The Point of Our Worship

Most of us probably realize that a great number of our praise songs come from Psalms. What we might not realize is that many of those songs come from the psalms of lament. The laments are cries to God for help or justice in the middle of crisis or confusion, but they usually end with a statement of praise. Our songwriters clip the praise sections and use those for songs while ignoring the greater context of lament:

• We sing "As the deer pants for the water so my so longs after you." But if we were going to really sing Psalm 42, we’d continue, “My tears have been my food day and night, while people say to me all day long, ‘Where is your God?’” That’s not nearly as catchy, is it?
  
  
• We sing “I will praise you, Lord, among the nations; I will sing of you among the peoples. For great is your love, reaching to the heavens; your faithfulness reaches to the skies.” But if we sang the rest of Psalm 57,  we'd also sing "I am in the midst of lions; I am forced to dwell among ravenous beasts." Again, not nearly as happy-clappy.

Psalm 73 (our reading for today) is also lament, a struggle for faith despite the obvious injustice of the world. Asaph begins with a statement of faith, "God is good to Israel, to those who are pure in heart" (73:1). That is what he says, but the problem is that this is not what he feels. Asaph is going through a faith crisis, hence the lament of the psalm

But as for me, my feet had almost slipped; I had nearly lost my foothold. For I envied the arrogant when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. (Psalm 73:2-3)

What follows in verses 4-11 is the psalmists take on the injustices of the world. The evil prosper while the just suffer; those who have no faith or fear of God at all seem to also have no worries at all. The arrogant flaunt their rebellion for all to see, taunting God’s justice all the while. The more clearly the psalmist sees this injustice, the more he struggles with his faith. And even as he struggles, he feels that he can’t give voice to his doubts because of the impact that would have on the faith of others, "If I had spoken out like that, I would have betrayed your children." (v. 15)

What restores his faith is entered the sanctuary of God. It is worship that reminds Asaph that God is on the throne. And the throne of God reminds him that the wicked may flaunt God, but they will not escape Him. It was when he enters the sanctuary of God that he remembers the end of all things--

When I tried to understand all this, it was oppressive to me till I entered the sanctuary of God; then I understood their final destiny. (Psa 73:16-17)

He was looking at the prosperity of the wicked from his own vantage point. Here he was, an average smuck trying to do the right thing and having a hard go of it while wicked, evil people around him were oppressing the poor, flitting from party to party, and thumbing their nose at God. But in the sanctuary, Asaph has his perspective altered and he gets a glimpse from the throne of God. And that changes everything. Seeing the sanctuary allows him to see things as they really are, and that changes his tune… literally--

Whom have I in heaven but you? And earth has nothing I desire besides you. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever. (73:25-26)

Maybe that is the whole point of our worship. God is not some egomaniac who constantly needs us to tell Him how great He is. Nothing we can do can ever supply anything God that needs. No, we need to lift God up in praise and worship the one who sits on the throne of the universe to remind ourselves of the way things really are. Entering the sanctuary of praise reminds us that God is and all is well! We’re not really telling God anything in our worship—one of the perks of omniscience is that there are no surprises. No, worship tells us something. In worship, we remind ourselves of what is true and eternal. Sometimes it is our head that needs to be reminded; sometimes it is our heart. But as we enter the sanctuary to praise the One who sits on the throne, we are reminded of what is really true and truly real. And so we say with Asaph--

Those who are far from you will perish; you destroy all who are unfaithful to you. But as for me, it is good to be near God. I have made the Sovereign LORD my refuge; I will tell of all your deeds. (73:27-28)

The Prayer of Jabez

What was I thinking when I set up this year’s daily Bible reading?  We decided that we would read the Old Testament (we read the NT two reads ago) and that we’d read it in chronological order. So I found a chronological reading list, stripped off the New Testament, adjusted it to weekday readings, and the result is our daily Bible reading for the year. What I didn’t do is spend enough time fine-tuning the readings to balance them better, and the result is that yesterday’s reading was a killer (Psalm 43, 44, 45, 49, 84, 85, 87… Yikes!) and todays is 1 Chronicles 3-5… which is largely a list of names.

