Confronting the New face of Evil

As Christians and other non-Muslim Iraqis flee their homes in the face of ISIS terror, I am deeply saddened by the unapologetic barbaric blood-lust that is engulfing our world.

While I do grieve the deaths of my Christian brothers and sisters in Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Egypt and other places, I do not mourn them without hope. I am quite confident that those who remain loyal to Jesus to the point of exile, crucifixion and/or beheading will certainly be received into heaven with open arms.

My real sorrow is of another sort. You may not realize it yet, but those lofty ideas of “peace” and “freedom” (which we too often take for granted) are on life support. For too many people, I think, peace and freedom are not really concepts at all. They are just words that they vaguely remember from a ninth grade American History class. These words are so common to us that they are a part of the wall paper of our lives. Sadly, there is a darkness creeping over our world that is the antithesis of those enlightened concepts.

I know that many people (many much smarter than me) are trying to parse out the cause of the current creeping darkness. Why are ISIS and their ilk so brutal, so oppressive? Is it economic in origin? Is it anger over some (real or perceived) injustice in history? Is it just another manifestation of Islamic sectarian violence? Has the world simply gone crazy?

Here is what I think. I think that this is not a new war. It is simply a new front in a very, very, very old war. This is a part of the same war that started millennia ago in a garden called Eden. You see, whether you believe it or not, there is a very real conflict that exists between evil and good (or to be more specific, between evil and God).

Evil does exist.

And Satan exists as its champion. The Bible clearly and repeatedly reveals to us that Satan (or the “devil” if you prefer) is a very real and very conscious entity, active in this world. From his first appearance in Genesis his objective has been to inflict death on the human race. He desperately wants us to defy God. He also wants us to follow the ways of Cain by turning on one another in fratricidal rage. His objective is to steal, kill, and destroy that which is good. Too often he succeeds.

Now before I carry this train of thought any further, I want to challenge your sensibilities just a bit. The reason the atrocities of ISIS are so horrifying to many people is because the images of beheading and torture are inescapable. Genocide is evil in and of itself, but usually the perpetrators make some effort to hide and deny their crimes. ISIS, on the other hand, places the heads of their victims on sticks in the front yard in a macabre spectacle.

The evil of this genocide has become impossible to ignore. How inconvenient.

In the “civilized” world, I think, we fancy ourselves as children of light. We are lovers of “life” in all its forms. We will spend gazillions of dollars to save the whales (or the dolphins, or polar bears, or trees, or owls, or to rescue pets from the crazy-cat-lady-down-the-street.)  Yet despite all of our purported “goodness” a legal genocide takes place daily within our own borders as thousands of babies are prematurely torn from their mother’s womb and discarded as so much trash.

But, hey, at least we don’t have to see the pictures.

My point is this: the deadly influence of evil is present throughout our world. Evil is starving people in North Korea. Evil is oppressing people in China. It is running drugs in Central America. Regions of Africa that I do not pretend to understand still reel in genocidal conflict. Flash points of hatred, theft and murder are erupting around the world. Evil, it seems, is gaining traction all around us. Even in “civilized” Europe and other parts of the Western world young men are abandoning their native lands and joining forces with unabashed Evil.

Evil is and always has been a formidable enemy. In fact Evil is so strong, so overwhelmingly insidious that you or I cannot overcome it with schemes of human design. The problem is that our “morals” aren't good enough to do the job. Waving old glory and singing patriotic songs isn't going to cut it. We cannot (nor could we ever) defeat Evil by being smart, prosperous, patriotic or moral.

It seems to me that if we are going to be the children of light, we’d best get to being just that. The only force in this world with the strength to overcome Evil is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Here is the deal; Jesus is, and always has been, on a collision course with Evil. Remember, it was Jesus who said, “I come not to send peace, but a sword.” Either those who possess the gospel will take it to the Evil, or the Evil will come to those who have the gospel.

The gospel does not exist to make us wealthy. It does not exist to form a culture or make the world “civilized” and “moral”. The gospel does not even exist to give us an excuse to build palatial church buildings, or quibble about the minutia of ecclesiastical life. The gospel exists to free oppressed men, women and children from the ravages of sin and reconcile them to a Holy God who loves them.

Make no mistake, sin is deadly. Sure, sometimes sin dresses itself in respectable clothes and parades around with sophisticated education and impeccable manners. It is deceptive that way, but in the end sin will be revealed for what it really is, rebellion against God.

