness- that brings me great joy!
I haven’t even begun to talk about all the things God has done himself yet without me anywhere involved!
God created me! That makes me joyful!
I can be friends with Ryan Leon, Dave Kyle, Michael Plahuta, Andy Doman, Dan Haney and all these people! My friendships bring me joy! I can be taught by Keith or advised by Mark and Neil! Oh how joyous I am that all these friends care for me!
God sent Christ! Boy is that an occasion for joy!
He did that because he loves me, and Christ came because he loves me! They both love me!? What an occasion for joy!
I can share this with other people! I have to share this with other people! I want them to experience this joy, too!
If you really consider the question “What is the best way to feel joy?” You will find the answer in a framework of gratitude.
No rational person could consider all that God has done for us and not be joyful!
I hope you experience a little bit of joy from my blog here!
In remembering my conversion to Christ as well as the means responsible for reconciliation to God, I cannot say enough about the glory of God represented in nature. I was a child and thought as a child. I looked at the world through the eyes of a young boy fascinated by the world around him. This still holds true today, although the young boy has grown into a young man.
This towering tree, that lush, green meadow, this mysterious wood or plentiful grove of trees whereby each creature in its proper office surrenders its will to a sovereign and beneficent Creator still touches my heart and serves as a reminder that to surrender my will is the ultimate act of worship. I am convinced, today more than ever, that all manner of life- both plant as well as animal- are completely infused with the memory of His Spirit and the creativity of His mind.
In some ways it is difficult for me to separate God from that which He has created. The glory of the Lord Christ is seen most fully in the person who lives for Him, but resonates deeply in nature, for “without him nothing was made that has been made” (1 John 1:2). Nature remembers who made her.
Certainly in this day and age, as we do see the result of mankind’s wrath upon the earth, it is a cause for contemplation. Does God cry, weep or mourn over the way we have treated what He pronounced as good? I do not think He does. No, the more I consider it, the more I conclude that the earth was created only as a context through which a free being could ultimately come to know Him. He does not weep for the earth, for this would seem to contradict the idea that His spirit is grieved by the unrepentant heart (Eph. 4:29). If He was grieved by both, we would forever be unsure of which, in His eyes, is valued more. In spite of the assurance of the Lord Christ found in the gospel of Matthew, that we are “worth more than many sparrows,” (Matt. 10:31) the lack of confidence man has in Almighty God results in so many like David, crying out “My God, my God! Why have you forsaken me?” (Psalm 22:2)
If His gaze ever did wander over the mistakes of humanity to see the havoc those great errors have beset on every side against the earth, not a single tear would fall until that same gaze beheld mankind itself- lost and without relationship with Him. If mankind treats the earth unspeakably, how much more unspeakable are those acts committed by man against his fellow men?
Before I knew the Lord Christ internally, I was aware of His presence externally. For me, “his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made” (Romans 1:20). I could not ignore it. At times I have wondered if this external knowledge is an immediate prerequisite to relationship. Is it the hammer that strikes the iron to forge the implement? My experience indicates that this certainly can happen. I did not experience some low of life where I sought after God as the answer to existential or philosophical dilemmas. I merely looked at creation and decided that whatever or whoever made it- that is Who I wish to follow.
We must remember also that, although “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it” (Psalm 24:1), it does not “belong” to Him. That is to say He turned over ownership to both devil and man. God created it. He infused it with life of all kinds, then gave up rightful dominion over it. Where, though, does the distinction lie? What on the earth truly does man hold dominion over and what on the earth does Satan rule over?
Is it possible that man’s dominion excludes man while Satan’s dominion includes man? Certainly Satan can use both man and earth but they are always used by him to increase destruction and reinforce man’s alienation from God. I do not think it is too much to say that Satan has never been involved in an act of creation. Obviously he has not the power to create ex-nihilo but is there another method by means of which he expedites his dastardly will? Just like man, Satan cannot create anything without something already being there. Just like man, he takes good things and uses them wrongly to reinforce worship of self. Satan definitely has power- unfathomable power- but it is not infinite. That which is unfathomable to us is a mere pittance in the shadow of Almighty God.
When I speak of the glory of God being represented in nature, I do not mean some kind of pantheism where He occupies each and every thing. This is a concept which reduces God to a factor no greater than creation itself and He is quite clearly much greater. I do not imply that God created it, but now possesses it, much like a house builder who constructs the dwelling and forgets to leave a door by which he may exit. If God really, truly, was in His creation, it would beg questions of incompetence and absentmindedness. Our God is not contained in the trees, hills or rocks, for these are the very things that cry out and speak of His glory. Our God does not sing songs to Himself- creation does. It is not forced to do this. It does this because it is glad God created it. I do it because I am glad God created me.
I sincerely believe God has left his undeniable signature on the world He created. It would of course be something of an oversight to think that if a human artist signs his masterpiece, how much grander is the signature of the ultimate Artist?
The real question is, what constitutes the signature of God? Has he left any mark indelible- either in nature or in mankind? The answer is yes in both cases. Concerning nature- whatever of nature’s beauty incites within you the impression of grandeur and an exhilarating sense of majesty- that for you is evidence of God’s handiwork.
In mankind however, the signature is much more significant. Nature may possess something of the memory of God. Mankind was bestowed with His very presence. In the person of Christ, God became both part and parcel of mankind. By birth He entered, by death He exited and by resurrection He conquered. Nothing now is left to overcome, for His is a signature at which “every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth” (Phil. 2:10).
