Long before the Internet, I kept a file on juicy gossip that was sent my way:
-- Madalyn Murray O’Hair’s plot to end all religious broadcasting (1974).
-- The Neiman-Marcus cookie recipe (I first heard of it in 1966).
-- Procter & Gamble supporting the Church of Satan (1995?)
-- Scientists discover Hell in Siberia (1990)
-- McDonalds mixes earthworms in their hamburger meat (1980s?)
-- Social Security checks which can’t be cashed unless the bearer had a mark in the right hand or forehead (1981).
Now most of these would be amusing if it weren’t for the fact that people actually believe this stuff, sign petitions and pass them on. And that some of them are actually harmful!
There are plenty of rumor mills producing new ones too. Standing in the checkout at Wal*Mart last week, I read these headlines in the “news” rack:
-- Rednecks Shoot Down Flying Saucer (picture included).
-- Family Breakup in the White House (G. W. and Laura’s picture included).
-- Who’s Gay and Who’s Not in Country Music (Willie and Dolly’s pictures included).
But the greatest rumor medium of all is the Internet and e-mails. (Forward this to at least 10 of your friends or (a) horrible things will happen to you, (b) you will not receive a blessing, or (c) you don’t love Jesus.)
Much of the stuff that I receive is from my friends on the religious right. It seems odd to me that those who see themselves as the guardians of the morals of America apparently do not see gossip as a moral issue:
-- Al Gore claimed his favorite Bible verse was John 16:3 (2000).
-- John Kerry claimed his favorite Bible verse was John 16:3 (2004)
-- I apparently don’t have any friends on the religious left or I would probably have received the same rumor about G. W. Bush. My Internet source says it was floating around.
When I reply and question the truthfulness of the rumors, my friends sometimes give rationalizations such as these (any of which I suppose could have been used by the “witnesses” at Jesus’ trials):
-- “I didn’t know if it was true or not, but I thought I should pass it on in case it was true,”
-- “I knew it was at least partially true.”
-- “Where did you read that it wasn’t true? The liberal press?”
-- “Whose side are you on anyway?”
Well, I hope I’m on the side of truth.
“And he who spreads slander is a fool” (Proverbs 10:18b).
“He who goes about as a slanderer reveals secrets, therefore do not associate with a gossip” (Proverbs 20:19).
“But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth” (and your e-mail) (Colossians 3:8).
In Romans 1:26-31, Paul classifies gossips and slanderers right along with murderers, homosexuals and others as examples of the depravity of man.
The tempter in the garden used half-truths and lies to tempt Eve into sin. We don’t need to follow his methods even when battling with him.
Some questions we should ask before passing on a rumor:
-- Is it true? Don’t pass it on till you’re sure.
-- Is it necessary? Does it serve any useful purpose, other than titillation or making people I don’t like look bad?
-- Is it harmful to those it is concerned with? Many people and organizations have suffered irreparable damage from gossip.
-- Is it edifying to the hearers or readers?
“Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear” (Ephesians 4:29).
Bill Ball
5/27/2006
Bill's Thoughts on the Bible, Theology and American Culture
Monday, May 29, 2006
Thursday, May 18, 2006
INTEGRITY
Sometimes we get tired of hearing about moral and ethical failures on the part of those in leadership. Congressmen, CEOs, even presidents all failing and when publicly exposed, denying, blaming others, and worst of all talking religiously. Some of the worst offenders are preachers. I have personally known at least four people in ministry who have taken a serious fall in the area of sexual behavior. Some of these have repented, but not all.
What’s wrong with us? Why do some of us fall and others do not? We are all sinners and capable of what these have done. Maybe some of us just haven’t been caught (yet)!
I’m not trying to either condemn or excuse anyone, but I do believe we need to ask what is missing. And I believe that one missing piece is integrity. We who are in leadership often think differently than we behave, behave differently than we talk, talk differently than we think. We have compartmentalized our lives and failed to integrate them.
The word integrity is defined by Webster as: (1) an unimpaired condition: SOUNDNESS; (2) firm adherence to a code of esp. moral or artistic values: INCORRUPTIBILITY; (3) the quality or state of being complete or undivided: COMPLETENESS. The related words are helpful in understanding: integer, integral, integrate, all have to do with wholeness. A person of integrity then, is a complete person, one whose life is not fragmented, whose behavior and thinking and speech all fit together, the opposite of what James 1:8 refers to as “a double minded man.”
In his book INTEGRITY, Stephen L. Carter says "Integrity, as I will use the term, requires three steps: (1) discerning what is right and what is wrong; (2) acting on what you have discerned, even at personal cost; and (3) saying openly that you are acting on your understanding of right from wrong. ...” Of course, for the Christian this involves an understanding of the Scriptures.
The Hebrew words usually translated “integrity” are TAM and its related words. Some of the uses are interesting. One form of the word is used to describe sacrificial animals as being “without blemish” (Leviticus 1:3, 10, etc.), or of a period of time being “completed” or “full” (Leviticus 23:15; 25:30). When used of a person, it is often translated “blameless” or “perfect” or “upright” (Deuteronomy 18:13; 1 Samuel 22:24), but the idea is still of a complete person.
One of the best known characters of the Old Testament is the man named Job. He is described in the first verse of the book of Job as “blameless (TAM), upright, fearing God, and turning away from evil.” The word translated “blameless” would be better translated “a man of integrity.” In a sense, the descriptive terms which follow really fill out what integrity means. He was “upright” (in his dealings with others), “fearing (reverencing) God” and “turning away from evil.” In other words, all aspects of his life fit together. Later in the story, after Job had suffered horrible disasters and losses, the LORD could brag on him to Satan, that “he still holds fast his integrity” (Job 2:3). In chapter 31, in response to his three friends who claimed that his sufferings were due to his sin, Job could deny all possible faults and in a sense challenge his detractors to “prove it!”