You see, Evil has always had a three-fold mission; it steals, it kills, and it destroys. The problem with the fight we face is that the war against Evil cannot be won with physical means. If you bomb it out of existence in one place, it will pop up in another.  Evil is spiritual in origin, not physical. Ultimately, if we are going to overcome this Evil it will be because the Church returns to its mandate, sacrifices itself in prayer and surrenders its treasure to takes the gospel to the world.

May God help us to have the courage, to do his will.

Was the American Revolution contrary to good Christian behavior?

[These are questions and comments excerpted from a discussion a few months back. I felt they were worth preserving before the disappeared into the FB ether.]This is the question posed: "I am asking if you think that was the mind set of our founding fathers. I have asked myself "if the church of today had to make the choice they made would we still be free?"ANSWER:

 If you notice in the Declaration of Independence the complaints are against the King because the Colonies had a legal contract with the King. If my memory serves me correctly, the political situation in England had changed since those contracts were written and Parliament was calling the shots. The colonies did not have a contract with Parliament but with a king whose power was greatly diminished. Rather than extending the same courtesy of representation to the colonies which was now enjoyed in England, they chose to treat English citizens on our side of the Atlantic as second class citizens by imposing taxes (which may have been reasonable) but denying representation in the legislative process. Additionally, the English had disbanded local forms of government necessary for civil preservation. The revolution was not just to overthrow "bad" government, but in many ways born out of a necessity. English civil government in the colonies was in many ways almost non-existent. This then, was a situation which left the colonies vulnerable to perils from within and without. To summarize then, the King was in breach of contract, Parliament had no legal jurisdiction over the colonies because they were chartered by the King, and there was a widespread absence of (and prevention of) necessary civil governing bodies.I'm not sure they had much choice.  It is also worth noting, I think, that the colonies did not declare "war" but "independence".

The follow up question: " Could their effort to gain independence be justified in New Testament scripture or would it be contrary to its teaching?"ANSWER:

 I think I can make a compelling case for them. Remember that the colonies were corporate ventures chartered by the king. Prior to the "revolution" their original governing system had been arbitrarily abolished, effectively putting the now impotent king in breach of contract. The new government system (essentially martial law) was being imposed by forces to whom they had neither contract nor obligation. Had they submitted to the marshal law as their new government they would not have been justified in the revolution, in my estimation. [The Boston tea party was to demonstrate non-submission].Because they did not submit to Parliament rule (unless afforded representation), they could view the British Army controlled by Parliament as an invading force, which it was. The purpose of the British army in the colonies was not to protect the colonies but to subjugate them to Parliament.The crazy thing is, that had they been granted representation, the revolution would not have occurred. Had they been granted limited self government, the revolution would not have occurred.Theirs was somewhat a unique situation in history. Since two of the older men who signed the DoI were ministers (Lyman Hall and John Witherspoon), I am sure your question was raised and addressed way back in the 1770's.The questions in light of this verse, I suppose, is [1] Did they pursue peace, and [2] were their motives just?

RE the U.S. Constitution:The Constitution is a whole other ball of wax, written several years later. Yes, separation of powers refers to branches of government. To be sure, the founders did not want to found a theocracy (or any other kind of "ocracy") but a Republic. The Republic worked because it's citizen's (by and large) recognized the virtue of Christian morality and ethics as individuals. This is reflected in our fundamental laws. Restitution, multiple witnesses for conviction, property rights, etc. are all based in a Judeo-Christian world view.

Another question: " In terms of relative hostility and/or oppressiveness, how would you rate the British rule over the colonies versus Rome with the Jews (and later, Christians) in the NT?"

