Watch what you say!
Monday, July 26, 2004
Big Mouth!
Ephesians 4:29
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, that it may give grace to those who hear. NASB
Colossians 4:6
Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person. NASB
I guess that I should admit to being challenged by these two passages in scripture. Both are found in the middle of long lists of instructions to the saints on how they ought to act, and both are pretty clear about how we should speak. Let me lay out the strictest case here…
According to Ephesians, we are not to allow useless or unfit talk (or logos) to proceed out of our mouths, and according to Colossians we are to speak gracefully with speech or words that are influenced by God’s word. We gracefully speak the truth and abstain from worthless, idle, vain, or unfit speech.
As one who jokes around and frequently pushes the envelope on decency and appropriateness, I find this a challenge. I see where I must become much more circumspect in my speech. I must maintain balance though. I can joke around…so long as it is done with grace and seasoned with the salt of the Word.
Ephesians 4:29
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, that it may give grace to those who hear. NASB
Colossians 4:6
Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person. NASB
I guess that I should admit to being challenged by these two passages in scripture. Both are found in the middle of long lists of instructions to the saints on how they ought to act, and both are pretty clear about how we should speak. Let me lay out the strictest case here…
According to Ephesians, we are not to allow useless or unfit talk (or logos) to proceed out of our mouths, and according to Colossians we are to speak gracefully with speech or words that are influenced by God’s word. We gracefully speak the truth and abstain from worthless, idle, vain, or unfit speech.
As one who jokes around and frequently pushes the envelope on decency and appropriateness, I find this a challenge. I see where I must become much more circumspect in my speech. I must maintain balance though. I can joke around…so long as it is done with grace and seasoned with the salt of the Word.
Monday, July 19, 2004
God is My Copilot
Today, I pulled up behind a truck that I think might have been red. It was hard to tell for all the religi-hype bumper stickers plastered on the back. One in particular caught my attention…God is my copilot!
Isn’t that the perfect example of modern evangelical drivel! God isn’t my pilot guiding me in every situation in life and navigating the dangers of life for me. No, God is my copilot. You know, God is the one that I call on when I get in trouble and need help. Otherwise, I am the pilot, and I can guide myself.
The sad truth is that most modern evangelicals live out a faith that looks just like the agnostic in action.
Today, I pulled up behind a truck that I think might have been red. It was hard to tell for all the religi-hype bumper stickers plastered on the back. One in particular caught my attention…God is my copilot!
Isn’t that the perfect example of modern evangelical drivel! God isn’t my pilot guiding me in every situation in life and navigating the dangers of life for me. No, God is my copilot. You know, God is the one that I call on when I get in trouble and need help. Otherwise, I am the pilot, and I can guide myself.
The sad truth is that most modern evangelicals live out a faith that looks just like the agnostic in action.
Saturday, July 17, 2004
To Have and to Hold
Something has been bothering me lately. This is something that I want to feel guilty for, but it I’m not sure that I can or that I should.
I know that my wife would do anything for me. She would follow me to any corner of the earth for any stupid idea I came up with, and she would endure all kinds of heartache for my sake. I see that she finds identity in me and through me, and she conforms to my requests in order to fulfill that. I recognize the influence I have over her, and it is hard to accept.
On the other hand, and this is what gets me; I would do what I felt my wife needed me to do…not anything she asked me to do. I would not follow her to any obscure place and I would not endure things that I didn’t feel she needed me to endure. I don’t conform to her requests (she has few), and I notice that she has far less external or overt influence over me than I over her.
I think this is Biblical and logical. I lead. She follows. I set the course. She helps fulfill the destiny. It makes perfect sense. But, when I think of it in terms of the death of one of us, I begin to see the differences between men and women come out.
I see women who die, who have a hard time remarrying. Their identity was through their husband and although he passed away his identity lives on inside of them. She still feels like Bob’s wife or John’s wife. Men react differently. They see their helpmeet leave, and they need another helpmeet. Usually, they get another helpmeet quickly…almost practically.
I’m not sure that the essence of what I’m trying to communicate is coming across. I feel like my wife holds the idea of me as her husband more sacred than I hold the idea of her as my wife. I’m dedicated to her. I love her with my whole heart, and I would mourn for her daily if she every passed on. But, on another level, the role of helpmeet needs to be fulfilled in my life by someone, and I’d need to find someone willing to fulfill it.
Something has been bothering me lately. This is something that I want to feel guilty for, but it I’m not sure that I can or that I should.
I know that my wife would do anything for me. She would follow me to any corner of the earth for any stupid idea I came up with, and she would endure all kinds of heartache for my sake. I see that she finds identity in me and through me, and she conforms to my requests in order to fulfill that. I recognize the influence I have over her, and it is hard to accept.
On the other hand, and this is what gets me; I would do what I felt my wife needed me to do…not anything she asked me to do. I would not follow her to any obscure place and I would not endure things that I didn’t feel she needed me to endure. I don’t conform to her requests (she has few), and I notice that she has far less external or overt influence over me than I over her.
I think this is Biblical and logical. I lead. She follows. I set the course. She helps fulfill the destiny. It makes perfect sense. But, when I think of it in terms of the death of one of us, I begin to see the differences between men and women come out.