The book of Proverbs gives many of the practical consequences for a person of integrity. The LORD is his “shield” (2:7). “He who walks in integrity, walks securely” (10:9). “The integrity of the upright will guide them” (11:3). One of my favorites is 20:7: “A righteous man who walks in his integrity – how blessed are his sons after him.”
None of us leads a life of complete integrity. There was only one who could really challenge His challengers with “Which one of you convicts me of sin?” (John 8:46).
I believe this is what our goal in life should be: to be as closely conformed to Christ as it is possible in this life; to live a life like His; to have our thinking, our actions and our speech integrated; to be the same person in our private lives as in our public lives.
Philip Yancey quotes a child psychiatrist as defining character as “how you behave when no one is looking.” The same could be said of integrity.
Bill Ball
5/18/2006
What’s wrong with us? Why do some of us fall and others do not? We are all sinners and capable of what these have done. Maybe some of us just haven’t been caught (yet)!
I’m not trying to either condemn or excuse anyone, but I do believe we need to ask what is missing. And I believe that one missing piece is integrity. We who are in leadership often think differently than we behave, behave differently than we talk, talk differently than we think. We have compartmentalized our lives and failed to integrate them.
The word integrity is defined by Webster as: (1) an unimpaired condition: SOUNDNESS; (2) firm adherence to a code of esp. moral or artistic values: INCORRUPTIBILITY; (3) the quality or state of being complete or undivided: COMPLETENESS. The related words are helpful in understanding: integer, integral, integrate, all have to do with wholeness. A person of integrity then, is a complete person, one whose life is not fragmented, whose behavior and thinking and speech all fit together, the opposite of what James 1:8 refers to as “a double minded man.”
In his book INTEGRITY, Stephen L. Carter says "Integrity, as I will use the term, requires three steps: (1) discerning what is right and what is wrong; (2) acting on what you have discerned, even at personal cost; and (3) saying openly that you are acting on your understanding of right from wrong. ...” Of course, for the Christian this involves an understanding of the Scriptures.
The Hebrew words usually translated “integrity” are TAM and its related words. Some of the uses are interesting. One form of the word is used to describe sacrificial animals as being “without blemish” (Leviticus 1:3, 10, etc.), or of a period of time being “completed” or “full” (Leviticus 23:15; 25:30). When used of a person, it is often translated “blameless” or “perfect” or “upright” (Deuteronomy 18:13; 1 Samuel 22:24), but the idea is still of a complete person.
One of the best known characters of the Old Testament is the man named Job. He is described in the first verse of the book of Job as “blameless (TAM), upright, fearing God, and turning away from evil.” The word translated “blameless” would be better translated “a man of integrity.” In a sense, the descriptive terms which follow really fill out what integrity means. He was “upright” (in his dealings with others), “fearing (reverencing) God” and “turning away from evil.” In other words, all aspects of his life fit together. Later in the story, after Job had suffered horrible disasters and losses, the LORD could brag on him to Satan, that “he still holds fast his integrity” (Job 2:3). In chapter 31, in response to his three friends who claimed that his sufferings were due to his sin, Job could deny all possible faults and in a sense challenge his detractors to “prove it!”
The book of Proverbs gives many of the practical consequences for a person of integrity. The LORD is his “shield” (2:7). “He who walks in integrity, walks securely” (10:9). “The integrity of the upright will guide them” (11:3). One of my favorites is 20:7: “A righteous man who walks in his integrity – how blessed are his sons after him.”
None of us leads a life of complete integrity. There was only one who could really challenge His challengers with “Which one of you convicts me of sin?” (John 8:46).
I believe this is what our goal in life should be: to be as closely conformed to Christ as it is possible in this life; to live a life like His; to have our thinking, our actions and our speech integrated; to be the same person in our private lives as in our public lives.
Philip Yancey quotes a child psychiatrist as defining character as “how you behave when no one is looking.” The same could be said of integrity.
Bill Ball
5/18/2006
Monday, May 15, 2006
A SUITABLE HELPER
Emily said … (comment on THE WOMEN AT THE CROSS).
“Sweet!!! Man, that must have been a ... unique (for lack of a better word) place to have been, Watching your son/savior/friend dying, watching people either spitting on him or crying beneath him ... hm. Wow ... amazing. Now, what’s the significance of the women being present? Was it that since the men all fled, the women were the ones to remain and care for the body?”
Em: Thanks for your comment. It has forced me to think, but I still don’t have a neat answer to your question. “Significance” questions are hard to deal with. Webster defines significance as “something that is conveyed as a meaning often obscurely or indirectly.” So then, is the Bible trying to “convey” something to us through the women being present, while the men had fled, or is it simply recording history?
The Bible is full of stories of women who acted when men were afraid to. One of my favorites is in Judges 13 about a man named Manoah and his (unnamed) wife. The Angel of the LORD (probably, as many believe, the pre-incarnate Christ) had appeared to the woman, told her she was going to give birth, and had given specific instructions about her pregnancy. She reports to her husband who is full of doubts and questions. At the end of the story Manoah finally realizes who they’ve been dealing with and cries in a panic, “We shall surely die, for we have seen God.” His wife calmly reassures him with an answer something like this (if I may paraphrase), “Calm down. If God wanted to kill us, would he have gone to all this trouble?”
Or the story of Deborah, the prophetess, who had to accompany the reluctant general Barak into war (Judges 4:4-9).
Of course, sometimes the women led the men in the wrong direction, as Eve with Adam in the garden, or Sarai offering her servant girl to Abram. In both cases it says that the man “listened to the voice of” the woman (Genesis 3:17; 16:2).
We are told in Genesis 2:18, “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good for man to be alone; I will make him a helper (not “helpmeet” as the King James is incorrectly read) suitable for him.’” The Hebrew word translated “helper” is ezer and does not mean a subordinate; it is usually used of God as the helper or provider. “Our soul waits for the LORD; He is our help and our shield” (Psalm 33:20). “But I am afflicted and needy; Hasten to me, O God! You are my help and my deliverer; O LORD, do not delay” (Psalm 70:5). The Hebrew word translated “suitable” is neged, which is defined as “in front of” with the idea of being conspicuous. “Corresponding to” would be perhaps a more accurate translation here. One commentator paraphrases it “a helping being, in which, as soon as he sees it, he may recognize himself.” I like to see it as the woman being the missing piece in a two-piece jigsaw puzzle.
