Update...because it has been a while.

Over the last year, I have found myself questioning a great deal of what I have come to think about salvation, sanctification, and the role of the Christian in that process. I am coming to believe it is indeed a process and not just an act or event. Like many others before me, I have grown tired of feeling guilty for my sin, confessing it to God, praising Him for forgiveness, practicing thankfulness, trying REAL hard to do better, getting worn down by insignificant trials, losing zeal, plodding through the scriptures, feeling like an imposter around other believers, trying really hard to get back what is waning, living through dry spells where God seems far away, and then failing again. I must admit this cycle seems to repeat itself with mind-numbing regularity! Like a fool, I start over doing the same things the same way and somehow expecting a better outcome each time. .

 

The single most significant thing I feel is missing from my relationship with God is an accurate understanding of the relationship itself. I have recently come to learn that the this year marks the 400th anniversary of the King James translation of the Bible into English.  Over four centuries the Word of God has been rendered into hundreds of variations of English translations; some of them better than others.  However, the English translation of the greek word “dulos” occurs more than 130 times in the New Testament alone and it has historically been translated as “servant” (or some variant of servant).  That is a tragic understatement.

As described in John MacArthur’s new book Slave, the word dulos is always and only used to refer to a slave. In the gospels, Christ uses a great deal of slavery language when he talks about his disciples and the kingdom of Heaven. In the epistles, Paul uses many, many more references to our position as slaves – Christian's are a wholly owned possession of God’s. Perhaps there was a conspiracy with the King James translators’ handling of the word…or perhaps it was “hidden” to serve a different time or purpose (“to those who have ears”) but the fact remains…and without reputable dispute I may add…if we are being saved by grace then we are the slaves of the One who is saving us and that has some very significant ramifications for a self-important Church.

 

We do live in an age of “easy-believism” whereby all Christians get "cheap grace".  God's gift of salvation is NOT somthing we can earn or deserve, but because it costs us nothing, we often treat it as if it didn't cost anything to anyone at all.   Each believer claims to have a personal relationship with God, but our lives are lived in a way that is contrary to His commands as communicated in the Bible.  

• "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."~ John 13:35
• "You are my friends if you do what I command." ~ John 15:14

 The reality is a "cheap-grace" kind of theology seems to allow us the margin to live our lives largely on our own terms. We feel entitled to come and go as we please.  We feel entitled to a life filled with good things and mostly free of hardship - simply because we chose to accept Jesus as our savior. If our kids do not turn out right, or if our income does not cover our expeditures at the end of the month, or if a competitor gets something we wanted, then we feel like we are suffering or being asked to endure hardship. The more I search for what is Real in this life, the more I seem to be led back to this one question:

 

What role do I play in my own salvation? It isn’t very profound at first glance, but it often leads me to ask many more. Each time I chase another element down another rabbit trail.

 

• Would I still believe in God if it literally cost me everything?
• Could I spend nights in a homeless shelter or in a box behind a restaurant if God led me into poverty?
•  What if I am ever asked to leave my wife and children?
• Is the death of a loved one too extreme of a sacrifice for a loving God? (The Old Testament prophets and patriarchs were ROUTINELY asked to give up family.) Why?  How could that be "good"?
•  Would I be willing to live with a ruined reputation for the sake of the “gospel”…especially if what was said and thought of me was untrue and hurtful to those I loved?
•  Would I be willing to live with a painful or debilitating handicap?
•  Could I find joy in my life if God never spoke to me or offered me any other assurances than what can be found in scripture?
• What if God remains silent forever?

Do I believe that I know my limits better than my Creator? Do I live that way?

 

I think it is quite reasonable to expect that I will never understand God. Not even a little bit. I try to understand the scriptures and the timelines and I like to explore the Hebrew and Greek words when there is a subtlety that our clumsy language is insensitive to. However, the more I try to understand Him the farther away I go from where he has invited me to sit.

 

What does it mean to have the Faith of a child? How does a child love? What does a Child know about the ones they love and trust? What is a child given by his father? What is a child’s responsibility?

 

Why did the world’s wisest man fail at the end of his life (pathetically) when – from his youth – God blessed him with wisdom and wealth like no one has ever known before or since?