I see women who die, who have a hard time remarrying. Their identity was through their husband and although he passed away his identity lives on inside of them. She still feels like Bob’s wife or John’s wife. Men react differently. They see their helpmeet leave, and they need another helpmeet. Usually, they get another helpmeet quickly…almost practically.
I’m not sure that the essence of what I’m trying to communicate is coming across. I feel like my wife holds the idea of me as her husband more sacred than I hold the idea of her as my wife. I’m dedicated to her. I love her with my whole heart, and I would mourn for her daily if she every passed on. But, on another level, the role of helpmeet needs to be fulfilled in my life by someone, and I’d need to find someone willing to fulfill it.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Oh…The Morality of it All!
I had someone I respect in many ways tell me recently that he wasn’t his vote wouldn’t be influenced by the issue of abortion because it is a personal decision and we can’t legislate morality anyway.
I was and have been amazed that intelligent people can say something so incredibly stupid. If we don’t legislate morality, what do we legislate? Logistics?
Every law that is passed, no…every bill introduced, has a moral base and is seeking to legislate morality. Every law regarding welfare, disability coverage, social security, subsidized housing…etc… assumes that we have a moral obligation to care for the poor and takes a particular moral view on how to do it. The USA Patriot Act took a moral stand on terrorism and each provision had a particular moral conviction as a base. Our defense budgets and policies are based on moral determinations of our responsibilities to protect our citizens as well as the innocent abroad. Immigration laws are based on our moral obligation to maintain a standard of living here as well as provide a haven for the oppressed. Even local laws such as zoning laws have a moral base. Zoning pits the moral obligation of allowing a property owner to rule his own property versus the right of the neighbors and the community to expect certain standards.
Morality permeates and undergirds everything. We say that we can’t legislate morality only when we are about to vote for someone wicked because we think they will advantage us in some way. This phrase is a code for abdication of responsibility and it is a prefix to our own wickedness.
I had someone I respect in many ways tell me recently that he wasn’t his vote wouldn’t be influenced by the issue of abortion because it is a personal decision and we can’t legislate morality anyway.
I was and have been amazed that intelligent people can say something so incredibly stupid. If we don’t legislate morality, what do we legislate? Logistics?
Every law that is passed, no…every bill introduced, has a moral base and is seeking to legislate morality. Every law regarding welfare, disability coverage, social security, subsidized housing…etc… assumes that we have a moral obligation to care for the poor and takes a particular moral view on how to do it. The USA Patriot Act took a moral stand on terrorism and each provision had a particular moral conviction as a base. Our defense budgets and policies are based on moral determinations of our responsibilities to protect our citizens as well as the innocent abroad. Immigration laws are based on our moral obligation to maintain a standard of living here as well as provide a haven for the oppressed. Even local laws such as zoning laws have a moral base. Zoning pits the moral obligation of allowing a property owner to rule his own property versus the right of the neighbors and the community to expect certain standards.
Morality permeates and undergirds everything. We say that we can’t legislate morality only when we are about to vote for someone wicked because we think they will advantage us in some way. This phrase is a code for abdication of responsibility and it is a prefix to our own wickedness.
Saturday, July 10, 2004
A Controversial Theory
What if we defined Christianity or our evidence of being Christian as these three things: not watching television, not eating sugar, and not using the internet. The reason for these three “don’ts” would be that clearly each of these can harm, damage or impair a person, and are not appropriate in excess. A true Christian would not even partake in something that can be destructive like that.
I wonder what the reaction would be to my putting that forward as a theory. People would probably argue that these things are not harmful is done in moderation, and while one might be able to make a Biblical argument against them by extension, they are certainly not forbidden activities.
The real reason that we would argue against this definition of proof of Christianity is cultural. There is no cultural stigma against TV, sugar and the internet. However, there is a cultural stigma against smoking, drinking and coarseness.
How often is our Christianity defined by smoking, drinking and how nice we are?
My point is not that we should all go out and start smoking, drinking and cussing. My point is that when we define what it means to be a Christian by anything other than strict Biblical evidences we do two things. First, we limit the appeal of the gospel because of the false requirements on the Christian. Second, we create false Christians who think they are saved because they meet the false requirements.
What if we defined Christianity or our evidence of being Christian as these three things: not watching television, not eating sugar, and not using the internet. The reason for these three “don’ts” would be that clearly each of these can harm, damage or impair a person, and are not appropriate in excess. A true Christian would not even partake in something that can be destructive like that.
I wonder what the reaction would be to my putting that forward as a theory. People would probably argue that these things are not harmful is done in moderation, and while one might be able to make a Biblical argument against them by extension, they are certainly not forbidden activities.
The real reason that we would argue against this definition of proof of Christianity is cultural. There is no cultural stigma against TV, sugar and the internet. However, there is a cultural stigma against smoking, drinking and coarseness.
How often is our Christianity defined by smoking, drinking and how nice we are?
My point is not that we should all go out and start smoking, drinking and cussing. My point is that when we define what it means to be a Christian by anything other than strict Biblical evidences we do two things. First, we limit the appeal of the gospel because of the false requirements on the Christian. Second, we create false Christians who think they are saved because they meet the false requirements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)