Echoes in Eternity

This is a really good column by the son of Nate Saint, who was killed by the Waodani along with Jim Elliot and other missionaries in 1956. For more good reading on this subject, check out When Helping Hurts.

Often charity to help the poor attracts more people into poverty. One example I have noticed takes place when North Americans try to care for the needs of orphans in cultures different from our own. If you build really nice orphanages and provide good food and a great education, lots more children in those places become orphans. I see this happen all over. When we attempt to eradicate poverty through charity, we often attract more people into “needing” charity. It is possible to create need where it did not exist by projecting our standards, values and perception of need onto others.

So what is poverty? We in the “Wealthy West” have little understanding of “poverty.” As our standard of living has risen in developed countries, our perception of poverty has changed.

Consider how our definition of an orphan is different from most other cultures. In the U.S., you are an orphan if your mother and father have died. In South America (where I grew up), as in other contexts where extended family structures are intact, you are not really considered an orphan as long as you have a living grandparent, uncle, aunt or older brother or sister who is capable of helping take care of you. So when North Americans build an orphanage in South America, we “create” orphans by tempting family members to take advantage of our well-intentioned largess. This is seldom in the best interest of those children who are “orphaned” by our desire to meet what we perceive as their need.

This is so, so good.

For every gallon of gas that is sold in the United States, on average, the local, state and federal taxes come out to 48 cents. The average profit taken away from every gallon of gas by Exxon is --brace yourselves for unsavory news about the oil buccaneers -- 2 cents. If you don't like oil profiteering, then you really have to learn how to see our public servants as the equivalent of 24 Exxons, stacked on top of your travel plans like they were so many leeches.

Exxon feels free to take that 2 cents because they explored, researched, drilled, transported, refined, transported, and sold the gas that you were interested in buying. The government is entitled to it . . . why?

God says not to steal, and not even to think about stealing by means of coveting. We have to learn that our bad attitude toward free enterprise is caused by the larceny in our hearts. We think the way we do about oil companies because we want a piece of the action, for nothing. We don't think that way about predatory taxation for the same reason that one thief doesn't see the larceny in the heart of his fellow thieves. We are looking for the kickback.

As a wise man posted somewhere, "It's not theft if you have to fill out a form." So the devotional thought for the morning is that Jesus wants you to feel sorry for Exxon. And when we hear this call to radical discipleship, our faith staggers. Who can do these things? And the reply comes, comforting our hearts, that with God all things are possible.

Doug Wilson makes an astute observation.

We are told that the problem with the residents of Sodom is that they were seething with hatred and were willing to engage in violent sexual acts. And we are told this by people who are seething with hatred...

Zach Nielsen has a great post on the reason behind why we don't see many Down's Syndrome people anymore.

Because today 90% of women who are given the news that their baby in the womb has Down's, elect to have that child terminated through abortion murdered. I know that language sounds quite harsh and potentially inflammatory. But shouldn't we call it what it is? If we can agree that it is a human person in the womb, (we don't need a Bible to prove this, just a 10th grade science class) shouldn't we call it what it is? If it is a human person in the womb, should we be shocked when we hear the word "murder"? Shouldn't that shock lead us to stop the practice of it instead of softening language so that people's feelings don't get hurt by the word "murder"?

Owen Strachan has a great post on the current kerfuffle about Rep. Weiner.

We don’t look at Anthony Weiner and the state of marriage today and scoff. We grieve. We know that outside of the grace of Jesus Christ we could well be wreaking that kind of havoc. We feel just anger at what is transpiring, anger that inspires us to break awkward silences and share the gospel with those we encounter. In our churches, through the fellowship of brothers and much prayer to a great God, we show the world a better way, a new breed of men, redeemed, not boys, not unfaithful, not dogs.

Yesterday was the 113th birthday of the late great RG LeTourneau, the founder of my alma mater, LeTourneau University. In honor of the man, Donald Miller wrote a short post on his blog. I thought I would add some other interesting information about RG. For one, he holds more U.S. patents (mostly in heavy construction and earthmoving technology) than anyone except Thomas Edison. His equipment served as 70% of the U.S. Army's road-making equipment during WWII. He also took his technology over to Africa and made hundreds of roads into central Africa. He worked closely with several presidents, including George H.W. Bush. He also is credited with revolutionizing heavy equipment, including the invention of mobile offshore drilling platforms (a model of which can be seen in the museum on the LeTourneau campus). But probably the most astounding fact about the man is that he lived on only 10% of his income and gave the rest away to missions around the world. An amazing man!

Doug Wilson wrote an excellent post on the recent flap surrounding Ron Paul's comments in a recent Republican debate in favor of legalizing drug use and prostitution.