 

The very things we think are wise choices and good investments or sound logic can all be diversions from a child-like faith. Family, home, hobbies, and retirement can all be good things, even blessings from God, but they are ALL secondary. I am still not at the point where I could just walk away from the life “I have built” and follow Jesus like Matthew did.

 

What does it look like to “seek first the Kingdom of God”?

 

The American Church has either ignored or been blinded to the truth. The Bible calls us slaves and so we should regard ourselves as slaves and then think and live accordingly.

 

How would your choices be different if you were convinced that you had been purchased – body and soul – into a life of slavery? Is THAT the true cost of Grace? Do we need to die to self?  

What price was paid for our freedom?

What does Paul say we give in exchange for salvation?

I am several chapters into John MacArthur’s book and the slave concept seems to have crossed my path at a very curious time. My friend Luke calls the effect of God’s work in my life “dismantling”. I am really enjoying listening to his sermons lately.

 

http://www.gladewaterbiblechurch.com/

 

Meanwhile, I still wrestle with the Angel.

 

Invisible things...

Found something cool in my Bible reading for Today. I had seen it some time ago and wondered about it...(but then forgot completely until today.)


Now, it's back on my radar and this time something triggered a crossed wire in my brain. I seemed to recall a conversation I eavesdropped shared by some of my nerdier cohorts about the nature of Matter. I looked it up, and apparently there is a growing consensus among the erudite "scientific community" that supports the notion that the universe and all the matter within it are basically WAVES.

Simply stated, the smallest building blocks of all matter are just pulses and waveforms juxtaposed in the vacuum of space.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html

This surprising theory comes as no surprise to God of course. He was the originator of ALL things. What is more interesting to me is the possibility that God may have revealed a similar explanation for the universe thousands of years ago...to the author of Hebrews.

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." Hebrews 11:1-3

The word of God created matter from things that are not visible...like waves!


The more we listen, the more we learn.

14.01 TRILLION...and climbing like a bottle rocket.

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

Sen. Barack Obama
March 16, 2006


(In 2006, when this statement was made, the national debt was $8.27 trillion due, in part, to George W. Bush's "Failure of Leadership".)
SOURCE

Pot,  meet Kettle.

Prepared?

Today is Tuesday, October 12th, 2010 according to the accepted "western" calendar. This day does not hold any real significance to me or anyone close to me that I am aware of at the moment. That is to say, that today might be exactly the kind of day where the unexpected happens and all of us are caught unprepared. What do I mean?

Well, some friends of mine have been casually talking about preparing ourselves for "the unexpected". We are looking to wean ourselves from the creature comforts and common luxuries of the suburban lifestyle that is nearly ubiquitous in America. We are interested in learning how to grow our own fruits and vegetables. We are learning how to raise and butcher farm animals for food. We are learning how to fish and hunt. We are learning how to can food, chop wood for fires, read a natural landscape, cook sensibly and provide healthy food for our kids. We are looking backward and trying to glean from our past the skills that helped our forefathers survive and succeed.

Why? Because each one of us feels like something is coming. Our sense of ambiguous alarm might just be based on a knee-jerk reaction to cultural changes or it could be a real spiritual stirring. Whatever the true nature is, the net effect is that me and several other God-fearing men are taking steps to be better prepared to live and help others if and when the civilization we are accustomed to fails to meet our basic needs.

Today, I have been thinking about what fundamental skills a man should posses in order to take care of his family and help his friends when our technological infrastructure is not functioning... and things like clean water, healthy food, and shelter are no longer guaranteed. I am making a list of tools I will need, and skills I must learn. These must be taught and passed on to my boys so they can do the same.

Modern society is a historical anomaly. Mankind has existed for 6,000 years (give or take a few) and in all that time only 300 years have we enjoyed any kind of industrial technology at all. The Internet was born on January 1, 1983 when TCP/IP replaced an older technology and connected various government networks...but it wasn't until 1988 that the backbone of routers were built by an initiative of the National Science Foundation linking several Universities around the United States and, eventually, the World. When I was in college in 1995, the Internet and email were just becoming commonplace. It is difficult to imagine life without computers, or cell phones, or credit/debit cards, or electricity. But give it a try.