But hidden in the list of names we read today is a very obscure guy that became a superstar several years ago when Bruce Wilkinson published a little book entitled, The Prayer of Jabez. Actually, we don’t know anything about Jabez… including why he is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 4. This is a genealogy listing of the family of Judah, and Jabez isn't listed in the genealogy (though we can assume he fits in there somewhere). The Chronicler interrupts his listing of Judah's family tree to tell this story—

Jabez was more honorable than his brothers. His mother had named him Jabez, saying, “I gave birth to him in pain.” Jabez cried out to the God of Israel, “Oh, that you would bless me and enlarge my territory! Let your hand be with me, and keep me from harm so that I will be free from pain.” And God granted his request. (1 Chronicles 4:9-10)

Wilkinson's book encourages people today to pray that exact prayer—for God to bless us, enlarge our territory, and keep us free from pain. He gives plenty of stories about God has answered that prayer and blessed people through this prayer. You'd better have lots of stories when you are writing a book based on two Bible verses!  Wilkinson sees this little text as the key to the Bible’s teaching on prayer, “It is brief, only one sentence tucked away in the Bible, but I believe it contains the key to a life of extraordinary favor with God.”

Of course, there are several problems with this view of the prayer of Bro. Jabez. It appears to make prayer rather mechanistic and ritualistic. All we have to do is pray this prayer  and God will bless us and increase our territory... which seems to almost obligate God to answer our prayer positively. The fact is, God sometimes says “No, you have enough territory.” Sometimes God tells us that His grace is sufficient, and He chooses to work, not through enlarged territory, but in our weakness and thorn in the flesh (2 Cor 12:9-10).  The  Hebrew writers sees as the loving discipline of a loving Father (Heb 12:7-10). Also, the “Prayer of Jabez” is simply not the only prayer in scripture; there is also the "Prayer of Job," though that book would be a harder sell.  Jesus certainly did not pray the "Prayer of Jabez" in Gethsemane. Sometimes God seems to increases our weakness and suffering rather than our territory and influence.

The point of the "Prayer of Jabez" is not the wording of his prayer but the fact that he prayed. Jabez stood head and shoulders above his contemporaries because he turned to God in faith and prayer. The point for us is not that we should pray the specific prayer that Jabez prayed as if it were some kind of mantra for success and blessings from God. No, the point for us is that we should follow Jabez as an example of one who trusted God and sought Him in prayer even when those around him did not.

Reflections on the Church and the Wild West

When I was a kid, “The Lone Ranger” (starring Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels) aired in the afternoons after school, and I would try very hard never to miss a show. At least once per episode, the Lone Ranger would arrive just in time to save the day by shooting the gun out of the outlaw’s hand… at fifty yards… on horseback… at a full gallop. Yep, the Lone Ranger was my hero (along with Little Joe Cartwright, Matt Dillon, Paladin, Josh Randall [Steve McQueen in Wanted: Dead or Alive], and Chuck Connors [in both "The Rifleman” and “Branded”). I owned (in no particular order) a Lone Ranger six shooter (with a genuine silver plastic bullet), a Chuck Connors signature Rifleman rife (with the auto-cocking round lever) and the Steve McQueen sawed-off Winchester that you wore like a pistol (the coolest). I spent hours and hours pretending to be my heroes from the old west.

This next part you’re going to think I’m making up. As much as I played make-believe-cowboy-in-the-old-wild-west, I remember thinking how lucky I was not to have lived back then. Lucky not because I’d have to face bloodthirsty cut-throats and gunslingers with itchy trigger fingers (that would have been the good part). No, I was glad I didn't live in the old west because there weren't any real churches back then. I grew up believing that my church was the only true church... the only church that people would be going to heaven from. I was baptized at age 9, and I went to church three times a week every week for my entire life (so far). And I was taught that you just didn't go to church; you went to the right church—the one that said “Church of Christ” on the sign. Some that had the right sign didn't have the right church (because they had pianos).  If you weren't going to go to the right church, you might as well not go yo any church. That's why I was glad that I I didn't live on the Ponderosa.  They had churches in the old west, but none of them were the right church.  The true church.

