Don't You Go Putting God In That Box!

The modern evanjellybean lexicon is chock full of worthless jargon, and few phrases approach the utter worthlessness of "don't put God in a box". The easy route is to sneer that it's impossible, that God will do what He wants and we can't stay His hand, etc. True enough. But what is the cliché intended to mean?

It could mean that God does not fit our neat systematic categories. God is transcendent and awesome, and no simple statement or summary can totally describe Him or His works. Which wouldn't be the worst thing you could say, I guess. But it seems that usually it's taken a step further - that we can't say categorically who God is or what He will do. Por example:

Some say salvation is only through Jesus. Don't put God in a box!
Some say miraculous/attestational gifts ceased. Don't put God in a box!
Some people think God is sovereign in election. Don't put God in a box!
People put God in a box and think the Bible is the only way we find God's word.
Some people say God cannot lie. Don't put God... er, wait...

And so on. The cliché is not usually a warning against over-systematizing or reductionism, but a worthless (or anti-worthfull) shot against certainty in what God has revealed.

It's not 'putting God in a box' to believe He will do what He says He will do. It's not 'putting God in a box' to believe God is who He says He is. Interestingly, the Bible is full of commands about and case studies in taking God at His word, and not once does it refer to it as 'putting God in a box'. Do you know what the Bible pert near always calls this nefarious act? FAITH!

So to summarize, if "putting God in a box" means believing God has revealed truth that we can know and believe, then it's the heart of Christianity. By all means, 'put God in a box', if that 'box' is the truth He has made known to us.

Your Treasured 'Private Conversations' are Utterly Insignificant

Stop me if you've heard this before. Some mega-famous celebrity pastor is about to do something colossally stupid and sinful. Many little people - blogger/lepers, pastors of 'small' churches - voice concern over the issue. Mega-pastor publicly blusters and slanders and blasphemes. The little people cry out for help from the Truly Great Champions of the faith. And the response inevitably comes back: "Quiet down, you! You don't know what private conversations are happening behind the scenes!"

I'll admit - I don't know what private conversations are happening. And? Those private conversations are utterly irrelevant. I don't give a rat's lower digestive tract about them, and neither should you. They're about as important to the issue as ... well, they're so insignificant, the language lacks the words to explain just how insignificant they are. They don't matter one tiny bit. So shut up about them, already.

Don't believe me? Let me illustrate. Suppose I somehow get an opportunity to preach. During the sermon, I take ten or fifteen minutes to talk about how much I hate my wife, call her all sorts of horrible things, and actually threaten her a few times. Really ugly, nasty, horrible stuff. Now some people want to confront me about it.

Can you imagine the pastor and a few elders intercepting them and telling them to shut up about it - they've been talking to me privately, and important conversations are taking place? When I'm alone with her, it's all sweet and good, honest! If things are to progress, they can't have rabble like the peons in the pews speaking up! That might just alienate and offend me. No, you silly little people, just be quiet and get back in your place - the experts are handling this, and trust us, everything will be OK. And in the small chance that it isn't, well, tough questions will be asked someday.

Can you picture that? Not likely. The entire concept is utterly stupid, insane, and extremely dangerous. Most likely you'd think that what we're talking about in private doesn't matter at all when I act like that in public. In fact, you might think that if there's such a big disparity - that I'm really nice in one arena but a reprehensible reprobate in another - that the relationship is abusive. And you'd be exactly right.

Nothing that is said in private can justify such sinful, despicable public behavior. It couldn't in my example, and it can't when the Towering Guardians of Christendom tell you to just simmer down and let the Top Men handle it. It's really hard to even get my head around that kind of arrogance.

Ugh. This Again?

It seems this comes up every once in a while, but with the recent Supreme Court arguments on 'gay marriage', it wasn't shocking to see numerous Facebook posts about that famous 'gay' Biblical couple, David and Jonathan. For those unfamiliar with this line of what I'll generously call reasoning, it breaks down like this:

1) David and Jonathan were gay
2) Therefore homosexual perversion must be OK

Now typically the counter is to attack point 1. You'd look at the relevant Biblical texts and show that there's absolutely zero reason to believe they were gay, explain what those 'difficult' texts actually mean, etc. That's a perfectly fine approach, and certainly any reasonable person could undertake it, because let's be honest - based on the Biblical texts, there's exactly zero reason to suspect they were sodomites.

But I get sick of playing defense all the time, so I'd like to suggest mixing it up a bit on this one. Sometimes you can get clarity by assuming the other side's case entirely, and seeing what happens. For example, someone who may have been involved in a crime offers his explanation of events - if his explanation is sleazy, it's safe to conclude he's sleaze. A grand jury uses this same method - they accept everything the prosecution says at face value, with no cross-examination or defense at all. If the case wouldn't be strong enough to merit conviction even under those ideal circumstances, they dismiss without indictment, and suggest the prosecutor find a line of work better suited to his lack of discernible talent.