A good friend of mine sent me a quote this morning via email and I thought I would post it here. It's not overly profound, but it does speak to that special something that sets man apart from the rest of creation.

"A human being should be able to change a diaper,
plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet,
balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch
manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, and gallantly.
Specialization is for insects."

Prepare yourself for action. Life is a verb.

Fathers Day is near. Where is Daddy?

Married Fathers: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty
Published on June 16, 2010 by Robert Rector

"The mainstream media, liberal politicians, activists, and academia bewail child poverty in the U.S. But in these ritual lamentations, one key fact remains hidden: The principal cause of child poverty in the U.S. is the absence of married fathers in the home.

 

According to the U.S Census, the poverty rate in 2008 for single parents with children was 35.6 percent. The rate for married couples with children was 6.4 percent. Being raised in a married family reduces a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 80 percent.

 

True, some of this difference in poverty is due to the fact that single parents tend to have less education than married couples. But even when married couples are compared to single parents with the same education level, the married poverty rate will still be about 70 percent lower.

 

Marriage is a powerful weapon in fighting poverty. In fact, being married has the same effect in reducing poverty as adding five to six years to a parent’s education level.[1]

 

 

A Two-Caste Society

 

Unfortunately, marriage is rapidly declining in American society. When President Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty in 1963, 93 percent of American children were born to married parents. Today the number has dropped to 59 percent.

 

In 2008, 1.7 million children were born outside marriage. As noted, most of these births occurred to women who will have the hardest time going it alone as parents: young adult women with a high school degree or less. College-educated women rarely have children outside marriage.

 

The U.S. is steadily separating into a two-caste system, with marriage and education as the dividing line. In the high-income third of the population, children are raised by married parents with a college education; in the bottom-income third, children are raised by single parents with a high school degree or less. Single parents now comprise 70 percent of all poor families with children. Last year, government provided over $300 billion in means-tested welfare aid to single parents.

 

(For more graphical representations of the connection between unwed childbearing and poverty, see “Marriage and Poverty in the U.S.: By the Numbers,” at http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2010/pdf/wm2934_bythenumbers.pdf.)

 

 

The Lifelong Effects of Fathers

 

The positive effects of married fathers are not limited to income alone. Children raised by married parents have substantially better life outcomes compared to similar children raised in single-parent homes. When compared to children in intact married homes, children raised by single parents are more likely to have emotional and behavioral problems; be physically abused; smoke, drink, and use drugs; be aggressive; engage in violent, delinquent, and criminal behavior; have poor school performance; be expelled from school; and drop out of high school.[2] Many of these negative outcomes are associated with the higher poverty rates of single mothers. But, in many cases, the improvements in child well-being associated with marriage persist even after adjusting for differences in family income. This indicates that the father brings more to his home than just a paycheck.

 

The effect of married fathers on child outcomes can be quite pronounced. For example, examination of families with the same race and same parental education shows that, when compared to intact married families, children from single-parent homes are:

• More than twice as likely to be arrested for a juvenile cme[3];
• Twice as likely to be treated for emotional and behavioral problems[4];
• Roughly twice as likely to be suspended or expelled from school[5]; and
• A third more likely to drop out before completing high school.[6]

The effects of being raised in a single-parent home continue into adulthood. Comparing families of the same race and similar incomes, children from broken and single-parent homes are three times more likely to end up in jail by the time they reach age 30 than are children raised in intact married families.[7] Compared to girls raised in similar married families, girls from single-parent homes are more than twice as likely to have a child without being married, thereby repeating the negative cycle for another generation.[8]

 

Finally, the decline of marriage generates poverty in future generations. Children living in single parent homes are 50 percent more likely to experience poverty as adults when compared to children from intact married homes. This intergenerational poverty effect persists even after adjusting for the original differences in family income and poverty during childhood.[9]

 

 

The Left’s Misdiagnosis

 

Marriage matters. But mentioning the bond between marriage and lower poverty violates the protocols of political correctness. Thus, the main cause of child poverty remains hidden from public view. And even when the Left reluctantly mentions the decline of marriage in low-income communities, most of what they say about it is untrue. For example,

 

Liberals insist that poor women become pregnant outside marriage because they lack knowledge about, and access to, birth control. In fact, virtually no non-marital pregnancies in low-income communities occur for that reason.[10]

 

Liberals insist that the main problem in low-income communities is “teen pregnancy.” In fact, only 8 percent of all out-of-wedlock births occur to teens under 18; most occur to young adult women in their 20s.