I’m still glad I didn’t live in the old west (I’d be allergic to cut-throats and gunslingers). But that old monolithic view I had about “the true church” seems about as realistic to me now as the Lone Ranger shooting the gun out of the outlaw’s hand. Oh, I believe that there is a true church, one bought by the blood of Christ.  And because it is His, only He keeps the membership roster. You can’t tell "the true church" by a single set of doctrines or practices or organization principles. True churches are true because truly reflect the person and character of Jesus in their world. Granted, that’s a lot messier than just looking in the auditorium to see if they have a piano. It’s also messier because we will never fully arrive. We can become satisfied with our view of Calvinism or the millennium, but surely no one would ever think, “Well, we’re enough like Christ now.”
It is interesting that my religious tribe chose the moniker “Church of Christ.” Maybe we should stick to Him as “the mark of the true church.”

I’m constantly taught, entertained, challenged and annoyed by Experimental Theology, the blog of Dr. Richard Beck of ACU. His is actually one of four blogs that I check every day (in case you’re interested, the other 3 are by Patrick Mead, Roger Olson and Rachel Held Evans). I don’t always agree with everything Beck says; hey, sometimes I don’t have a clue what he’s saying!  But generally I take away something that is helpful. His blog yesterday was on creating a study guide on the Sermon on the Mount as a “condensed but comprehensive moral inventory.” If the Sermon on the Mount is a single-shot presentation of “moral vision of Jesus,” why not boil this down as our guide for living as true Christians. Beck does that—here’s my condensation summary of his condensation summary of Matthew 5--

• Do not be egoistical or self-absorbed. (5:3)
• Weep over the pain in this world.(5:4)
• Be gentle, tender and kind. (5:5)
• Try to be a better person. (5:6)
• Show mercy to others. (5:7)
• Be sincere, genuine and real. (5:8)
• Work for the cause of peace. (5:9)
• Other should see you’re different (5:13-16)
• Let go of your anger toward others. (5:21-22)
• Worship isn’t as important as relationships (5:23-24)
• Try to resolve conflicts face to face. (5:25-26)
• Do not sexually objectify others. (5:27-30)
• Honor your marital vows. (5:31-32)
• Live with integrity; be true to your word. (5:33-37)
• Practice non-violence. (5:38-39)
• Give and serve generously. (5:40-42)
• Love your enemies and pray for them. (5:43-48)

Obviously, this won't answer every question one might ask about being a true disciple today (like whether or not your church should have a piano). But I fear there are many us who argue a lot over "the right church" who don’t seem to make much effort at these kinds of things at all. And maybe these are better reflections of the person and character of Christ (and thus more essential parts of being “Christian”) than all the particulars of how we conduct the church’s worship and work.

And I think these are things that could be worked on even in the old west even if the churches weren't exactly perfect in other ways.  So maybe me and Little Joe would have been able to hang out together after all.

Catacombs and Cathedrals

Russell Moore writes an interesting piece in The Christian Post entitled “Catacomb Christianity and Cathedral Christianity.” As we writes, Moore is in Rome leading a seminary study tour, and there are indeed a few things in Rome to study and tour that relate to early Christianity. In Rome there are great edifices built to celebrate and proclaim the Christian faith (like the Saint John Lateran Cathedral) and there are the ruins of the ancient catacombs where earlier Christians worshiped during the dark days of Roman persecution. The catacombs and the cathedrals, says Moore, remind us of the paradoxical ways in which God works to show us His grace. The catacombs remind us of the desperate faith of our persecuted ancestors that lived and grew in the valley of the shadow of death. The cathedrals remind us that that ancient faith not only survived and thrived, it far outlasted the powerful forces that were so marshaled against it.

