GOSSIP

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

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

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

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