 

Liberals insist that most out-of-wedlock pregnancies and births are accidental. In fact, most women who give birth out of wedlock strongly desire children. Their pregnancies are partially intended or at least not seriously avoided.[11]

 

The Left also argues that poor single mothers do not marry because the fathers of their children lack jobs, income, and are largely “non-marriageable.” This also is untrue: Nearly all non-married fathers are employed at the time their children are born. Most have higher earnings than the mothers. In fact, if poor single mothers were married to the actual fathers of their children, two-thirds would immediately be lifted out of poverty.[12]

 

Finally, the Left argues that poor mothers and fathers are uninterested in marriage. Research by Harvard sociologist Kathryn Edin shows the opposite.[13] Low-income men and women greatly value marriage and aspire to be married. However, they no longer believe it is important to be married before having children. They idealize marriage, viewing it the same way the upper middle class might view a trip to Paris: an event that would be wonderful in the future but is not necessary or important at the present time. While the upper middle class get married first and then have children, the poor follow the opposite path; they have children first and then look for suitable partner to help raise them.

 

Edin’s research shows that most poor single mothers have traditional life goals.[14] They want a house in the suburbs, two kids, a husband, a minivan, and a dog. But they fail to understand the importance of marriage to achieving these goals. They see marriage as a symbolic ceremony that should occur in middle age, a celebration of one’s successful entry into the middle class. They do not appreciate that for most families in the middle class, marriage is a necessary pathway to financial stability and prosperity, rather than a symbolic event that comes after prosperity is achieved.

 

 

What Government Should—and Should Not—Do

 

To reinvigorate marriage in lower-income communities, government could provide factual information on the role of healthy marriages in reducing poverty and improving child well-being. It could explain why it is important to develop a stable marital relationship before bringing children into the world. It could teach skills for selecting potential life partners and building stable relationships.

 

But nothing could be farther from actual government practice. In social service agencies, welfare offices, schools, and popular culture in low-income communities across America, one finds deafening silence on the topic of marriage. The welfare system actively penalizes low-income couples who do marry.

 

The gag rule about marriage is nothing new. At the beginning of the War on Poverty, a young Daniel Patrick Moynihan (later Ambassador to the United Nations and Senator from New York), serving in the Administration of President Lyndon Johnson, wrote a seminal report on the negative effects of declining marriage among blacks. The Left exploded, excoriating Moynihan and insisting that the erosion of marriage was either unimportant or benign.

 

Four decades later, Moynihan’s predictions have been vindicated. The erosion of marriage has spread to whites and Hispanics with devastating results. But the taboo on discussing the link between poverty and the disappearance of husbands remains as firm as it was four decades ago.

 

Historically, the Left has been indifferent or hostile to marriage. For decades, feminists actually taught that marriage harmed women psychologically and economically. While few would accept those ideas literally anymore, an instinctive hostility to marriage remains imprinted on the synapses of most liberal academics. In most faculty lounges, enthusiasm for marriage would be quite gauche.

 

For most on the Left, marriage is, at best, an antiquated institution, a red-state superstition. From this viewpoint, the real task is to expand government subsidies as a post-marriage society is built. Given this backdrop, it is not surprising that the Obama Administration seeks to abolish the one existing government program aimed at strengthening marriage in low-income communities: the miniscule Healthy Marriage Initiative operated through the Department of Health and Human Services.

 

 

Marriage: The Antidote to Poverty

 

Despite the politically correct gag rule, marriage remains America’s strongest anti-poverty weapon. Unfortunately, marriage continues to decline. As husbands disappear from the home, poverty and welfare dependence will increase. Children and parents will suffer as a result.