Moore suggests that the catacombs and the cathedrals remind us of two very important truths—“God's sovereignty in sending down the faith, and the frailty of humanity as stewards of that faith.” Those dual truths of God’s power and our frailty has been the history of the church from the very beginning, and that continues to be story of the church today. Moore writes--

We can't romanticize the early persecuted church. After all, the New Testament Scriptures are often rebuking those churches for precisely the things we see going on in our churches today: division, carnality, immorality, arrogance (1 Cor. 4:7-13, 5:1-8, 6:1-8). And, if Christianity had remained in the catacombs, it is quite possible that you and I would have never encountered Christ.

The basilica at Saint John Lateran was planted there by the Emperor Constantine. His vision of a Christian empire was, of course, a failed experiment that led to persecution and all sorts of nominal Christianity. And yet, God used Constantine to end a bloody persecution and to, among other things, call together the church to deal with a deadly heresy or two. In the providence of God, the Trinitarian theism by which I critique the idea of Christian empire came down to me due, in part, to the unwitting actions of the prototypical Christian emperor.

Moore warns us that if we see only the catacombs, then we might glamorize smallness in and of itself and thus make impotence equivalent to faith and holiness. If we do that, then we may excuse our inability to make any impact in the world around us. But if we only see the cathedrals, then we might tend to identify godliness with size, success, influence and power.  We need to see God at work in both the catacombs and the cathedral… and we also need to see the fragility of human weakness at work in both. Moore ends his article with this reminder—

The kingdom of God is vast and tiny, universal and exclusive. Our story is that of a little flock and of an army awesome with banners. It's a Christianity of persecution and proliferation, of catacombs and cathedrals.

Irreconcilable Differences

Lynn and I are mourning a loss this week as we watch the last of 48 episodes of the TV series “Lie to Me.” We never watched it when it was on TV (and had commercials), but we found it on Netflix and we both enjoyed it. And that’s rare. Because when it comes to TV shows and movies, Lynn and I have irreconcilable differences. We just don’t really like the same things—she likes slow-moving, dialogue-driven, relationship-focused, soap-opera chick-flicks. I like stuff that blows up… and sports. (Remember the old movie “Black Sunday” where terrorists plant a bomb at the Super Bowl? That was cool!).  We have irreconcilable differences.  We also don’t like the same foods (and therefore restaurants). So we have to spend days in negotiation before we can go out on a “dinner-and-a-movie” date.

We don't just have differences; we have irreconcilable differences! So why did we get married? Fortunately, one of the things that we do have in common is enjoying the Pepperdine Lectures... and one of the things we learned there this year is that 69% of all marital disputes are irreconcilable. Almost 70% of the things couples disagree over in their marriages cannot be effectively resolved... ever.  So how does anyone stay married? We learn to live with and even celebrate our differences. Notice this except from an article by Diane Sollee.

The number one predictor of divorce is the habitual avoidance of conflict. What's sad is the reason couples avoid conflict is because they believe it causes divorce…In the beginning, we avoid conflict because we are in love and we believe that "staying in love" is about agreeing, about NOT fighting. We're afraid that if we disagree – or fight – we'll run our marriage off into the ditch. We believe that if we've found our soulmate, we'll agree about most things - and certainly about the important things. Later, we avoid conflict because when we try to deal with our differences things get so out of hand and our fights so destructive and upsetting that we simply shut down. After a few bad blow-ups we become determined to avoid conflict at any cost. And, we start wondering if we married the wrong person. It shouldn't be this hard.

Successful couples are those who know how to discuss their differences in ways that actually strengthen their relationship and improve intimacy. Successful couples know how to contain their disagreements – how to keep them from spilling over and contaminating the rest of their relationship. Couples need to know what the research has found: that every happy, successful couple has approximately ten areas of "incompatibility" or disagreement that they will never resolve. Instead, the successful couples learn how to manage the disagreements and live life "around" them– to love in spite of their areas of difference, and to develop understanding and empathy for their partner's positions.

The divorce courts have it all wrong. "Irreconcilable differences" are not a reason to divorce. Instead, they are part of every good marriage. Successful couples learn to dance in spite of their differences. They gain comfort in knowing they know their partner, know which issues they disagree on and must learn to manage. They also understand that if they switch partners they'll just get ten new areas of disagreement, and sadly, the most destructive will be about the children from their earlier relationships.