Let's pretend for a second that there's a shred of evidence for David and Jonathan being sodomites. More than that, let's really use our imaginations and pretend that it's actually true. Now ask yourself - does it follow that homosexuality is not sin? No? OK, let's lower the standard. Does it even move one micron towards showing that homosexuality is not sin? Still no? Well, then, what would it prove?

All it would indicate is that in addition to his other sins recorded in scripture (which are shown in plain, unflattering terms - as well as God's judgment on them), David also committed homosexual sin. That's it. All the posturing and distortion and bluster amounts to nothing but "David was a sinner", something we already know.

So where does that leave this line of argument? It fails spectacularly on at least two counts. There is zero reason to think David and Jonathan were sodomites. And even if there was, so what? It's still a sin, God is still the righteous judge, and His wrath against sin won't be propitiated by such a pitiful excuse as "Well, someone in the Bible did it, so it must be OK." As with every other sin, there is no comfort to be found in excuses and blame-shifting and everyone-else-is-doing-it, but only in repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

Two Chavezes and a Savior

In case you missed it, Google set off a little tempest this week. Apparently they do a little doodle thing on their front page from time to time, and this time they chose to celebrate Easter by honoring Cesar Chavez. Um, OK, whatever. I'm not sure why anyone's all that upset that an anti-Christian organization like Google failed to feign respect for Jesus. If they're going to foment rebellion against the Creator 364 days a year, might as well be indifferent on day 365. It's incredibly sad that the leadership at Google is so intent on rebellion, but I'm not going to be upset that they didn't fake caring for one day.

But it is worth pondering what they chose to honor instead of the Lord of Lords. Google is pretty solidly lefty, so it's no surprise they celebrated one of the left's icons. Now, I'm not an expert on Chavez - for years I thought people talking about him meant boxer Julio Cesar Chavez - but some research yields the following about this great savior:
1) Like any good leftist, he believed and taught the solution to any problem was organized effort, whether as a union or (ultimately) the all-powerful omnibenevolent State. No matter what the issue, just rally enough people behind it, and you can overcome it. Well, except for...
2) He's dead.

What really got my attention, though, were the tweets and headlines about "Google honors Chavez on Easter". My first thought was not Cesar, but recently-deceased Venezuelan dictator Hugo. For those who have already forgotten, Hugo Chavez was about as rich and powerful a man as the world has ever seen. Within his own nation, nobody could ever tell him "No!", and he was a major player internationally as well. And as he was dying, his desperate last words were:

I don't want to die. Please don't let me die.

Thanks, Google, for unintentionally bringing that contrast to mind on Easter. In the face of death, the all-powerful sovereign Chavez was reduced to desperate begging. All his power and wealth and authority were worthless when death came calling, as it will for all men. But Jesus, enduring a death he did not deserve, faced it triumphantly - It is finished! - and on the third day walked out of the grave, never to face death again.

Both Chavezes died, and all who hope in them, or other 'saviors' like them, have no hope in the face of death. Those of us who hope in Christ are free from slavery through fear of death.

Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting? The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!

Isn't it always the case?

It's hard to be too critical of Rob Portman. Believe me, I've tried, but our language just lacks the words to adequately describe such spineless amoral treacherous cowardly hatred towards one's own son and country.

Recently, Senator Portman (DIABLO - Democrat in all but label only) of OH! IO! became the most prominent Republican to publicly support forcing us to pretend that serial sodomy is marriage. This is not exactly shocking. The GOP's cave on this issue was as predictable as the inevitable failure - yet again, they're pandering for votes with an "us too!" strategy that never works. If people want to vote for amoral juveniles who refuse to say 'No!' to any spending, desire, or behavior (and they apparently do, based on last November), why would they vote for the imitators rather than the real thing? It never works, and this time will be no exception. So that aspect isn't particularly interesting - been there, done that.

What is actually interesting is his story about how he changed his mind on this issue. His son is gay, so he decided to work for his son to get what he wants. That's it. No painstaking research or careful analysis of the arguments (or argument - the other side is nothing more than emotional venting). One day he's opposed, then his son says he's gay, and suddenly it must be OK! It's such weaksauce that even some devoted pro-sodomite liberals have said that while they're glad he came to the wrong conclusion, his reasoning is so dangerously poor it renders him unfit for office (on that part, we can agree). He holds one position until he thinks the other side will benefit his family, then he instantly changes sides? Horrible, regardless of the issue.

And yet, even his story shouldn't come as a surprise to Christians, because we've heard it so many times before. Since I first noticed it, I've looked for it whenever a prominent Christian endorses homosexuality, and so far it's been there every time. The thing that got each of them to re-think their position was knowing someone - a close friend or relative - who 'came out' as gay. The reasoning then goes like this:

1) The Bible is unambiguous - sexual perversity, including homosexuality, is sin.
2) But friend/relative/famous person is such a nice guy!
3) If he's doing it, it can't possibly be sin, right?
4) Therefore, either by some incredible hermeneutical gymnastics, the clear teachings of scripture actually mean the opposite of what they say. Or more directly, God must just be wrong.

