If you only live for the moment, you will probably enjoy many of those moments. But you will also stack up for yourself a list of unintended and unwanted consequences that you will spend the remaining moments of your life living down.

"It's the economy, stupid." Famous words suggesting a candidate forget everything else, and focus on taking care of the economy. When the economy is bad, people are concerned with little else.

However, morality affects the economy. Not immediately. Not directly. But comprehensively. Imagine the economic problems that would be solved if each person acted morally. A morality not limited to actions, but words and attitudes as well. I bet you can name a few.

I absolutely recommend this article. You can read or listen to the audio (8 min clip). I will be reposting this frequently until I'm satisfied it has received thorough exposure! (I must say I was somewhat surprised but delighted to hear about it on NPR).

The Secret Document That Transformed China

I read this today and thought it was interesting:

In Numbers 26, a census is taken of the Israelite people (that's right, I don't skip over the censuses or the genealogies- this is just one golden nugget of an example for why!). One was taken about 40 years earlier, shortly after coming out of Egypt. God specifically says that Moses and Aaron should count the men, age 20 and above, and list them by name according to their tribe. This is the second census, right before they are about to cross the Jordan and enter the land God promised to the descendants of Abraham. This is also after everyone (no gender is specified), 20 years and older had died in the wilderness for their unfaithfulness to God (notice that God forgave them in 14:20, but still insists that not one of them- with the exception of Moses Caleb and Joshua- will enter the land promised to their ancestors). So here, in ch. 26, the entire Israelite community was to be numbered, and again it is just the men, 20 years and older, just as before. Additionally, this list would then be used to distribute the parcels of land to the Israelites. However, what stuck out was this: Numbers 26 v. 33 "Zelophehad son of Hepher had no sons; he had only daughters, whose names were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milkah and Tirzah.".

And then what is really interesting is the account that follows a bit later:

Numbers 27: 1-11

The daughters of Zelophehad son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Makir, the son of Manasseh, belonged to the clans of Manasseh son of Joseph. The names of the daughters were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milkah and Tirzah. They came forward and stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the leaders and the whole assembly at the entrance to the tent of meeting and said, “Our father died in the wilderness. He was not among Korah’s followers, who banded together against the LORD, but he died for his own sin and left no sons. Why should our father’s name disappear from his clan because he had no son? Give us property among our father’s relatives.”

 So Moses brought their case before the LORD, and the LORD said to him, “What Zelophehad’s daughters are saying is right. You must certainly give them property as an inheritance among their father’s relatives and give their father’s inheritance to them.

“Say to the Israelites, ‘If a man dies and leaves no son, give his inheritance to his daughter. If he has no daughter, give his inheritance to his brothers. If he has no brothers, give his inheritance to his father’s brothers. If his father had no brothers, give his inheritance to the nearest relative in his clan, that he may possess it. This is to have the force of law for the Israelites, as the LORD commanded Moses.’”


I guess the religious power brokers missed that one when they were erasing the parts they didn't like...

Focusing on conversion is like focusing on first base in baseball. If your primary goal is getting everyone to first base, you will have quite a bottleneck there. And you can imagine, some people will get bored hanging around there and they may go back to what they were doing before. Others may become frustrated or disappointed by the plateau they've suddenly reached after such an exciting start, and perhaps give up. the And, obviously, to maintain the motif, only one person can legitimately be on a single base at a time. Therefore, the others will be targets to be tagged out. Sure, some will get the idea and run on to second base on their own. But why go through all that if you don't have to? Of course, some of this will happen regardless of our efforts (see the parable of the sower- Mt. 13). But why not do what you can to reduce the fizzle-out rate?

I am not saying to quit efforts aimed at helping people commit to follow Jesus. What I am suggesting is that we shift our focus to discipleship. This way, we are adjusting our scope to the whole process, which includes conversion. Therefore, instead of stopping at first base, we assist in taking the individual all the way through to home. If he still insists on walking away, it won't be because we are too focused on first base.