Marriage isn't easy; nothing that is worthwhile is ever easy.  I used to think that one of the secrets of a good marriage is learning to say no to self, to overcome our selfishness and to learn to the other before myself.  Now I suspect that's not just the secret to marriage... it's the purpose of marriage.  God gives us marriage to teach us how to become less selfish and more like Him.

President Obama, Gay Marriage and the Church

Over lunch Sunday (ironically Mother’s Day lunch which Lynn prepared for us), Angelynn asked me what I thought about the whole issue of homosexual marriage. The announcement Thursday of President Obama coming out (no pun intended) in support of homosexual marriage brought the topic up, but this was something she had been thinking about for some time. “So Dad, what do you think about homosexual marriage?” My immediately response was to make a joke, “Uh… you don’t have a girlfriend I don’t know about, do you?” She was serious, but I tend to make jokes when I’m uncomfortable. This is something that I’ve been thinking about a lot about as well, and I’ve started twice in the last week or so to write something on the blog about it. So here my daughter is calling me out on it. What do I think about homosexual marriage?

I wish I could remember exactly how Angelynn asked the question, but I think it was something like this—“I think homosexuality is wrong, but I don’t want to come across as harsh and condemning either.” Well, that's what I think!  To be honest, I was a bit uncomfortable with her question. Why? Because Kati, our token Democrat, feminist friend was there waiting to hear my answer?  Not really.  What made me uncomfortable was that as "The Preacher" I feel a bit of pressure to have a fully-formed, consistent and coherent position on issues like this. And on this one, all I have is an in-process, inconsistent and incoherent position. So here goes.

I believe homosexuality is a sin. I believe that the consistent witness in scripture is to portray homosexuality as inconsistent with God’s original design for human sexuality. In the beginning God both made humankind in His image and likeness and He made them male and female (Gen 1:27). When Jesus was asked about marriage and divorce, he began with this statement that God made humans male and female (So no, Jesus never mentions homosexuality per se, but he does mention the “male and female” starting point for marriage). Homosexuality is condemned along with incest and bestiality as forbidden sexual practice in Leviticus. Sure, there is a lot of other stuff condemned as well (like sex during and a week following the menstrual cycle), so Leviticus is definitely not the final word. But it is part of a consistent Biblical position. Paul uses homosexuality as his “exhibit A” in the sinfulness of the Roman world that denied God (Rom 1:26-27), but he expands his list of exhibits to include greed, gossip, God-hating and a host of other things that no one is seeking constitutional amendments to ban. When Paul lists sins that keep people from inheriting the kingdom of God, homosexuality is listed (1 Cor. 6:9). Again, this list also includes adulterers and alcohol abusers (nobody in Congress is going to introduce a bill banning that or they would have trouble raising a quorum to vote on the thing!). As someone who believes that the Bible is binding and that it should be interpreted, if not always literally, at least seriously and consistently, I believe that homosexuality is a sin. And I believe that it is the job of the church to discourage people from sinning. So I’m not drinking the cultural Kool-Aid that wants everyone to accept that “Gay is OK.”

At the same time (take a deep breath here), while homosexuality is a sin, it is only a sin. It is not the worst of all possible sins. I’m not sure what that would be, maybe pride (because pride is at the root of most other sins). But some of us (“us” being Christian heterosexuals) may think that homosexuality really is the worst of all sins because we have such a visceral revulsion (the “Yuck Factor”) when we think of two men having sex together.  Here's what I think-- unless and until we can generate that same revulsion and disgust when we contemplate “sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like” (Gal 5:19-21), then maybe the moral outrage and repugnance that we feel toward homosexuality is more akin to homophobia (of which we are often accused) than we like to admit! I’m not saying that we should learn to accept homosexuality; I’m saying that we should have the same moral outrage when confronted by all sin rather than saving it up for just this one.  I'm just saying.