While many Christians are unsettled by Paul's idea of legalizing drugs, for example, I am far more concerned about the millions that have gotten themselves addicted to the crack cocaine of other people's money, and who need a daily fix of their power and privilege, paid for by beyond ridiculous economic policies.
...
Adultery was a crime in ancient Israel, and a great deal of that activity is committed with prostitutes, and so, there you go. But smoking dope was not a crime under biblical law, and so there you go. And lest you think this would create a vast population of lotus eaters, the Bible does not give us warrant to create a great network of welfare payments that enable people to live like irresponsible potheads, getting dope from friends and their dinner of Cheetos from their food stamps. If we didn't fund it, we probably wouldn't have quite so much of it. Just a thought.
...
Many of our modern statist do-gooders and bedwetters think they do not fit the description of the abusive rulers in the Lord's parable because their intentions (viewed under the magnifying glass of their very own wisdom) are so clearly good and full of the waft of sunny uplift. But they are the ones who created the wastelands of the modern American inner city, filled our American penitentiaries with millions of men, who live out their lives in the greatest dog pound ever, and who choked the economy that could feed the world by harassing hard-working men and women all day every day with niggling restrictions, regulations, and rules. Morever, they are impervious to any evidence that would actually demonstrate to them the desolations caused by their pride and officiousness.

U2's Bono conducted an interview a few years ago (that I just came across today) and in it he clearly and repeatedly presented the Gospel. Salvation by grace through faith alone is the drum he beat, and he beat it well.

There's nothing hippie about my picture of Christ. The Gospels paint a picture of a very demanding, sometimes divisive love, but love it is. I accept the Old Testament as more of an action movie: blood, car chases, evacuations, a lot of special effects, seas dividing, mass murder, adultery. The children of God are running amok, wayward. Maybe that's why they're so relatable. But the way we would see it, those of us who are trying to figure out our Christian conundrum, is that the God of the Old Testament is like the journey from stern father to friend. When you're a child, you need clear directions and some strict rules. But with Christ, we have access in a one-to-one relationship, for, as in the Old Testament, it was more one of worship and awe, a vertical relationship. The New Testament, on the other hand, we look across at a Jesus who looks familiar, horizontal. The combination is what makes the Cross.
...
You see, at the center of all religions is the idea of Karma. You know, what you put out comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics; in physical laws every action is met by an equal or an opposite one. It's clear to me that Karma is at the very heart of the universe. I'm absolutely sure of it. And yet, along comes this idea called Grace to upend all that "as you reap, so you will sow" stuff. Grace defies reason and logic. Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions, which in my case is very good news indeed, because I've done a lot of stupid stuff.
...
I'd be in big trouble if Karma was going to finally be my judge. I'd be in deep s---. It doesn't excuse my mistakes, but I'm holding out for Grace. I'm holding out that Jesus took my sins onto the Cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity.
...
But I love the idea of the Sacrificial Lamb. I love the idea that God says: Look, you cretins, there are certain results to the way we are, to selfishness, and there's a mortality as part of your very sinful nature, and, let's face it, you're not living a very good life, are you? There are consequences to actions. The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took on the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. That's the point. It should keep us humbled . It's not our own good works that get us through the gates of heaven.

This video by Francis Chan is really powerful. He speaks to the arrogance behind certain ways of approaching Scripture... so true.

Do you ever even consider the possibility that maybe the Creator's sense of justice is actually more developed than yours?... See, when we make statements like "Well, God wouldn't do this, would he?", do you understand at that moment you're actually putting God's actions in submission to your reasoning?"

"I really think that in our days it is the "undogmatic" and "liberal" people who call themselves Christians that are the most arrogant and intolerant. I expect justice and even courtesy from many atheists and, much more, from [conservative Christians]: from [postmodernists] I have to take bitterness and rancour as a matter of course." - C.S. Lewis

This is a very helpful interview of Rob Bell from the UK (with Adrian Warnock as an opposing viewpoint). I've posted the video of the full interview below, but you can go to the link to find short clips as well. The "Hell" one is particularly eye-opening. It's pretty clear that Bell is in no way an Evangelical, at least if we use the classical meaning of the term. Most of these issues and questions would be rather easily solved if people had a robust and Biblical understanding of election and salvation by grace.

Here are some great suggestions for helping your kids understand and personalize Easter this Holy Week.

"Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?"

Imagine if Christians actually acted like they believed Paul was serious when he wrote that in 1 Corinthians 6...

I've had something slowly forming in my mind in regards to the current discussion by Rob Bell and others around the idea of God eventually overwhelming almost everyone with His love and bringing them all into eternal life with Him. Besides the fact that it makes it sound like God is a bit of a creepy wimp ("I'll eventually get you to love me, I'll just outlast you like a stalking ex-wife"), I wonder if it also implies a form of salvation by works (or earned grace, if you will). Aren't ALL people enemies of God in their natural state and equally bankrupt in spirit? Then why would some resist God for eons and others for just hours? If I come to Christ early in life, according to Bell's logic, doesn't that mean I have a better heart and am less an enemy of God than some atheist who takes nearly forever to bend his knee to God? But that's not Biblical. In my fallen state, I am just as much a worm as Christopher Hitchens and other God-hating atheists. It is only through Christ that I stand righteous before God. The only reason I came to God at all was due to nothing in myself but God's work within my hard heart. It seems like Bell's theology and doctrine actually do more to set up a hierarchy of sin and evil than a traditional Reformed theology and ultimately undermines the concept of salvation by grace alone. God chooses some for mercy, He chooses others as "vessels of wrath." AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SOME BEING MORE WORTHY OR OPEN TO GOD THAN OTHERS. Paul tried his best to make that clear in Romans, even by anticipating objections to it, yet still people deny it.