And so it goes. God's authoritative word and his opinions collide - and like Adam, he concludes that God just doesn't know as much as his creation. And so rather than corageously loving our friend, we rationalize for him, and make him feel good, accepted, affirmed, proud, about persisting in his sin as it continues to destroy his soul.

And make no mistake - homosexuality is only one sin where we do this. In fact, if we didn't do this for ourselves, we wouldn't sin. Every sin is an occasion when we decide we know better than God. Mercifully, God forgives us in Christ, and grants repentance, often through the means of a friend who loves us enough to tell us the truth. It's hard to imagine worse hatred than affirming someone in his sin. Let us surround ourselves with people who truly love us, and truly love those around us.

Thoughts on the Conquest of Canaan

Reading through Joshua, and commentary on it from here. Commenting on the Israelite conquest of the Promised Land and the total destruction of its inhabitants, Hamilton writes:

"If one follows the inner logic of the theology of the Bible, the destruction of the peoples of the land is not unjust. Because of their wickedness (Deut. 9:5), Yahweh commands Israel to place them under the ban lest their idolatry be contagious (20:16-18). Just as Yahweh making himself known was the most significant thing about the destruction of Egypt, so also the demonstration of Yahweh's holiness is the most significant thing about the ban on the Canaanites. The conquest will be seen as a brutal, uncivilized, merciless atrocity only if we reject what the first five chapters of Joshua proclaim: that Yahweh is glorifying himself in the salvation of Israel wrought through the judgment they visit on the peoples of the land. Yahweh is showing astonishing mercy to Israel, and he is not clearing the guilty of the land (cf. Ex. 34:6-7)." (kindle location 3350; see also this from Fred Butler)

I want to make two comments, and y'all can discuss amongst yourselves.
1) If the Torah is true, then (per the above quote) we shouldn't object to the conquest of Canaan.
2) If it's not true, then we really shouldn't object to the conquest of Canaan.

Discuss.

Amazing Faith - Joshua

Had another post started, struggling to tie it all up. In the meantime, I finished reading the Pentateuch and was struck again by the incredible faith displayed by Joshua. I'm not talking about when he and Caleb were the only two spies who believed God about conquering Canaan, or even about his remaining in the tent of meeting even after Moses had left. No, I'm talking about the ridiculous faith he showed at the end of Deuteronomy, as he prepares to assume the reigns of leadership from Moses.

Israel has been delivered from slavery in Egypt and led to the Promised Land. After disobeying and refusing to take it as God ordered, they were punished by wandering in the desert for 40 years until everyone old enough to have participated in the rebellion was dead. Now they have come back to the banks of the Jordan, and Moses is about to die. The last few days of his life are spent declaring the glory of God, reminding Israel of all God has done on their behalf (and their faithless response), encouraging them to faithfully obey, and reciting the terms of the covenant God has made with them.

At the climax of this presentation (recorded as the book of Deuteronomy), the covenant is renewed between God and this new generation of Israelites. Moses gives a lengthy list of blessings they will receive for faithful obedience, and a more than thrice as long list of curses they will bring on themselves if they disobey. Those curses are incredibly nasty; most of us cannot fathom being so desperate for food that women would hide newborn children and afterbirth so they can eat them and not share with their families. We can't imagine the sheer horror of being in a nation where these curses are being brought to pass.

As we keep reading, we see that these curses are not just theoretical; they will come upon Israel. They do not have hearts to obey; a future generation will see the smoking remains of Israel like Sodom; Moses prophesies about how they will be restored after these curses have driven them from the land. It is beyond doubt that at some unspecified time, Israel will disobey so badly that God will bring these horrifying curses on them, and these Israelites are totally capable of bringing it about.

In the midst of this, Joshua is commissioned to lead these people. The people who are guaranteed to bring about God's wrath as surely as Sodom and Gomorrah. Even in his commissioning, God again declares that Israel will disobey and be punished!

And Joshua took the job. No hesitation. No complaints. No questioning or bargaining or begging for God to choose someone else. God said to do it, and Joshua obeyed.

Joshua had no promise that these curses wouldn't come in his lifetime. God promised success in the conquest of the land, and that's all. He had no guarantee that he would be exempt or that he would not live to see the destruction of his beloved people. For all Joshua knew, they were going to conquer the land, turn to idols, and be cursed and conquered five years later. He knew without a doubt that the people he nation he was about to lead would suffer beyond imagination, the only question was when it would all happen.

And he obeyed God without hesitation, even knowing this was in the future. That is faith.

Contrast his attitude with the purpose-driven voice of God sunstandstillsmallvoice vision casting movement so prevalent today. Obedience always leads to blessing and victory and glorious fulfillment and utopian self-actualization and blah blah blah. The idea that obeying God might lead to suffering - or that we can obey but our loved ones will still suffer - never seems to cross the minds of today's evanjellybean gurus. Much of the popular teaching sounds as if God owes us rewards here and now for good behavior, as though we would not need to obey if the outcome wasn't as good as we desired.

Obeying God is always, by definition, the best thing to do. Even if it means temporary suffering, a better course could not even be imagined. Joshua provides a great example, one we would be wise to follow.