The text that comes to mind when I think of the gay marriage issue is not in Leviticus, Romans or Galatians—it’s 1 Corinthians 5:9-12. You might think, “But Paul’s list of sins there doesn’t even mention homosexuality.” He mentions a list of sins that Christians are to oppose, and homosexuality would be included her under the umbrella of “sexual immorality” (a pretty big umbrella to be sure). Where this text touches the current discussion on the church’s response to homosexual marriage is in Paul’s command “not at all meaning the people of this world” (5:10) and “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church” (5:12).  Getting all wrapped around the axle over political issues that seek to govern those outside of Christ by using the law of Christ seems to miss Paul’s point here completely. Remember, Satan is the one who holds power over the kingdoms of the world, even our own (see Matt 4:8-9). The job of the church is to oppose the work of Satan, not with signs or wisdom, but by preaching Christ crucified (1 Cor. 1:20-25). Politics is ultimately about power, and power is the ploy of the kingdom of the world, not the kingdom of God (see Matt 20:26-27).  We are called to serve the world in the name of Jesus, not to rule over it.

There is a lot more that could be said and that I intended to say.  Rather than me sating it, let me point you to a very well written blog by Dan Bouchelle that sums up pretty well what I think.  I really recommend you click over and read what Dan says. I don’t agree with everything that he says… but then I don’t agree with everything I say either. He ends his blog with a list of “few things I’d like to say to conservative Christians in general and preachers specifically” before we respond to President Obama’s announcement of his support of gay marriage. I’ll end with his (edited and abbreviated) list just to whet your appetite (and encourage you to read the whole article).

1. Before you talk about homosexuality you really should get to know and love several people with same sex attraction. This will keep you from painting with a broad brush about “them” and will change the tone of what you say to something more Christ-like.
   
   
2. Please don’t talk as if homosexuals have made a conscious choice about their orientation and just decided they would rather be gay. It’s a little more complicated than that.
   
   
3. Please put this issue in perspective with other behaviors and desires that heterosexuals battle. If you give people a pass on sins like greed, bitterness, envy, gossip, or dissention while you vilify “those homosexuals,” you are being hypocritical. If you are going to work out of Romans 1, look over Paul’s whole list of sins and treat them all with equal seriousness.
   
   
4. Please do not equate the gang-rape of ancient Sodom with genuinely caring same sex relationships today. I’m not saying either is good. I’m saying they are not comparable.
   
   
5. Please do not talk as if same sex relationships cannot ever be loving or fulfilling. Not all homosexual relationships are shallow and lustful.
   
   
6. Encourage your church to love and welcome people with same sex attraction. The way we deal with homosexuals needs to communicate God’s love not our hate. This won’t be easy; most churches are not prepared to welcome people with same sex attraction.
   
   
7. If you are going to require people with same sex attraction to live celibate lives (which is appropriate), are you also willing to provide them the kind of loving community that will keep their lives from being unbearably lonely? The church that takes a stand against homosexuality has a responsibility to provide a higher form of love to those it asks to leave the gay life.
   
   
8. Please do not talk as if people who do not believe in the Christian God, do not trust the scriptures, and who do not follow Jesus should be compelled by law to support Christian values. The world won’t be won to Christ through politics or power but by the gospel of sacrificial love.
   
   
9. Do not let the vacillating winds of public opinion determine the position you take. This is not about being fashionable; it is about speaking the truth in love and helping people mature into the fullness of Christ.

I know this blog will be unpopular (this is when it's good to have a readership of only 2-3).  This is one of those polarizing issues that people tend to see only in extremes, and on this one issue anyway, I'm not very extreme (which may be too extreme). I feel strongly both ways.  I believe that homosexuality is wrong. I believe that God loves homosexuals. Thus I believe that the church must love homosexuals. And I believe that up to this point, we're doing it wrong.

On Heat and Light

When I was in grad school, I wound being part of a team that went to another to debate a Baptist preacher on the subject of baptism. OK, so my part on the "team" was to flip overhead transparencies as they were called for; there were over 300 charts prepared in advance and many more were created ans the debate progressed, so this was little job. And I was also permitted to sit in on the strategy sessions for each night's debate... provided that I kept very quiet.