So I guess we should look at the women at the cross, and afterward at the grave as simply filling in what is lacking in the men, as they have done through the Bible and through all history.
Opa
5/15/2006
“Sweet!!! Man, that must have been a ... unique (for lack of a better word) place to have been, Watching your son/savior/friend dying, watching people either spitting on him or crying beneath him ... hm. Wow ... amazing. Now, what’s the significance of the women being present? Was it that since the men all fled, the women were the ones to remain and care for the body?”
Em: Thanks for your comment. It has forced me to think, but I still don’t have a neat answer to your question. “Significance” questions are hard to deal with. Webster defines significance as “something that is conveyed as a meaning often obscurely or indirectly.” So then, is the Bible trying to “convey” something to us through the women being present, while the men had fled, or is it simply recording history?
The Bible is full of stories of women who acted when men were afraid to. One of my favorites is in Judges 13 about a man named Manoah and his (unnamed) wife. The Angel of the LORD (probably, as many believe, the pre-incarnate Christ) had appeared to the woman, told her she was going to give birth, and had given specific instructions about her pregnancy. She reports to her husband who is full of doubts and questions. At the end of the story Manoah finally realizes who they’ve been dealing with and cries in a panic, “We shall surely die, for we have seen God.” His wife calmly reassures him with an answer something like this (if I may paraphrase), “Calm down. If God wanted to kill us, would he have gone to all this trouble?”
Or the story of Deborah, the prophetess, who had to accompany the reluctant general Barak into war (Judges 4:4-9).
Of course, sometimes the women led the men in the wrong direction, as Eve with Adam in the garden, or Sarai offering her servant girl to Abram. In both cases it says that the man “listened to the voice of” the woman (Genesis 3:17; 16:2).
We are told in Genesis 2:18, “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good for man to be alone; I will make him a helper (not “helpmeet” as the King James is incorrectly read) suitable for him.’” The Hebrew word translated “helper” is ezer and does not mean a subordinate; it is usually used of God as the helper or provider. “Our soul waits for the LORD; He is our help and our shield” (Psalm 33:20). “But I am afflicted and needy; Hasten to me, O God! You are my help and my deliverer; O LORD, do not delay” (Psalm 70:5). The Hebrew word translated “suitable” is neged, which is defined as “in front of” with the idea of being conspicuous. “Corresponding to” would be perhaps a more accurate translation here. One commentator paraphrases it “a helping being, in which, as soon as he sees it, he may recognize himself.” I like to see it as the woman being the missing piece in a two-piece jigsaw puzzle.
So I guess we should look at the women at the cross, and afterward at the grave as simply filling in what is lacking in the men, as they have done through the Bible and through all history.
Opa
5/15/2006
Thursday, May 11, 2006
CORPORATE CONFESSION
In his book of Lamentations, Jeremiah the prophet mourns the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans. He describes in vivid, horrible detail the agonies of his people. He personifies the fallen city, and it is sometimes difficult for the reader to tell if Jeremiah or Jerusalem is speaking. But the one thing I’d like to note is that Jeremiah sees all the suffering of Jerusalem as deserved, and identifies himself with the city and her people. “Jerusalem sinned greatly” (1:8). “The LORD is righteous; for I have rebelled against His command” (1:18). “I have been very rebellious” (1:20).
Daniel in Babylon, toward the end of the 70-year captivity, saw that the time of restoration was nearing and so “set his face” to God with “prayer and supplications, with fasting, sackcloth and ashes” (Daniel 9:1-5). His prayer is a prayer of confession, not just of the people of Israel, as though they were a separate entity. He includes himself. “ ... we have sinned, committed iniquity, acted wickedly, rebelled ... “ etc., etc. “ ... open shame belongs to us.” The prayer is a long recitation of the sins of his people, with whom he includes himself. He confesses that they had received what they deserved, because they had “not listened” to God’s law or His prophets and he begs for God’s mercy and forgiveness (9:6-19).
Nehemiah in Persia, upon hearing of the “distress and reproach” that had befallen the remnant who had returned to Jerusalem, began a period of weeping, mourning, fasting and praying for his people (Nehemiah 1:1-5). He confesses the sin of his people, which had brought on their suffering. And again, he doesn’t pray for a distant “them,” he includes himself in the confession, “ ... we have sinned against You; I and my father’s house have sinned. We have acted very corruptly ... ” (1:6, 7).
Probably neither Jeremiah or Daniel or Nehemiah had personally taken part in any of the sins they enumerate. In fact, Jeremiah had been haranguing his people about their sins for close to forty years. Yet each of these men identified with his people so intimately that he could understand their sins as well as their deserved sufferings, as his own. They had a sort of “corporate identity.”
But this is not merely an Old Testament or Jewish concept, confined to those who made or make up an ethnically homogeneous group such as the nation of Israel.
Jesus did this for us – for His people. “Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him” (Isaiah 53:4-6).
When Jesus spoke of “the cup” in His prayer in the garden (Luke 22:42), He was using an Old Testament concept – the “cup” represented God’s wrath for sin. He took our sin and God’s wrath on Himself. He identified with us in a way much greater than the prophets had identified with Israel.
What about the church? Paul tells us over and over that “we who are many are one body in Christ” (Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 10:17; 12:27). We’re told that “ ... and if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it” (1 Corinthians 12:26). So if the church is guilty of sin or sins, should we identify? Do we each individually bear some of the guilt of the church as we do the sufferings and the glory? Should we as individual Christians confess these sins as our own? Should we say “Lord, we have sinned”?
Now I don’t mean we should be like the sort of nit-pickers we’ve all come across (and have probably been, at least part of the time). They can tell you what’s wrong with a particular church, whether it’s the music or the preaching or the length of the service. They can identify the sins of any church, but they don’t identify WITH them.