I had the opportunity to go hear Rob Bell speak in person last night to a packed (2000 or so people) house. It was an interesting evening. While Bell continued his general taste for obfuscation and avoiding the issue, he did answer a couple questions quite honestly and forthrightly. One, which was similar to one that I had hoped to ask, came from a young man in front of me. In short, the man asked Bell that since he is a "big tent" Christian who claims that there are many good and helpful views and we shouldn't exclude anyone, is his theology big enough to allow for the possibility that one form God's love may take is in sending some "reprobate vessels of wrath" (to use the questioner's term) to hell, as shown clearly in Romans 9 (Romans 9:22 in particular). Bell said no, he won't accept that view. It was a stunning admission. His tolerance of other viewpoints is only for those who accept his doctrinal beliefs (and they are doctrine). And if someone dares to actually read Romans 9 for what it says, that is unacceptable. It was a great question, and an illuminating answer. The spiritual darkness in the place (a Church of Christ sanctuary) was palpable. When the aforementioned person posed his question, I saw smirks and sneers in the faces of the so-called Christian leadership in the front rows, people like Greg Boyd and Tony Jones. "But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise..."

Pray that Bell and those who have swallowed his lies would come to see the truth and know that God is love but also holy. That He is both just and the justifier of all who believe. Flattening God out to a one-note god is making a god that resembles little of what we find in the Bible.

My men's pastor has written a very helpful post on the topic of Christians getting tattoos. You can read it here. I would add a couple small things.

1) I would go beyond point 11 and ask if getting at tattoo would honor their parents, even if obeying them is no longer an issue. Even if you're 39 and haven't lived with your parents for two decades, if they have a low view of tattoos and have verbalized this to you previously, would getting a tattoo dishonor them or have the potential for appearing to be in rebellion toward their wishes? If so, then you must have a really really good reason to ignore their wishes or you should abstain (even if you can answer the rest of the points well and Biblically).

2) Anyone thinking about getting a tattoo should not only consider the 16 points given above, but should also ponder long and hard the question of "why am I truly wanting a tattoo?" The heart is deceitful, after all. Is it merely a coincidence that tons of your friends are getting them because it is the cool thing to do and because the culture says that it is cool, or have you unwittingly become conformed to culture and peer pressure? It doesn't necessarily make it wrong that convicts, hip hop artists, and sports stars (oops, that's kinda redundant, isn't it?) are the primary people to be covering their bodies in tattoos, but it should make every faithful Christian pause. In 1 Peter 3, Christian women were warned to avoid the cultural trappings of fine jewelry and clothing and elaborate hairstyles and instead base their beauty and "coolness" on their inner Spirit-filled self. I believe Peter's words could well apply to the topic of tattoos.

These are two great articles on what makes a truly Biblical doctrine of Hell.

It has become common for Christians to describe hell as our freely chosen identity apart from God. Hell, it is said, is not so much where God sends the wicked, as much as it is what the wicked choose or create for themselves. This is the view famously espoused by C.S. Lewis in The Great Divorce. Lewis argues that hell is our own self-absorption and idolatry let loose for all eternity. Hell is God’s way of saying “Thy will be done” to us when we refuse to say “Thy will be done” to God. Hell is what we get when we choose human freedom instead of divine salvation. The gates of hell may be locked for eternity, but they are locked from the inside. We refuse to give up the hell within us, so hell is what we get around us.

There is an element of truth in all this. As one way to look at hell, the Lewis version can be helpful. It emphasizes that no one in hell is truly penitent. God doesn’t punish people for a few sins in this life and then keep them locked up forever as they pour out their hearts in genuine faith and repentance. No, the damned never turn from their rebellion. They may regret their choices like the rich man in Luke 16, but they never genuinely repent.
...
But if that’s all we say about hell we are giving people a massively distorted view of divine punishment. Lewis’ depiction of God’s justice has an element of truth to it, but by itself it is monumentally misleading. Divine punishment–hell, in its eternal form–is not simply what we get because we make poor decisions or decide to live a selfish life. Hell is what we get because God is offended by our sin and punishes it. We see everywhere in Scripture that divine wrath is a curse on the ungodly, not a mere consequence for self-centered decisions. Hell is much more than God simply allowing us to have our own way and to experience all the bad effects of our choices. Hell is God’s active, just, holy wrath poured out on the disobedient.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They will not be judged for their rejection of Jesus, of whom they have heard nothing... People will be held accountable and judged on the basis of the revelation that God has made of himself to them. And this revelation is unmistakable, unavoidable, and sufficiently pervasive and clear that the failure to respond as well as the turn to idolatry renders them “without excuse.” They will be righteously judged for rejecting the Father, not for rejecting the Son.

Perfect.

Robbed Hell - C.A.S.T. Pearls Presents from Canon Wired on Vimeo.