To say that this debate was acrimonious would be an understatement. Almost from the get go, there were interruptions from the time-keepers, points of order objections from the moderators and general one-ups-manship from everyone as both sides tried to win points and make the other side look foolish and uninformed. Things got very ugly and very loud very quickly. At one point, one of the overhead charts (that I flipped very professionally) read, "My opponent has said…" and then quoted him on the chart. Immediately there was a thundering "Point of order" objection as our opponent’s moderator (which seemed to function more like the "second" in a duel, except with more attitude) demanded to know the source of the quotation. On the chart, the statement was enclosed in quotation marks indicating a direct quotation, so they wanted to know the citation details. Of course, this was completely disingenuous; what they wanted was to interrupt the flow of the speech and win a few points. So we had to find a citation for the quote.

The next day, our "team" spent some time listening to the tapes of the previous night's debate, and we found a place where they guy made the statement… sorta.  The only problem was that he wasn’t actually saying what we had said he that he had said. In fact, he was really saying just the opposite. But if we started the quote late and stopped it early, then it appeared that he said what we needed him to say. So the plan was to dub the statement to a fresh tape and play it that night, proving that we were right and he was wrong. And thus we could exclaim, to borrow a quote from the old Lady Godiva story, “Horary for our side!”

It was at this point that I made my only contribution to the discussion in this planning (or was it plotting) session. I said verrrry tentatively, "But that’s not really what he is saying, is it?" They were taking the guy totally out of context, and I naively and innocently thought that somehow mattered. Well, you would have thought that I had started speaking in tongues! They glared at me for several seconds and didn’t say a word. And then they went back to dubbing there tape. And I never opened my mouth for the rest of the debate trip.

I learned a powerful lesson that day. The point of religious argument is the exact same point as in political argument, legal argument, marital argument and every other kind of argument there is—the point is to WIN, period. Truth, honesty and integrity are more casualties of war than they are the point of the discussion. Sure, it doesn’t have to be that way, but sadly it that way more often than not (at least in my experience).  The point of any argument is to win... and all is fair in love and war and argument.

So what’s the point of my trip down memory lane? Maybe I don’t have one. Or maybe I’m just reminding myself that the heat of debate usually has very little to do with the light of truth. I think that’s a good thing to reminder every now and again.

Be Careful What You Wish For

There's an old saying that warns us, "Be careful what you wish for… you might just get it." Israel is about to learn this lesson the hard way in our reading today from 1 Samuel 8. Here the Israelites begin to pester Samuel to give them a king. On the surface, their request seems to be a legitimate one. Samuel became judge after the abject failure of Eli's sons to take over as priest and judge in their father’s place. Samuel was called by God to lead Israel as judge, but now as he gets older, there are two failures that he has to face.

• First, Samuel appointed his sons Joel and Abijah as leaders after him, but they were colossal failures as leaders as had Eli’s sons been a generation before. “They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice” (1 Sam 8:3). Israel saw a “second verse, same as the first” deal brewing with Samuels sons, and they weren’t interested.

• Second, Samuel had basically failed at being a judge. OK, Samuel was a godly and faithful man, and the failure really wasn't his fault. But the job of a judge in Judges was to destroy the foreign power oppressing Israel, and Samuel hadn't totally broken the Philistine threat (though he did put a world of hurt on them in 1 Samuel 7).

So the people of Israel saw the worthlessness of Samuel’s sons as leaders and the continued threat from the Philistines, and they came up with a solution, "You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead z us, such as all the other nations have" (1 Sam. 8:5). I’m not sure the real point is that Israel wanted to be fashionable like others nations and have a king. It was more that they thought that a strong central king was the answer to protecting them from Philistia and other foreign invaders. That is why God told Samuel, "It is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king" (1 Sam 8:7). They weren't willing to trust God to protect them; they rather put their trust in a stronger national government with a king and standing army (see 1 Sam 8:19-20).