Nor do I mean being a “bleeding heart.” You know the folks who feel that whatever awful is happening in the world is somehow our fault, that the church is to blame for all the evils in America and the world. Immorality, divorce, homosexuality crime, etc. are perceived as in some way caused by the church, usually either by its legalism or its tolerance.
I believe we need to look inside, at what the church is doing wrong, to see ourselves as in a very real way involved, because we are part of the corporate identity, the body of Christ. And perhaps we need to seriously pray something like this:
-- We have sinned, I and my fathers have sinned.
-- We have forsaken You and have turned unto other gods.
-- We have become obsessed with size, with growth for growth’s sake.
-- We have desired to make a name for ourselves, rather than to glorify Your Name.
-- We have concerned ourselves with the sins of those outside, rather than with our own.
-- We have placed our trust in political solutions to the moral problems of our nation.
-- We have failed to love our neighbor.
-- We have failed to concern ourselves with carrying out Your great commission.
-- O Lord hear, O Lord forgive! For Your own sake and for the people who are called by Your Name.
Bill Ball
5/11/2006
Daniel in Babylon, toward the end of the 70-year captivity, saw that the time of restoration was nearing and so “set his face” to God with “prayer and supplications, with fasting, sackcloth and ashes” (Daniel 9:1-5). His prayer is a prayer of confession, not just of the people of Israel, as though they were a separate entity. He includes himself. “ ... we have sinned, committed iniquity, acted wickedly, rebelled ... “ etc., etc. “ ... open shame belongs to us.” The prayer is a long recitation of the sins of his people, with whom he includes himself. He confesses that they had received what they deserved, because they had “not listened” to God’s law or His prophets and he begs for God’s mercy and forgiveness (9:6-19).
Nehemiah in Persia, upon hearing of the “distress and reproach” that had befallen the remnant who had returned to Jerusalem, began a period of weeping, mourning, fasting and praying for his people (Nehemiah 1:1-5). He confesses the sin of his people, which had brought on their suffering. And again, he doesn’t pray for a distant “them,” he includes himself in the confession, “ ... we have sinned against You; I and my father’s house have sinned. We have acted very corruptly ... ” (1:6, 7).
Probably neither Jeremiah or Daniel or Nehemiah had personally taken part in any of the sins they enumerate. In fact, Jeremiah had been haranguing his people about their sins for close to forty years. Yet each of these men identified with his people so intimately that he could understand their sins as well as their deserved sufferings, as his own. They had a sort of “corporate identity.”
But this is not merely an Old Testament or Jewish concept, confined to those who made or make up an ethnically homogeneous group such as the nation of Israel.
Jesus did this for us – for His people. “Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him” (Isaiah 53:4-6).
When Jesus spoke of “the cup” in His prayer in the garden (Luke 22:42), He was using an Old Testament concept – the “cup” represented God’s wrath for sin. He took our sin and God’s wrath on Himself. He identified with us in a way much greater than the prophets had identified with Israel.
What about the church? Paul tells us over and over that “we who are many are one body in Christ” (Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 10:17; 12:27). We’re told that “ ... and if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it” (1 Corinthians 12:26). So if the church is guilty of sin or sins, should we identify? Do we each individually bear some of the guilt of the church as we do the sufferings and the glory? Should we as individual Christians confess these sins as our own? Should we say “Lord, we have sinned”?
Now I don’t mean we should be like the sort of nit-pickers we’ve all come across (and have probably been, at least part of the time). They can tell you what’s wrong with a particular church, whether it’s the music or the preaching or the length of the service. They can identify the sins of any church, but they don’t identify WITH them.
Nor do I mean being a “bleeding heart.” You know the folks who feel that whatever awful is happening in the world is somehow our fault, that the church is to blame for all the evils in America and the world. Immorality, divorce, homosexuality crime, etc. are perceived as in some way caused by the church, usually either by its legalism or its tolerance.
I believe we need to look inside, at what the church is doing wrong, to see ourselves as in a very real way involved, because we are part of the corporate identity, the body of Christ. And perhaps we need to seriously pray something like this:
-- We have sinned, I and my fathers have sinned.
-- We have forsaken You and have turned unto other gods.
-- We have become obsessed with size, with growth for growth’s sake.
-- We have desired to make a name for ourselves, rather than to glorify Your Name.
-- We have concerned ourselves with the sins of those outside, rather than with our own.
-- We have placed our trust in political solutions to the moral problems of our nation.
-- We have failed to love our neighbor.
-- We have failed to concern ourselves with carrying out Your great commission.
-- O Lord hear, O Lord forgive! For Your own sake and for the people who are called by Your Name.
Bill Ball
5/11/2006
Tuesday, May 9, 2006
STRANGERS AND ALIENS
The issue of immigration reform is a hot-button issue. Congressmen and other politicians all wax eloquent about the problem or problems: 12 million illegal aliens, “porous” borders, the necessity for cheap labor, assimilation, etc., etc. And of course, my e-mail friends have forwarded to me various opinions.
I don’t have a simple solution to the problems, but I feel that as a Christian I must first go to the Scriptures to find out what they have to say. And they say a lot!
The Hebrew Old Testament uses at least two words over 100 times, which are essentially synonymous, Ger (verb form Gur) and Zur, both usually translated “stranger,” sometimes “alien,” or “sojourner,” depending on the English version. The words are usually applied to people living in the land of Israel who were not of Israelite stock. Sometimes, of course, they were used of the Israelites themselves. The Israelites were to take special care of strangers or aliens because they themselves had been strangers in Egypt. “You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 22:21). Strangers were included along with the poor, widows and orphans as objects of their and God’s care (Exodus 22:21-27; 23:9-12).
The original “Law of Love,” often quoted in the New Testament was first stated in Leviticus 19:18, “ ... you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.” And it is clear that the word neighbor did not apply only to one’s fellow Israelite as verse 34 shows, “The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.” So when Jesus quoted the law of love, He would have understood it to include “the stranger,” as the story in Luke 10:25-37 shows. (Except in this story, it is the “stranger” who demonstrates love.)