ANSWER:The history of the Roman Empire is a long one and I am not sure that is an "apples to apples comparison". The Jews did somewhat successfully resist Roman occupation during the Maccabean era, and were justified to do so in my estimation. By the time of Christ however the hope of self government was pretty much gone and the working civil authority was in fact Roman. The judicial system was Roman. The roads were built by Romans. (Martial) law enforcement was Roman.While that system was far from perfect (ie. political manipulation led Pilate to sentence Jesus to death), it was a functional, established governmental system that did allow a considerable amount of freedom (as long as you were not perceived to be a threat to the system itself). Pilate "found no fault" in Christ and later Paul was held in protective custody and transported to Rome on Caesar's dime, just to make sure he received his appeal process.Roman persecution of the Jews was mostly the result, I think, of the unwillingness of the Jews to surrender to the invaders and the lingering zealot influence. If you do take up arms against a government, you can't really cry "foul" when things don't go your way.Early Christian persecution, ironically, was not fueled by the Roman's but by the local quasi-autonomous religious leadership and in some cases (ie. John the Baptizer) a personal vendetta.So, Jesus tells his disciples to "render unto Caesar" because that is existing established governmental system. It also seems to be the best viable governmental option at the time (try to visualize what Judea governed by the Sanhedrin would have looked like.) Paul also characterized the Roman governmental system as not being "a terror to good works".Later persecution of Christians was conducted by Rome under the Emperor Nero on a larger scale. By that time the Roman system was well on its way to a full implosion.The American Revolution is much more comparable to the early Maccabean period, I think, than the time of Christ. The governmental systems within the colonies was in a state of flux before hostilities began. The governmental system that had been a work under a British Sovereign (with whom they had contractual agreements) were being changed by Parliament who had engaged in usurpation within Britain proper. Theirs was a question of whether or not allegiance could or should be transferred. They had been content to be subjects of a monarch. They were not content to be the subjects of Parliament. I don't think the degree of hostilities and oppressiveness had a lot to do with it.

REFERENCES:http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.htmlhttp://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle%3D816&chapter=69270&layout=html&Itemid=27option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle%3D816&chapter=69270&layout=html&Itemid=27

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero

Weird little "Church Words"...Why do we say "Amen"?

Have you ever gotten into the habit of using "church words" so often that they have lost all real world meaning? How about the word "Amen".  Christians routinely end prayer with this word. Without knowing why, we use it like a period at the end of prayer. If you can spare a minute of your time, you will see why the word "amen" is a most remarkable word. 

Please, indulge me for a little word study...

 

1. “Amen” comes from a Hebrew root word pronounced ‘aman. In Hebrew this is a verb which is translated into English the following ways:

"to support,   confirm,   be faithful,   uphold,   nourish;   to be established,   be faithful,   be carried,   make firm;   to stand firm,   to trust,   to be certain,   to believe in"

2. Old Testament examples of the word “aman”…

a. Abraham’s belief in God

 "And he [Abraham] believed {'aman} in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness." Gen 15:6

b. Israel’s belief in God

"And the people believed {'aman}: and when they heard that the LORD had visited the children of Israel, and that he had looked upon their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshiped." Exd 4:31

c. God’s is faithful

  "Know therefore that the LORD thy God , he is God, the faithful{'aman}…" Deu 7:9

d. God’s Promises David an “aman” house

"And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established {'aman} for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever."  2Sa 7:16  

3. Amen in the New Testament

The Hebrew word was transliterated into Greek and carried this meaning:

"firm, faithful, verily, amen"

a) When the word is used at the beginning of a discourse it is translated as "verily, surely, truly, of a truth".
b) When it is used at the end of a discourse it is translated as - "so it is, so be it, may it be fulfilled."

Saying "Amen" is a custom that was carried over from Jewish synagogues into early Christian worship.  The custom was for the congregation to "Amen" after a prayer as an affirmation of agreement with a public prayer. This made the substance of the prayer theirs as well as the individual's who had prayed.

a. In our English New Testament Translations the word “Amen” shows up about 50 times, but the Greek word “amen” is in the New Testament 152 times and translated into English using different words…

b. For instance, here is how some of the more popular translations render the beginning words of  Matthew 5:18…

ESV   "For truly {amen}, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

KJV    "For verily {amen} I say unto you...        

NKJV  "For assuredly {amen}, I say to you...

NLT     "I tell you the truth {amen}…        

NIV      "I tell you the truth {amen}…

4. We typically end prayer with an “Amen”. Why?

When you say “Amen” you are expressing your trust in God, and affirming his faithfulness.

Jesus taught us to pray after this pattern:

"After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. [I am more concerned about your exaltation than my own.] 

Thy kingdom come. [Even if it brings me discomfort. Ie. Believers in Jerusalem suffering persecution.] 

Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. [Speedily, eliminating any excuse I might have to procrastinate.] 

Give us this day our daily bread. [Please just give me what I need today, I’ll trust you with the long term stuff.] 

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. [I will demonstrate your grace even as I have received it.] 

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: [I will follow your lead and steer clear of sin.] 

For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.     Amen.

The purpose of the word “Amen” is not to cue God on when we are done praying. We don’t say “Amen" so that God knows when to open his eyes and look up.  It is a means by which we affirm our trust in Him, and place ourselves in agreement with his will!

Amen!

Have a great day!