Shalom Aleichem...
Reflections is a weekly Christian Teaching Ministry. Each week we will talk about the Bible and lessons we can put to use in our daily life. We will try to, on a weekly basis, provide to you stories, thoughts, and just easy ways to live your life on a straight path.
THIS WEEK'S TEACHING....July 29, 2019
Last week, we began a series on the war on Christianity in the United States by the progressive left of the Democratic party. We looked at how “Religion must die” in our country and the ways the progressives words and actions are infiltrating the laws of the country.
This week we look at where this war on Christianity began....
Christopher Hitchens is described as the most articulate and entertaining of the New Atheists. On May 1, 2007, Hitchens published an atheist writing—God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
In a nutshell the book describes religion in general as “Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience.”
Hitchens saw religion as both the oppressor of the people and the means by which people anesthetized the pain of their oppression. People who knew Hitchens were dismayed by the way he wasted his talents on a futile war against God. Actually it was only a war against the idea of God, since neither Hitchens nor anyone else can know as a fact whether God exists or not. This is what “faith” is all about for us. We believe in Someone we have never seen but believe in Him regardless. Hitchens and others call this trash, rubbish and other choice nouns to justify their ideas.
Hitchens anti-God campaign was based on a fundamental error reflected in the subtitle of his book: How Religion Poisons Everything. On the contrary, since religion, as practiced, is a human activity, the reverse is true. Human beings poison religion, imposing their prejudices, superstitions, and corruptions onto its rituals and texts, not the other way around. Since the beginning of time, man has been screwing up Gods Plan for a perfect world and it continues today.
So what do we learn from the argument between believers and atheists? Both sides must rely on faith. What if the atheists are right and God is a fiction? When it comes to the moral and spiritual issues that are the heart and soul of religious belief, does it matter whether religious people believe in a fiction? In my view, I have faith in God because of what He has done in my life and other lives that I have seen touched by Him. I am sure many of you also have stories of Gods Work in your lives. To me, fiction or not, it is much easier going through life being kind to and loving people than it used to be for me.
Human beings have turned to the Bible’s stories for insight and guidance for thousands of years, making it hard to argue that they are not more powerful and compelling. A story backed by faith in a God who has answers to the great why questions will be more comforting and compelling than a story whose answers the author acknowledges are made up.
The Christian testament has a beautiful phrase for our limited human understanding: “For now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”
Believers trust the biblical promise that all our questions will be answered when we meet God face-to-face in eternity. That promise is the heart of religious faith. For an agnostic, that promise is a reminder that our knowledge in this life is incomplete. We are well into the twenty-first century, and we marvel at the spectacular achievements of science. But science still does not know how the universe was created or how life began.
The Book of Proverbs contains a warning that speaks to us in our uncertain state: “Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”
Those who believe they are changing the world, or saving the planet, or transforming the human race, are intoxicated with self-aggrandizing pride. As secular “redeemers,” a haughty spirit is their second nature. Consequently, they are deaf to this biblical wisdom. The secularists are confident that the nonexistence of God is a self-evident fact. It infuriates them that religionists (or “irrationalists,” as Bill Maher calls them) resist what they think is obviously, indisputably true. Believing they know a truth that cannot be known, and that others resist, they are prepared to use any means necessary to silence their opponents and achieve their goals.
IN 1997, THE PSYCHOLOGIST Nicholas Humphrey—a self-styled “liberal”—gave the Amnesty Lecture at Oxford, in which he said that the purpose of his lecture was “to argue in favor of censorship, against freedom of expression.” The specific area that he wanted to censor was “moral and religious education . . . especially the education a child receives at home.”
“Children have a right not to have their minds addled by nonsense. And we as a society have a duty to protect them from it. So, we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible . . . than we should allow parents to knock their children’s teeth out or lock them in a dungeon.”
Where have such notions been heard before? Where has the teaching of the Christian faith been described as child abuse? In Communist Russia and other totalitarian states. A Romanian pastor, Richard Wurmbrand, spent fourteen years imprisoned in Communist Romania, where he was also tortured. His “crime” was that he publicly declared Communism and Christianity to be incompatible. In his book Tortured for Christ, Wurmbrand wrote about parents under Communism who dared to teach their faith to their children. “If it was discovered that they taught their children about Christ, their children were taken away from them for life—with no visitation rights.”