When we come to the New Testament epistles we find that this teaching is expanded. “Hospitality” is a desired virtue. But this is not talking about coffee and cookies with our fellow church folks after the service. The Greek words usually translated hospitable and hospitality are philoxenos and philoxenia, literally "love of strangers" (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8; 1 Peter 4:9; Romans 12:13; Hebrews 13:2). The word xenodocheo ("entertain strangers," in the sense of having them in for a meal) is also used in 1 Timothy 5:10.
In the movie, “My Big Fat Greek Wedding,” the bride’s father referred to her husband-to-be as a "xenos." The word for stranger (xenos) is used with a broad range of meanings, but usually had the idea of someone or something foreign or unknown.
In 1 Peter 4:9, we are told to be philoxenos to one another, which would seem to imply a mutual hospitality among believers. However, in Romans 12:13, it is part of the list which includes "sharing the needs of the saints," so it must go beyond “the saints.” In Hebrews 13:2, it is in addition to brotherly love (philadelphia) in verse 1. Also this verse goes on to say that by practicing this "some have entertained (xenizo) angels without knowing it."
When we tie this to the New Testament teaching that WE (Christians) are "aliens and strangers" in this world, I think we can begin to see a biblical rationale for "hospitality."
Putting these all together, I'd say that biblical hospitality includes, but goes beyond mutual entertainment. It implies also a reaching out to those "outside," and possibly opening our homes to them.
When we look at Matthew 25:31-46, it gets pretty convicting. “I was a stranger and you invited Me in. ... when did we see You a stranger and invite You in? ... to the extent that you did it to the least of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.” The word "stranger" (xenos) is used four times and is classed with other groups of people in need. Also see Luke 14:12-14 (though the word "stranger" isn't used there).
So, when trying to come to a position regarding “aliens” (illegal or legal), we need to consider first, not the economic or political questions, though they may be important, but the biblical command to love; and the love which is commanded is not to be a love for self, or even “my country,” it is to be a love that desires to meet the need of those in need, especially the poor and the stranger.
“If Jesus should come and knock on your door,
For a place to lie down, bread from your floor.
Would you welcome Him in, or would you turn Him away?
Then God would reward you on that great judgment day.”
(“The Tramp on the Street,” traditional folk song)
Bill Ball
5/8/2006
I don’t have a simple solution to the problems, but I feel that as a Christian I must first go to the Scriptures to find out what they have to say. And they say a lot!
The Hebrew Old Testament uses at least two words over 100 times, which are essentially synonymous, Ger (verb form Gur) and Zur, both usually translated “stranger,” sometimes “alien,” or “sojourner,” depending on the English version. The words are usually applied to people living in the land of Israel who were not of Israelite stock. Sometimes, of course, they were used of the Israelites themselves. The Israelites were to take special care of strangers or aliens because they themselves had been strangers in Egypt. “You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 22:21). Strangers were included along with the poor, widows and orphans as objects of their and God’s care (Exodus 22:21-27; 23:9-12).
The original “Law of Love,” often quoted in the New Testament was first stated in Leviticus 19:18, “ ... you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.” And it is clear that the word neighbor did not apply only to one’s fellow Israelite as verse 34 shows, “The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.” So when Jesus quoted the law of love, He would have understood it to include “the stranger,” as the story in Luke 10:25-37 shows. (Except in this story, it is the “stranger” who demonstrates love.)
When we come to the New Testament epistles we find that this teaching is expanded. “Hospitality” is a desired virtue. But this is not talking about coffee and cookies with our fellow church folks after the service. The Greek words usually translated hospitable and hospitality are philoxenos and philoxenia, literally "love of strangers" (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8; 1 Peter 4:9; Romans 12:13; Hebrews 13:2). The word xenodocheo ("entertain strangers," in the sense of having them in for a meal) is also used in 1 Timothy 5:10.
In the movie, “My Big Fat Greek Wedding,” the bride’s father referred to her husband-to-be as a "xenos." The word for stranger (xenos) is used with a broad range of meanings, but usually had the idea of someone or something foreign or unknown.
In 1 Peter 4:9, we are told to be philoxenos to one another, which would seem to imply a mutual hospitality among believers. However, in Romans 12:13, it is part of the list which includes "sharing the needs of the saints," so it must go beyond “the saints.” In Hebrews 13:2, it is in addition to brotherly love (philadelphia) in verse 1. Also this verse goes on to say that by practicing this "some have entertained (xenizo) angels without knowing it."
When we tie this to the New Testament teaching that WE (Christians) are "aliens and strangers" in this world, I think we can begin to see a biblical rationale for "hospitality."
Putting these all together, I'd say that biblical hospitality includes, but goes beyond mutual entertainment. It implies also a reaching out to those "outside," and possibly opening our homes to them.
When we look at Matthew 25:31-46, it gets pretty convicting. “I was a stranger and you invited Me in. ... when did we see You a stranger and invite You in? ... to the extent that you did it to the least of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.” The word "stranger" (xenos) is used four times and is classed with other groups of people in need. Also see Luke 14:12-14 (though the word "stranger" isn't used there).
So, when trying to come to a position regarding “aliens” (illegal or legal), we need to consider first, not the economic or political questions, though they may be important, but the biblical command to love; and the love which is commanded is not to be a love for self, or even “my country,” it is to be a love that desires to meet the need of those in need, especially the poor and the stranger.
“If Jesus should come and knock on your door,
For a place to lie down, bread from your floor.
Would you welcome Him in, or would you turn Him away?
Then God would reward you on that great judgment day.”
(“The Tramp on the Street,” traditional folk song)
Bill Ball
5/8/2006
Saturday, May 6, 2006
THE WOMEN AT THE CROSS
The gospels are full of stories about Jesus’ 12 male disciples, but at the climactic moment when He was arrested in the garden, all fled (Matthew 26:56b; Mark 14:50) as Jesus had predicted (Matthew 26:31). Later, Peter followed at a distance and denied Christ, while John alone of the 12 stood at the cross (John 19:26). But there were other disciples there, the women. All four gospels mention them.