I still love what I read a number of years ago, "Jesus didn't say 'Go out and get everybody saved.' He said, 'Make disciples.'" (Mt. 18).

A side note on this verse:

"...the grammatical structure of the passage should be noted to avoid a common misunderstanding. I have heard a number of sermons on the Great Commission in which the preacher points out that the word translated as “go” is a participle and thus should be translated as “going” or “having gone”. Thus, this point of the sermon becomes: “As you are going make disciples. When you are at work, or shopping or on vacation make disciples.” Although Christians certainly ought to win people to Christ whenever the opportunity arises, the participle poreuthentes should be translated as an imperative. The Great Commission has three participles: go, baptize and teach. (Keep in mind that participles are not true verbs but are verbal adjectives.) These three participles are dependent upon the main verb “make disciples” which is an imperative or command. Therefore, the three participles (go, baptize and teach) are translated as imperatives because they receive their imperative sense from the main verb. The way to make disciples is to go, baptize and teach."

-taken from "The Great Commission" by Brian M. Schwertley

http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/greatcomm.htm

Unless we teach directly from the Scriptures, using references and direct quotations with the sources noted, at least in significant proportions, and risk sounding "churchy", pretty soon we will lose our anchor. Perhaps not by the next generation, but by the third. Our paraphrases and condensed truths will simply begin to sound like good ideas without any kind of Sovereign Authority behind them. Ideas that may be chewed on, considered, and flippantly tossed aside. As it is, Scripture is already like that. God presents us with Truth, and we have the choice to engage and adopt the ideas presented within, or reject them. And of course, their is the popular pick-and-choose strategy. But may it never be the case with us, that we lay the groundwork for future generations to walk away from truth simply because we were not diligent enough to make known the Source from which we are teaching and living.

Sometimes we criticize our friends in order to win over our enemies.

Sometimes we criticize our friends in order to win over our enemies.

Criterion of Embarrassment, part 1

One of the things that continually substantiates the authenticity of the Bible to me is the fact that the protagonists of the "story", due to their own actions and choices, are repeatedly portrayed in an unflattering manner. This is most evident in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), but is also strong, though more indirect, in the New Testament as well.

The Israelite people continually blunder through the pages of Scripture. Failure after failure. Even after God brings about events that are meant to demonstrate many things, among which are His unfailing love but also His demand for faithfulness (in heart and behavior). Many of these events are catastrophic for the fledgling tribe and so you would think they would learn their lesson. But in some cases, they immediately (i.e. Num. 16:41 by the next day) revert back to whatever it was that brought the cataclysm down on their heads in the first place.

Even the heroes themselves- Abraham, Moses, Samson, Saul, David, Solomon, Peter, Thomas, Mark, etc. are prone to failure, and often with drastic consequences. The only exception is Jesus- the ONLY one described as without sin (though not without temptation)- a very important detail to the point of the narrative as a whole.

Now, I would love to compare these portrayals to "other" myths, epics, and legends of history. As the axiom goes, "history is written by the winners." Now, if these are simply stories, and not accurate historical accounts, who in the world would write such a negative portrayal of their own people? Not only that, but throughout history, this particular group has been the target of repeated, systematic efforts for their complete annihilation, why would the authors so frequently highlight their foibles, weaknesses, drastic failures, tyrannies, and treacheries? Wouldn't they rather want to write of their heroics untainted by common human weakness? Or write of their leaders as idyllic figures of which one could aspire to emulate? Additionally, unless the accounts are true and we are not to conclude that the various books of the holy scriptures were compiled by a group of religious power brokers intent on maintaining their sway over the masses, how could you get roughly 30+ authors, some of them officially commissioned by the kings of Israel (some of whom were kings themselves), to agree on such an uncomplimentary review of their history?

Or should we draw another conclusion? Tell me.