Samuel gives Israel this warning from God, “Be careful what you wish for.” You know how parents warn their kids who want a puppy about hard it is to care for and feed and clean up after a pet? Well, God warns Israel that kings are a lot more trouble than they are worth

• The king will take your children and plow them into his war machine (8:11-13)
• The king will tax you until all of your stuff belongs to him (8:14-17)
• And kings are a lot easier to get than they are to get rid of (8:18)

Be careful what you wish for. But where did Israel get the idea that they should have a king? From the nations around them? Maybe. But maybe they also read the Bible. Ultimately the king was God’s idea and he gave instructions on the care and feeding of a king way back in Deuteronomy 17:14-20. The instructions about kings here are pretty similar to the warnings God gives in 1 Samuel 8. Do the idea of Israel having a king was God’s idea.

The problem was that Israel would not wait on God’s timing. The way this story is going to work out is that Israel insists on a king and God gives them Saul who turns out to be a huge disappointment. After Saul’s death, God raises up David, the man after God’s own heart and the precursor to the Messianic king who would come after him. In other words, God had David waiting in the wings all the time but Israel was not willing to trust Him and wait on God’s timing.

We aren't any better at waiting on God's timing than was Israel.  Sure, we know about "those that wait upon the Lord" and all that stuff about eagles wings.  But we want what we want when we want it.  We're people who, like Joan Rivers observes, stand in front the microwave yelling, "Hurry!"  We don't wait well.  God interpreted Israel's unwillingness to wait and trust in him as " they have rejected me as their king."  I wonder if that is how He views our impatience today?

The Downward Spiral (Part 2)

The book of Judges is organized around a cycle of apostasy and repentance that is repeated seven times in the book. The details change, but the cycle is the same.

1. Israel enjoys a period of prosperity and peace.
2. Israel leaves God to worship the false pagan gods.
3. God allows Israel to be enslaved by a pagan enemy.
4. Israel repents and turns back to God.
5. God raises up a judge to overthrows the oppressor.

And then the cycle repeats itself-- freedom-to-apostasy-to-repentance-to freedom. Whether its the Philistines or Mesopotamians, Othneil or Gideon-- the story is basically the same.

That is until you get to our reading for the next several days, Judges 17-21. Here the story changes completely. You don’t have any judges or foreign oppressors. What you have is several very bizarre events that took place during the time of Judges but which have nothing to do with the message of the book. Actually, on closer inspection, these bizarre stories are precisely what the book of Judges is all about.

As you skim through this section of Judges, one phrase keeps jumping out at you. It appears four times in five chapters, too striking to be coincidence. You just have to think that this phrase is the organizing principle of these chapters:

• Judges 17:6- "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit."
• Judges 18:1- "In those days Israel had no king."
• Judges 19:1- "In those days Israel had no king."
• Judges 21:25- "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit."

Why does the author keep saying this over and over? Well, he seems to really, really want is to get it that Israel had no king. There was no authority, no one to enforce a universal code of behavior. The result was a moral relativism where everyone did as they saw fit.

There are three basic stories told to us in these five chapters. All three are introduced by the expression, “In those days Israel had no king.” All three show in broader and broader brush stoke just how depraved things got because: first, Israel had no central authority and second, everyone did as they saw fit.

• The first story is of a man named Micah who builds for himself an idol god. He then sets up his own priesthood and establishes his own center of worship to this false god. All of this was, of course, in direct violation of the law of Moses.
  
• The second story is of a group of Danites who basically become dissatisfied with the inheritance in Canaan and scout out for themselves new territory in the mountains of Laish. And in the process of doing, they stole both Micah’s new gods and his new priest. So now Dan lives in a land not given them by God and worshipping in a way not commanded by God.
  
• The third story is of the rape and murder of the concubine of a Levite, the refusal of the men of Benjamin to hand over the perpetrators and the resulting civil war that all but destroyed the tribe of Benjamin.

It just gets weirder and weirder. These stories tell of a downward spiral among Israel caused by people who did as they saw fit. If you don’t respect a centralized ethical system, then you end up making your own gods, being dissatisfied with the inheritance given you by God, you rape and murder and then go to war with your brothers. That’s what happens when men direct their own ethical steps. That’s what happens when human beings fail to recognize the King of heaven as the master of morality.

Seems like there should be an application somewhere here for us.  It's just fortunate that we don't live in a time and place where everyone does as they see fit!