 

Since the decline of marriage is the principal cause of child poverty and welfare dependence in the U.S., and since the poor aspire to healthy marriage but lack the norms, understanding, and skills to achieve it, it would seem reasonable for government to take steps to strengthen marriage. In particular, clarifying the severe shortcomings of the “child first, marriage later” philosophy to potential parents in lower-income communities would seem to be a priority.

 

To reduce poverty in America, policymakers should enact policies that encourage people to form and maintain healthy marriage and delay childbearing until they are married and economically stable. Marriage is highly beneficial to children, adults, and society. It needs to be encouraged and strengthened, not ignored and undermined."

 

 

 

Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in the Domestic Policy Studies Department at The Heritage Foundation.


Thank you Mr. Rector. 

Isn't it interesting how the Biblical worldview seems to be structured to benefit us rather than hurting us?

 

The wheel is turning.

You have no doubt heard how President Obama wants to “fundamentally change” our country. From his campaign speeches of 2008 to his ongoing “Goodwill” tours abroad he offers apologies for American arrogance, promises to change the American image and economic system, and unvarnished condemnation for our capitalistic greed.


While arrogance and greed are indeed a problem for many in the US, I think something about Obama's understanding of who we are as a country is tragically flawed.
The United States of America is far from perfect, but where we have come from is made clear with one accurate review of our history. We are a country that was originally founded upon principles that transcend human law and self-serving pursuits. Where we are now was an incremental corruption of where we started. This transition is due, in large part, to the failure of our people, from one generation to the next, to recognize our relationship to a divine Authority. We have either forgotten, or refuse to accept the fact that we are and must be “one nation under God”.
Consider the following quote from one of the greatest men to have ever served in the office of the presidency of the United States; President Ronald Reagan.

“When World War II ended, the United States had the only undamaged industrial power in the world. Our military might was at its peak, and we alone had the ultimate weapon, the nuclear weapon, with the unquestioned ability to deliver it anywhere in the world. If we had sought world domination then, who could have opposed us? But the United States followed a different course, one unique in all the history of mankind. We used our power and wealth to rebuild the war-ravished economies of the world, including those of the nations who had been our enemies.”

When we seek to live as God has taught us to live in His Word, then we shall live in peace and experience the bountiful successes of our grand history.

However, if we continue to live as if there is no sovereign God over us, then we are effectively choosing destruction. It could not be more simply stated.
As the proportion of our people that reject God’s authority continues to grow, I predict we shall all see the truth of the matter very soon.

We need to repent, brothers. Please reconsider?

Devoted

One dictionary defines the word devotion as, "ardent, often selfless affection and dedication, as to a person or principle."  Another affiliates the word with Love.

I have used the word for over a year now to define the whole of my theological position.  If we truly believe that Yeshua is the messiah (and He IS), then we have been called to live our lives for God.  But, there is a problem.

How often have we each tried to earnestly serve God?  Is it possible that the very act of trying is failure?

I have not fully developed the concept in my own mind, but I think I may have stumbled onto something I need to explore much more.  The whole process of failure, salvation, and "sanctification" is played out in our minds.  By the time that battle is manifested with physical action...the event has already taken place.

It is often hard to make up your mind to do something and then follow through with it.  Certainly the short-term consequences are different.  (Where short-term refers to the fullness of our lives from birth to physical death.)  Thinking an impure thought is obviously not the same thing as committing an unlawful act. Yet Yeshua describes plainly how thry are both sin, and the former is just as great a crime as the latter.

Then what is most important to us in our relationship with God is the reconcilliation of our selves to God's self.  That sounds weird, but I' trying to avoid the implication that a physical effort is required.  The Bible teaches that physical effort, regardless of how well intended or executed, is simply a dead end. 
I don't even think a good argument could be made for faith + works.  Works are a symptom of reconcilliation...not an ingediant in the formula.

So, what then.  What am I saying?

Devotion.  It is a spiritual response to an overwhelming force.  That overwhelming force is the ridiculously undeserved, but unrelenting Love of our creator God.  There is only One, and he insists on demonstrating his crazy love for us over, and over, and over again.  There has never been a person that could out run Him.