Family, do not mistake this as a parochial issue, affecting only a persecuted religious community. In America, the war against Christians is not merely a war against an embattled religion. It is a war against an imperiled nation—a war against this nation and its founding principles: the equality of individuals and individual freedom. For these principles are indisputably Christian in origin. They are under siege because they are insurmountable obstacles to radicals’ totalitarian ambition to create a new world in their image.
When Soviet Communism collapsed in 1991, progressives didn’t give up their illusions. Instead they changed the name of their utopian dream. Today they no longer call their earthly redemption “Communism.” They call it “social justice.”
There is a family I have known for years that would have been appalled to hear their beliefs described as “religious.” But their politics were cut from the same cloth as a famous Christian heresy called Pelagianism.
The author of this heresy, Pelagius, was a monk from the British Isles who lived in the fourth century. Although he would not have expressed it this way, Pelagius shared the view of today’s progressives—the view that people are naturally good, but society leads them down paths that are bad. In the language of his faith, Pelagius believed that sins were acts against human nature. Therefore, he believed, if enough Christians resisted the temptations of this world and followed the path of righteousness, they could create an earthly paradise—and they could achieve this paradise without help from God.
The Pelagian heresy is no different from the progressive notion that if human beings can be made to pursue lives that are politically correct, they can bring about a world of social justice. Pelagius’s view of human benevolence contradicted the church doctrine that sin is an integral part of human nature. The church called this doctrine “original sin,” the idea that all human beingsshare in Adam’s sin and are prone to evil, which makes redemption impossible without God. Adam and Eve were born in paradise but forfeited their good fortune because they wanted to know evil. If you eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the serpent told them, “you shall be as gods.”
Seduced by this temptation, they defied God’s commandment and ate the forbidden fruit. Their sin was the inevitable result of the free will that was their birthright. Free will gives each individual the power to do good—or evil. Free will makes us the authors of our own choices, our own sins, our own fates—not other people, not classes or races or genders. A corollary of this view is that the potential for evil is present in every individual down through the generations. Because human beings are rebellious and prone to temptation and evil, they will corrupt every effort of redemption. Therefore, there can be no path to an earthly paradise without divine intervention.
Let me be clear, my brothers and sisters, “society” is not the cause of injustice. Society is merely a reflection of who we are. The politically correct, who think it is their mission to save the world, cannot fix the problems that afflict us, because the problems are our creations. Theirs and ours. Because the self-appointed social redeemers seek too much power, and do not understand the source of evil and injustice, they will only make the problems worse—as the romance with Communism has shown.
Whether or not God exists, whether or not the biblical account is true, the doctrine of original sin is an accurate diagnosis of the human condition, simply because there had to be a first sin.
In contrast to the progressive mission of saving “society,” the goal of Christian belief is saving individual souls. Christians see the imperfections and sufferings of the world as the results of acts by individuals who have failed to do good or have chosen to do evil.
These opposing visions are the root cause of the war that is the subject of this book we are going through today. The social redeemers view the Christian concern for the salvation of individual souls as counter-revolutionary, a cause of social oppression. To them, religious believers are obstacles on the path to the future—and must be removed.
That is why progressives have declared war on religious liberty, which is America’s founding principle. And that is why they seek to silence and suppress its defenders.
NEXT WEEK…We look at Christianity in America
DID YOU EVER WONDER???
THE CRACKED POT
A water bearer in India had two large pots, each hung on each end of a pole which he carried across his neck. One of the pots had a crack in it, and while the other pot was perfect and always delivered a full portion of water at the end of the long walk from the stream to the master's house, the cracked pot arrived only half full.
For a full two years this went on daily, with the bearer delivering only one and a half pots full of water to his master's house. Of course, the perfect pot was proud of its accomplishments, perfect to the end for
which it was made. But the poor cracked pot was ashamed of its own imperfection, and miserable that it was able to accomplish only half of what it had been made to do. After two years of what it perceived to be a
bitter failure, it spoke to the water bearer one day by the stream.
"I am ashamed of myself, and I want to apologize to you."
"Why?" asked the bearer. "What are you ashamed of?"
"I have been able, for these past two years, to deliver only half my load because this crack in my side causes water to leak out all the way back to your master's house. Because of my flaws, you have to do all of this work, and you don't get full value from your efforts," the pot said.
The water bearer felt sorry for the old cracked pot, and in his compassion he said, "As we return to the master's house, I want you to notice the beautiful flowers along the path."