How many women were at the cross and what were their names?
Matthew 27:55 says, “Many women were there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, while ministering to Him.”
Verse 56, “Among them was Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”
Matthew clearly names only three women out of an indefinite number (“many”). It should be noted that the second Mary was not Jesus’ mother, but most likely the mother of James the son of Alphaeus, one of the 12 (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18).
Mark 15:40, 41 says, “There were also women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses, and Salome. When He was in Galilee, they used to follow Him and minister to Him; and there were many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem”
Mark also names three women out of the “many”. The first two are the same as Matthew’s first two. If Salome is the same as “the mother of the sons of Zebedee,” we have the same three as mentioned by Matthew. If these two are different persons, we now have four women.
Assuming the women at the tomb were also present at the cross, we now have at least four women or possibly six named.
So who were the women at the cross?
The long list – eight named women, possibly nine:
1. Mary Magdalene (all four gospels)
2. Mary the mother of James the less and Joseph (or Joses) (Matthew and Mark)
3. The mother of the sons of Zebedee (Matthew)
4. Salome (Mark)
5. Joanna (Luke)
6. Mary, Jesus’ mother (John)
7. His mother’s sister (John)
8. Mary the wife of Clopas (John)
9. Also possibly Susanna (Luke 8:3)
If (4) Salome is (3) the mother of the sons of Zebedee and if (7) Jesus mother’s sister is also (8) the wife of Clopas, we have shortened our list to a minimum of six.
We should note again that of Jesus’ 12 original male disciples, all but one (John) had fled. The only other sympathetic men mentioned as being at the cross were Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, both “closet disciples” until this point (John 19:38, 39).
Bill Ball 7/2004
How many women were at the cross and what were their names?
Matthew 27:55 says, “Many women were there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, while ministering to Him.”
Verse 56, “Among them was Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”
Matthew clearly names only three women out of an indefinite number (“many”). It should be noted that the second Mary was not Jesus’ mother, but most likely the mother of James the son of Alphaeus, one of the 12 (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18).
Mark 15:40, 41 says, “There were also women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses, and Salome. When He was in Galilee, they used to follow Him and minister to Him; and there were many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem”
Mark also names three women out of the “many”. The first two are the same as Matthew’s first two. If Salome is the same as “the mother of the sons of Zebedee,” we have the same three as mentioned by Matthew. If these two are different persons, we now have four women.
Luke 23:49, 55 simply speaks of “the women who accompanied Him from Galilee” without giving names or numbers. In 8:1-3 he names some women who earlier had accompanied Jesus. “Mary who was called Magdalene,.. Joanna, the wife of Chuza,.. Susanna, and many others.” In 24:10 he mentions, “Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James,” with “other women,” as witnesses of the resurrection.
Assuming the women at the tomb were also present at the cross, we now have at least four women or possibly six named.
John 19:25 says, “But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”
John is the only evangelist who tells us that Jesus’ mother was there. He also mentions Mary Magdalene as do the other three evangelists.
The question here is whether “His mother’s sister” and “Mary the wife of Clopas” are the same or two different persons. Neither the English nor the Greek readings are unambiguous. On the side of their being two different persons is the fact that if they were the same person there would be sisters with the same name.
Some have attempted to identify the unnamed sister with “the mother of the sons of Zebedee” in Matthew, thus making the apostles James and John the first cousins of Jesus. Although this is possible, there is not to my knowledge the slightest hint of this elsewhere.
So who were the women at the cross?
The long list – eight named women, possibly nine:
1. Mary Magdalene (all four gospels)
2. Mary the mother of James the less and Joseph (or Joses) (Matthew and Mark)
3. The mother of the sons of Zebedee (Matthew)
4. Salome (Mark)
5. Joanna (Luke)
6. Mary, Jesus’ mother (John)
7. His mother’s sister (John)
8. Mary the wife of Clopas (John)
9. Also possibly Susanna (Luke 8:3)
If (4) Salome is (3) the mother of the sons of Zebedee and if (7) Jesus mother’s sister is also (8) the wife of Clopas, we have shortened our list to a minimum of six.
We should note again that of Jesus’ 12 original male disciples, all but one (John) had fled. The only other sympathetic men mentioned as being at the cross were Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, both “closet disciples” until this point (John 19:38, 39).
Bill Ball 7/2004
PIGEONHOLING
Pigeonhole (definition): “A neat category which usually fails to reflect actual complexities” (Webster’s 9th Collegiate Dictionary).
I was in a gathering once at which two young ladies were comparing their traumatic experiences. Both had been robbed or held up. I forget the circumstances, but I do remember something that struck me as strange in their descriptions. The first had been robbed, but the second had been robbed by a “black” man. Now I don’t mean to make light of their horrible experiences, but it struck me as strange that being robbed by a black man seemed to add to the trauma.
We “pigeonhole” people; it is comfortable. We can instantly draw certain conclusions about people we meet if we know what category or categories to place them in. It saves having to get to know them. We’ve all done it and we all do it. Sometimes it is helpful; often it is not.
And pigeonholing is not done solely according to race, although that is a favorite, probably because it is easy to spot a person’s skin color. We categorize people by their age, place of birth, height (Remember the song about “Short People”?), occupation, financial status, education, political party, religious affiliation, etc., etc. The list is endless.
I’ve been pigeonholed. “You think that way because you’re a Yankee” (I’ve lived in Texas 40 years). If I state my opinion on a particular political issue, I’m immediately told that I hold the opinion because I’m a Democrat or a “liberal” or, even occasionally, a Republican.
