Up in the frigid midwest town of De Pere,Wisconsin lies a small Catholic liberal arts school named St. Norbert's College. A suburb of Green Bay, De Pere has been the home of St. Norbert's since 1898, having been founded by a Norbertine priest. St. Norbert of Xanten founded a Catholic order called the Premonstratensians, later called Norbertines, in a monastery in Premontre, France, in 1120, so there is a long history to this order. The school named for St. Norbert has around two thousand students. Although founded to train men for the priesthood, it is today a coeducational college. If you go to their website, you can see that among their many mission statements is one to, "Fulfill our vocation by embodying Christ's example of loving service."
On the faculty of this small college is a man named James Neuliep, PhD, Professor of Communications and Media Studies. I certainly don't know much about Dr. Neuliep, but it would seem that he wrote a college textbook called, "Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach." I don't have access to that book, although with a little time (5-7 business days) and money ($44.49) I suppose I could have a copy to actually peruse. And it would appear that in this textbook is an exercise for college professors everywhere to use with their students that involves writing JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper, putting the paper on the floor, and then stepping on it. When most students will refuse to do this, the teacher then asks them why and starts a discussion going. I find it a little odd that such an exercise would come from a professor at a Christian college. The textbook is supposed to be a best-seller, so I imagine that the intention is to have college students across the nation being offered the opportunity to step on a piece of paper with Jesus' name on it.
Anyway, there is another school fifteen hundred miles away in Boca Raton called Florida Atlantic University. There is another professor there named Deandre Poole, PhD, who teaches Communications and Multimedia Studies. He took the lesson to heart and tried to implement it in his classroom, with vigor. The students were not just to step on the paper but to stomp on it. A Mormon student was deeply offended and complained to the teacher and to the Dr. Poole's supervisor, and was therefore suspended from that class. The University initially defended Dr. Poole's teaching, but has since recanted and apologized, and assures everyone that no student has been suspended from the University and that the lesson won't be used again. This hasn't finished playing out yet.
I do not know the faith, if any, of Drs. Neuliep or Poole. Whatever their beliefs, they take a rather casual approach to the name of Jesus. The Third Commandment given by our Lord is, "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain." The Jewish people take this so seriously that they will not pronounce out loud the name of God that they call YHWH (Yahweh). The Scriptures are replete with descriptions of the holiness of the name of God's Son, Jesus Christ. Acts 4:12 tells us, "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."
Many in the Christian community were offended by this exercise. In other countries, we have seen violent demonstrations when the name or image of Mohammed have been used carelessly; as Christians in America we rarely resort to such extremes. In my new book, Surviving the Suffering, there is a chapter devoted to Christian persecution, which as of yet is really not seen in this country. We may endure slander of the name of our Saviour, derisive remarks, and offensive language and blasphemous imagery, but rarely is our personal well-being threatened. Christians are not slain nor churches burned here as they are in other lands.
Such disrespectful behavior for our Lord should not be a surprise. Jesus was certainly used to it in His time. God has given His commandment for the use of His name, but His commandments are regularly and routinely disregarded today. God provides us opportunities such as this to stand up for His name and commandments, and the student at FAU responded admirably and with courage. We should, however, continue to expect such childish silliness to periodically reveal itself at our Universities. Our institutions of higher learning have distinguished themselves as bastions of lower morality.
Those who would use lift their leg to place a foot upon the name of Jesus will find that same leg bent against their will when He returns. As Paul tells us in Philippians 2:9-11, "Therefore God has also highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." And listen to the author of Hebrews in chapter 10, verses 12-13: "But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool." Those who would seek to "stomp" on the name of Jesus will be under His foot for all eternity. Those who seek to be clever teahers will be taught severe lessons themselves, and having a PhD after your own name will mean nothing to the Man with no degree after His.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
My Name is Fred
My name is Fred. I am the financial manager for my household, and I do such an incredible job at it most people call me "The Fred." Although I have never done a day's honest work in my life or produced anything of value, I am considered an expert at money management.
My wife is Theresa. She has never worked or produced anything, either. She is responsible for paying all the bills. She spends a lot. Each year she spends at least one-third more than we take in. In fact, she has been doing this for so long that we owe five times more than we bring in for a year. We have some pretty nifty solutions to take care of this.