Indeed, as they went up the hill, the old cracked pot took notice of the sun warming the beautiful wild flowers on the side of the path, and this cheered it some. But at the end of the trail, it still felt bad because it had leaked out half its load, and so again it apologized to the bearer for its failure.
The bearer said to the pot, "Did you notice that there were flowers only on your side of your path, but not on the other pot's side?
That's because I have always known about your flaw, and I took advantage of it. I planted flower seeds on your side of the path, and every day while we walk back from the stream, you've watered them.
For two years I have been able to pick these beautiful flowers to decorate my master's table. Without you being just the way you are, he would not have this beauty to grace his house."
Each of us has our own unique flaws. We're all cracked pots. But if we will allow it, the Lord will use our flaws to grace His Father's table.
In God's great economy, nothing goes to waste.
So as we seek ways to minister together, and as God calls you to the tasks He has appointed for you, don't be afraid of your flaws.
Acknowledge them, and allow Him to take advantage of them, and you, too, can be the cause of beauty in His pathway.
Go out boldly, knowing that in our weakness we find His strength, and that "In Him every one of God's promises is a Yes."
BOOKS OF THE BIBLE...A TEACHING
This week we look at 2nd Timothy....
Who wrote the book?
By the time Paul wrote his second letter to Timothy, the young pastor had been ministering to the church at Ephesus for four years, and it had been almost that long since he had received his first letter from Paul. Timothy had been a faithful servant to Paul since he had left home with the apostle more than a decade earlier. Since then, Timothy had ministered alongside Paul for the duration of both the second and third missionary journeys, in places such as Troas, Philippi, and Corinth. Timothy was not unfamiliar to the Ephesians when he settled in Ephesus to minister, having served there alongside Paul for a period of close to three years on Paul’s third missionary journey. Paul wrote again to this young leader in the church at Ephesus to provide him encouragement and fortitude in the face of difficulties and trials.
Where are we?
Paul wrote 2 Timothy from a dark and damp Roman prison cell, just before his death in AD 67. The Roman emperor Nero had been slowly descending into madness since his ascent to the throne in AD 54, a process exacerbated by the great fire of Rome in AD 64 that burned half the city. With the residents of Rome in an uproar, Christians became a convenient target for Nero, who used believers as scapegoats for his city’s own lack of preparedness. Paul was one of those caught up in this persecution and was beheaded by Roman officials soon after writing this letter.
Why is Second Timothy so important?
The second letter to Timothy offers a picture of Paul at the end of his ministry, just before his death. Certain personal details in the letter reveal a man settling his accounts and preparing for the inevitable. At the close of the letter, Paul mentioned a significant number of people—some who had wronged him and others who had served faithfully alongside him (2 Timothy 4:9–21). It is as if Paul were giving Timothy a “state of the church” address, updating Timothy on the current state of their acquaintances and friends so that the young pastor could carry on after Paul’s departure.
What's the big idea?
Paul understood that the ministry would only become more difficult for Timothy with the apostle’s impending death. (Indeed, at some point after this letter from Paul, Timothy was imprisoned for his faith [Hebrews 13:23]). Paul knew that Timothy’s task of keeping the church within the bounds of sound doctrine while encouraging believers to live their lives well for the sake of Christ would be an often thankless and difficult task. Though hardship would come, Paul wanted Timothy to continue in those things he had learned, drawing on the rich heritage of faith that had been passed down to the young pastor, not just from Paul but also from his mother and grandmother (2 Timothy 1:5–6; 3:14–15).
The most striking feature of Paul’s encouragement comes when the aging apostle used a phrase that showed up prominently in his letter to Timothy four years prior. In that earlier letter, Paul exhorted Timothy to “fight the good fight” (1 Timothy 1:18; 6:12). But in this letter, Paul turned that phrase on himself, writing that he had “fought the good fight . . . finished the course . . . [and] kept the faith” (2 Timothy 4:7). What a great encouragement it must have been to the young pastor of the church at Ephesus to know that his mentor boldly modeled his perseverance in the faith, even to the point of death.
How do I apply this?
Second Timothy brings us to the brink of death, forcing us to consider its reality and how we might react when faced with it. Paul’s response instructs us still today. His mind was not on himself, dwelling on the injustice that had befallen him. Instead, trusting that God had him right where He wanted him, the aging apostle turned his attention to others, specifically to the church and to his young protégé, Timothy.
Where do you hope your thoughts linger as you come to the end of your days?
HAVE A SAFE AND BLESSED WEEK:)
Ho'omaikaʻi ka Pua iā kākou