Once, when I was a pastor, the accusation was leveled against me: “You don’t preach the gospel!” The reason given was that I taught the doctrine of election, (I had preached on the 9th chapter of Romans) “and if you preach election, then you’re a Calvinist, and if you’re Calvinist then you can’t preach the gospel!” My pigeonholer had placed me in a category and then placed every one in that category in a tighter category. My protests (just because Calvin and I agree on some biblical issues doesn’t make me a Calvinist) were of no avail.
Another way of categorizing people is by personality or temperament categories. If a person has certain personality traits, he or she is a “phlegmatic,” or a “choleric” or some other. Then, because that person is now pigeonholed, we can expect certain behaviors from them.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t find Jesus thinking or acting like this. His circle of followers and friends was broad and included persons of various ethnic, political and religious backgrounds. He dealt with people as individuals, not as members of any particular group.
The only exception that I can find is the religious people – the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23:13-33). But even here it was their behavior, not their “denomination” that Jesus condemned. They held to a high religious code externally, and demanded strict adherence to the code from their followers, yet they themselves inwardly were disobedient to that code. They were hypocrites, though in this group Jesus did find some individuals to commend. He even told one scribe, “You are not far from the Kingdom of God” (Mark 12:34) and had Pharisees as disciples (John 19:38, 39).
Jesus told us not to judge, or we will ourselves be judged by the same standard (Matthew 7:1-5). Though there’s much more to this passage, I believe that our pigeonholing of others is often nothing more than sinful judgment!
Perhaps one of the reasons we pigeonhole others is that we fit comfortably in our own pigeonholes. We can use them as excuses for not changing our behavior. I believe there is one category that we should seek to be placed in: the category of a disciple of Jesus Christ (John 13:35).
Bill Ball
5/6/2006
I was in a gathering once at which two young ladies were comparing their traumatic experiences. Both had been robbed or held up. I forget the circumstances, but I do remember something that struck me as strange in their descriptions. The first had been robbed, but the second had been robbed by a “black” man. Now I don’t mean to make light of their horrible experiences, but it struck me as strange that being robbed by a black man seemed to add to the trauma.
We “pigeonhole” people; it is comfortable. We can instantly draw certain conclusions about people we meet if we know what category or categories to place them in. It saves having to get to know them. We’ve all done it and we all do it. Sometimes it is helpful; often it is not.
And pigeonholing is not done solely according to race, although that is a favorite, probably because it is easy to spot a person’s skin color. We categorize people by their age, place of birth, height (Remember the song about “Short People”?), occupation, financial status, education, political party, religious affiliation, etc., etc. The list is endless.
I’ve been pigeonholed. “You think that way because you’re a Yankee” (I’ve lived in Texas 40 years). If I state my opinion on a particular political issue, I’m immediately told that I hold the opinion because I’m a Democrat or a “liberal” or, even occasionally, a Republican.
Once, when I was a pastor, the accusation was leveled against me: “You don’t preach the gospel!” The reason given was that I taught the doctrine of election, (I had preached on the 9th chapter of Romans) “and if you preach election, then you’re a Calvinist, and if you’re Calvinist then you can’t preach the gospel!” My pigeonholer had placed me in a category and then placed every one in that category in a tighter category. My protests (just because Calvin and I agree on some biblical issues doesn’t make me a Calvinist) were of no avail.
Another way of categorizing people is by personality or temperament categories. If a person has certain personality traits, he or she is a “phlegmatic,” or a “choleric” or some other. Then, because that person is now pigeonholed, we can expect certain behaviors from them.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t find Jesus thinking or acting like this. His circle of followers and friends was broad and included persons of various ethnic, political and religious backgrounds. He dealt with people as individuals, not as members of any particular group.
The only exception that I can find is the religious people – the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23:13-33). But even here it was their behavior, not their “denomination” that Jesus condemned. They held to a high religious code externally, and demanded strict adherence to the code from their followers, yet they themselves inwardly were disobedient to that code. They were hypocrites, though in this group Jesus did find some individuals to commend. He even told one scribe, “You are not far from the Kingdom of God” (Mark 12:34) and had Pharisees as disciples (John 19:38, 39).
Jesus told us not to judge, or we will ourselves be judged by the same standard (Matthew 7:1-5). Though there’s much more to this passage, I believe that our pigeonholing of others is often nothing more than sinful judgment!
Perhaps one of the reasons we pigeonhole others is that we fit comfortably in our own pigeonholes. We can use them as excuses for not changing our behavior. I believe there is one category that we should seek to be placed in: the category of a disciple of Jesus Christ (John 13:35).
Bill Ball
5/6/2006
Friday, May 5, 2006
BOOKS
The other evening, a young lady, a visitor in our home, strolled into my study and was gazing at the books on my shelves. After looking them over for a while she asked me, “What book has had the greatest impact on your thinking?”
I sat down opposite this wall of books and looked them over. I know the location of nearly every book and the categories of books on every area of the wall. I stared at my books on theology, Bible commentaries, biographies, books of history, philosophy and ethics. I really couldn’t honestly answer her question.
I finally hesitatingly answered that, next to the Bible, probably the works of Francis Schaeffer have had the greatest influence, or maybe C. S. Lewis. After I thought a bit longer I told her that nearly every book I’ve read has had some impact on my thinking; that when I finally lay down a book, I am in some way changed.
I read a lot, over a broad range of topics. I believe that as a Christian, especially as an educator and a minister, I need to be informed. I do not feel that the Bible-believing Christian needs to fear the interchange of ideas. This has biblical precedent. Paul could quote the Greek poets and philosophers (Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12). Jesus may or may not have been familiar with the secular writers of His day, but He did seem to understand the subtleties of current religious thinking, and He kept up with the news (Luke 13:1-5).
The question that I’m usually asked by first-time visitors to my library is, “Have you read all of these books?”, to which I answer, “Not all, but most.” The next question is usually something like, “Do you agree with all of these books?”
Of course not. I don’t read only books that I agree with. That would be redundant. I don’t fear reading someone with whom I disagree. After all, they may be right and I may be wrong. And if they’re wrong, I’ll be better able to understand their arguments and strengthen my own convictions.