For one thing, when she needs more money, she comes to me and I simply write the amount she needs in the checkbook register. Shazzam! I create the money for her, just like that, and she can continue writing checks. When that isn't enough, she just uses her credit cards. She has credit cards from all over the world. She only makes the minimum payments, so there are really large balances. We pay a lot of interest charges.
Finally, we have a large house and allow a family named the Sitts to live here. Because it is such a privilege to live here, for rent we charge the Sitts one-third of everything they earn. If Theresa needs more money, she just charges the Sitts more; we pretty much decide how much they can keep. As long as I can keep writing in new money into Theresa's account, as long as she has credit cards, and as long as we can get money from the Sitts, Theresa can keep spending. If it weren't for these things, with the amount of money we owe, we would already be bankrupt.
Theresa has a brother, Sam. He runs a retirement planning business. Because the Sitts live here, we demand that they use his retirement plan. The mother and father paid into the retirement plan ever since they started work. That money was supposed to be kept for the Sitts' retirement, but unfortunately Theresa spent that, too. She gave Sam some IOU's for the money, but the people obliged to pay the IOU's are the Sitts' children.
Theresa has a kind heart, and a generous one. She is always concerned about the poor Sitts, who really aren't able to think or plan for themselves. Her brother Sam also has a health insurance business, and of course we demand that the Sitts use that as well. It is a great plan, and because Theresa is so generous, she gives the older Sitts five times the amount of money for health care that they paid into it.
Another family moved into our house, the Grants. They just showed up. After they were here, they had a baby, so they have to stay. They do some work around the house, but we don't charge them rent. The Sitts children used to do the work around the house, but the Grants charge us a lot less. We pay for the Grants' children to go to school, with money we get from the Sitts.
I am sure that by now you have recognized that Fred is the Federal Reserve, Theresa is the Treasury, Sam is the Social Security Administration, the Sitts are citizens, the Grants are illegal immigrants, and this is how our country is functioning. At some point, the limits of creating money, borrowing, and taxing will be reached, and then the mathematics are pretty much certain that we will be bankrupt.
Perhaps you have seen how other countries are dealing with this right now, particularly in Europe. Nations that have overspent are now desperate for more money. The nation of Cyprus has decided that the only way to cope with its obligations is to seize ten per cent of all the bank deposits in the country. If you have put money into a Cyprus bank, you simply forfeit ten percent as a gift or tax to the government. There is some thought being given to not making the people with smaller accounts pay as much. Of course, nothing like that could ever happen in the United States...
I would like for you to revisit my post, "When Caesar Steals." The ultimate root cause of inflation is an excess of money supply. When there is more money, it is worth less, and prices rise. When the Treasury needs more money that they cannot raise by taxation or borrowing, they get the Federal Reserve to make more money. They don't do it by printing it, they do it by crediting the Treasury account and simply create the money on the Treasury balance sheet. This is often done under the guise of purchasing something from the Treasury, and today is called "Quantitative Easing."
Why then is the reported inflation rate so low? There are a lot of reasons. For one, the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not calculate inflation in the same way that they did twenty years ago. Inflation is supposed to be determined by looking at a basket of goods and following the prices over time and the effects on the quality of life of the consumer. They first began a process of "substitution," and and this meant that if the price of something rose, they assumed the consumer would simply substitute another cheaper item in the basket and still have the same quality of life. The second adjustment was called "hedonics" and this meant that if the price of something rose and its quality rose as well, then that led to a better quality of life and shouldn't be counted as inflation. You can read about these adjustments on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website. Finally, inflation also depends on the "velocity" of money and how often it is changing hands in transactions. Our economy is sluggish, with the GDP only growing 0.1% in the last quarter of 2012. If the economy were more active, we would see more inflation. Although the reported inflation rate for last year was about 2%, if it were calculated as it has been for most of our country's history, the rate would be much, much higher, probably at least five per cent.
If you go to a website such as http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/, you will see that a dollar today is only worth eighty cents in 2003 money. The cumulative rate of inflation for those years was twenty per cent, using the government's figures. What this means is that because the government created more money, it is worth less. You had twenty per cent of everything you own taken from you in ten years. Not just your bank deposits, everything. And everybody, including the poorest, paid the same "tax."
"Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" (Luke 20:25). Caesar, Fred, Theresa, and Sam are rendering unto themselves all that they can, even while we sleep.
My wife is Theresa. She has never worked or produced anything, either. She is responsible for paying all the bills. She spends a lot. Each year she spends at least one-third more than we take in. In fact, she has been doing this for so long that we owe five times more than we bring in for a year. We have some pretty nifty solutions to take care of this.
For one thing, when she needs more money, she comes to me and I simply write the amount she needs in the checkbook register. Shazzam! I create the money for her, just like that, and she can continue writing checks. When that isn't enough, she just uses her credit cards. She has credit cards from all over the world. She only makes the minimum payments, so there are really large balances. We pay a lot of interest charges.
Finally, we have a large house and allow a family named the Sitts to live here. Because it is such a privilege to live here, for rent we charge the Sitts one-third of everything they earn. If Theresa needs more money, she just charges the Sitts more; we pretty much decide how much they can keep. As long as I can keep writing in new money into Theresa's account, as long as she has credit cards, and as long as we can get money from the Sitts, Theresa can keep spending. If it weren't for these things, with the amount of money we owe, we would already be bankrupt.
Theresa has a brother, Sam. He runs a retirement planning business. Because the Sitts live here, we demand that they use his retirement plan. The mother and father paid into the retirement plan ever since they started work. That money was supposed to be kept for the Sitts' retirement, but unfortunately Theresa spent that, too. She gave Sam some IOU's for the money, but the people obliged to pay the IOU's are the Sitts' children.
Theresa has a kind heart, and a generous one. She is always concerned about the poor Sitts, who really aren't able to think or plan for themselves. Her brother Sam also has a health insurance business, and of course we demand that the Sitts use that as well. It is a great plan, and because Theresa is so generous, she gives the older Sitts five times the amount of money for health care that they paid into it.
Another family moved into our house, the Grants. They just showed up. After they were here, they had a baby, so they have to stay. They do some work around the house, but we don't charge them rent. The Sitts children used to do the work around the house, but the Grants charge us a lot less. We pay for the Grants' children to go to school, with money we get from the Sitts.
I am sure that by now you have recognized that Fred is the Federal Reserve, Theresa is the Treasury, Sam is the Social Security Administration, the Sitts are citizens, the Grants are illegal immigrants, and this is how our country is functioning. At some point, the limits of creating money, borrowing, and taxing will be reached, and then the mathematics are pretty much certain that we will be bankrupt.
Perhaps you have seen how other countries are dealing with this right now, particularly in Europe. Nations that have overspent are now desperate for more money. The nation of Cyprus has decided that the only way to cope with its obligations is to seize ten per cent of all the bank deposits in the country. If you have put money into a Cyprus bank, you simply forfeit ten percent as a gift or tax to the government. There is some thought being given to not making the people with smaller accounts pay as much. Of course, nothing like that could ever happen in the United States...
I would like for you to revisit my post, "When Caesar Steals." The ultimate root cause of inflation is an excess of money supply. When there is more money, it is worth less, and prices rise. When the Treasury needs more money that they cannot raise by taxation or borrowing, they get the Federal Reserve to make more money. They don't do it by printing it, they do it by crediting the Treasury account and simply create the money on the Treasury balance sheet. This is often done under the guise of purchasing something from the Treasury, and today is called "Quantitative Easing."
Why then is the reported inflation rate so low? There are a lot of reasons. For one, the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not calculate inflation in the same way that they did twenty years ago. Inflation is supposed to be determined by looking at a basket of goods and following the prices over time and the effects on the quality of life of the consumer. They first began a process of "substitution," and and this meant that if the price of something rose, they assumed the consumer would simply substitute another cheaper item in the basket and still have the same quality of life. The second adjustment was called "hedonics" and this meant that if the price of something rose and its quality rose as well, then that led to a better quality of life and shouldn't be counted as inflation. You can read about these adjustments on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website. Finally, inflation also depends on the "velocity" of money and how often it is changing hands in transactions. Our economy is sluggish, with the GDP only growing 0.1% in the last quarter of 2012. If the economy were more active, we would see more inflation. Although the reported inflation rate for last year was about 2%, if it were calculated as it has been for most of our country's history, the rate would be much, much higher, probably at least five per cent.