I read somewhere of a graffiti slogan sprayed on a wall. “Jesus is the answer!” Below it was sprayed in a different hand: “What was the question?” We who proclaim that Jesus is the answer need to know the questions others are asking so that we can demonstrate how He is the answer.
“There is only one Book I read to believe; all others I read only to consider.”
-- Norman Geisler
Bill Ball
5/5/2006
I sat down opposite this wall of books and looked them over. I know the location of nearly every book and the categories of books on every area of the wall. I stared at my books on theology, Bible commentaries, biographies, books of history, philosophy and ethics. I really couldn’t honestly answer her question.
I finally hesitatingly answered that, next to the Bible, probably the works of Francis Schaeffer have had the greatest influence, or maybe C. S. Lewis. After I thought a bit longer I told her that nearly every book I’ve read has had some impact on my thinking; that when I finally lay down a book, I am in some way changed.
I read a lot, over a broad range of topics. I believe that as a Christian, especially as an educator and a minister, I need to be informed. I do not feel that the Bible-believing Christian needs to fear the interchange of ideas. This has biblical precedent. Paul could quote the Greek poets and philosophers (Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12). Jesus may or may not have been familiar with the secular writers of His day, but He did seem to understand the subtleties of current religious thinking, and He kept up with the news (Luke 13:1-5).
The question that I’m usually asked by first-time visitors to my library is, “Have you read all of these books?”, to which I answer, “Not all, but most.” The next question is usually something like, “Do you agree with all of these books?”
Of course not. I don’t read only books that I agree with. That would be redundant. I don’t fear reading someone with whom I disagree. After all, they may be right and I may be wrong. And if they’re wrong, I’ll be better able to understand their arguments and strengthen my own convictions.
I read somewhere of a graffiti slogan sprayed on a wall. “Jesus is the answer!” Below it was sprayed in a different hand: “What was the question?” We who proclaim that Jesus is the answer need to know the questions others are asking so that we can demonstrate how He is the answer.
“There is only one Book I read to believe; all others I read only to consider.”
-- Norman Geisler
Bill Ball
5/5/2006
Wednesday, May 3, 2006
VENGEANCE, WHOSE PREROGATIVE?
I do not plan to see the movie UNITED FLIGHT 93. It’s not that I don’t admire the heroism of the passengers who were willing to sacrifice their lives (I do). It’s not because I feel that it’s too soon to trivialize their sacrifice for entertainment. It’s that I don’t want feelings of anger, hate and vengeance to be stirred up within me.
After the 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, our TV news media felt it was their obligation to repeatedly show the images, to rub our faces in it. It got so that even though I felt that I needed to watch the news more than ever, I found myself closing or averting my eyes from these constantly recurring scenes.
Yes, I know that there’s a war on terrorism going on. And I know that I, as an American, am somehow involved in that war. It’s just that I don’t feel we as Christians have to have an attitude of vengeance toward those who have wronged us. Vengeance, according to the Bible is God’s prerogative, not mine. “Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord.” (Romans 12:17-19) And although God may use the armies of the U.S. or any other nation to bring about vengeance, He hasn’t given me that privilege. “ ... governing authorities ... are established by God ... it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.” (Romans 13:1-4)
When a horrible crime – a murder – is committed, we often see the family of the victim telling the news media that they need “closure” and that the only way for this to be attained is for the murderer to die. They may call it closure, but it sounds like vengeance to me.
We see the various ethnic and religious groups of the world screaming at one another, demanding retaliation for some wrong or alleged wrong. But it shouldn’t be that way with those who belong to Christ.
There’s nothing wrong with vengeance; it’s just that it’s God’s prerogative, not mine. My task is to love my enemies. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:43, 44) And I am to forgive those who wrong me, “Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.” (Ephesians 4:32)
Paul, addressing a litigious church that was apparently ready to sue at the drop of a hat, said “Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?” (1 Corinthians 6:7) Interesting advice!
I’m not saying that this is practical, that it will work, that if we would practice forgiveness, every thing would turn out alright and the world would be at peace. History clearly shows that a claim like this isn’t true. What I am saying is that love and forgiveness are what God requires of His children, whatever the consequences. I’m definitely not saying that I always practice love and forgiveness. But at least I know that I should!
Bill Ball
5/3/2006
After the 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, our TV news media felt it was their obligation to repeatedly show the images, to rub our faces in it. It got so that even though I felt that I needed to watch the news more than ever, I found myself closing or averting my eyes from these constantly recurring scenes.
Yes, I know that there’s a war on terrorism going on. And I know that I, as an American, am somehow involved in that war. It’s just that I don’t feel we as Christians have to have an attitude of vengeance toward those who have wronged us. Vengeance, according to the Bible is God’s prerogative, not mine. “Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord.” (Romans 12:17-19) And although God may use the armies of the U.S. or any other nation to bring about vengeance, He hasn’t given me that privilege. “ ... governing authorities ... are established by God ... it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.” (Romans 13:1-4)
When a horrible crime – a murder – is committed, we often see the family of the victim telling the news media that they need “closure” and that the only way for this to be attained is for the murderer to die. They may call it closure, but it sounds like vengeance to me.
We see the various ethnic and religious groups of the world screaming at one another, demanding retaliation for some wrong or alleged wrong. But it shouldn’t be that way with those who belong to Christ.
There’s nothing wrong with vengeance; it’s just that it’s God’s prerogative, not mine. My task is to love my enemies. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:43, 44) And I am to forgive those who wrong me, “Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.” (Ephesians 4:32)
Paul, addressing a litigious church that was apparently ready to sue at the drop of a hat, said “Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?” (1 Corinthians 6:7) Interesting advice!
I’m not saying that this is practical, that it will work, that if we would practice forgiveness, every thing would turn out alright and the world would be at peace. History clearly shows that a claim like this isn’t true. What I am saying is that love and forgiveness are what God requires of His children, whatever the consequences. I’m definitely not saying that I always practice love and forgiveness. But at least I know that I should!
Bill Ball
5/3/2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)