If you go to a website such as http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/, you will see that a dollar today is only worth eighty cents in 2003 money. The cumulative rate of inflation for those years was twenty per cent, using the government's figures. What this means is that because the government created more money, it is worth less. You had twenty per cent of everything you own taken from you in ten years. Not just your bank deposits, everything. And everybody, including the poorest, paid the same "tax."
"Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" (Luke 20:25). Caesar, Fred, Theresa, and Sam are rendering unto themselves all that they can, even while we sleep.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Taking Out a Contract
Sometimes you come across a news story that allows you to simply repeat the article and doesn't really require commentary. This is one of those stories; I will comment anyway.
This takes place in Connecticut, and involves a young woman named Crystal Kelley, single, and an un-named married couple. Ms. Kelley decided to rent her uterus out as a surrogate mother for the couple who could no longer have children of their own. Kelley was currently unemployed and would receive $22,000 by becoming pregnant with the couple's child.
The couple had previously gone through the in-vitro fertilization process and had some leftover frozen embryos. They thawed them out, placed two in Kelley, and one survived to create a pregnancy. At twenty-one weeks, an ultrasound was performed that showed that the fetus would likely be born with severe birth defects. The parents wanted Kelley to have an abortion; they told her that she, "...should be God-like and have mercy on the child and let her go." Ms. Kelley felt that was the wrong thing to do... at least at that point.
The agency coordinating all of this, Surrogacy International, then became the go-between for communications between the parties. First they told Kelley that the parents wanted her to know that if she carried the child to term, they would not accept the defective child as their own. Secondly, the parents offered her an additional $10,000 to have an abortion. Ms. Kelley felt that was the wrong thing to do... at least at that point.
She later decided that for $15,000 it would be the right thing to do and made a counter-offer to the parents, offering to abort the child for an additional five grand. (As best I can tell, the fetus was not involved in the negotiating process, but even if she had been, it is doubtful that she would have had the cash to make an offer for her own life.) The parents rejected this counter-offer. Kelley then continued to carry the child.
Time was a-wasting, as the pregnancy neared the twenty-fourth week, and after that, it would be illegal to have an abortion. The parents got lawyered up and invoked a clause in the surrogacy contract that Kelly had signed stating that she had to have an "abortion in case of severe fetal abnormality." Absent the $15,000, Kelley decided that abortion was not the morally correct thing to do, and would not abort under any circumstances. The parents now wanted their surrogacy fee and the child back after it was born, so they could turn her over to the State of Connecticut for foster care. In Connecticut, the genetic parents are the legal ones entitled to custody.
Different states have different laws, so Kelley absconded with child in-utero to Michigan, where she would legally be considered the parent. She got on Medicaid, and the deadline for a legal abortion passed. Kelley found another couple to adopt the child after it was born. Then it turns out that the parents weren't exactly the genetic parents; they had used an egg donor for the in-vitro fertilization process. By now, the lawyers were having quite a time arguing over who was really the legal parent of the child, who insisted on being born in the midst of the arguing. The little girl has indeed had multiple surgeries for birth defects and faces an uncertain future. She has since been adopted by the couple friendly to Kelley. As far as I know, her uterus is currently vacant and available again for rent.
This child was constructed under contract with sperm from the father, an egg from a donor, and raised in the womb of a surrogate. In vitro fertilization carries with it an increased risk of birth defects, and apparently Ms. Kelley had two prior miscarriages, often associated with embryonic abnormalities. In an effort to engineer this pregnancy using extreme measures, it would seem that the odds were stacked against the little girl. We talk of "taking out a contract" on someone to mean hiring someone to kill another, but this child had a contract taken out on her before she was conceived, to ensure her death should she be less than perfect.
In the Bible, many times there was talk of the "barren" womb and how this was often seen as a sign of divine disfavor. In Leviticus Chapter 20, certain sexual sins were to be punished by the Lord by childlessness. There were many women in the Bible who were anguished by not conceiving. Sarai in Genesis 16, stated that, "the Lord has restrained me from bearing children." She encouraged Abram to have a child with her servant Hagar, leading to great distress in their household. In Genesis 30:1-2, we hear Rachel cry to Jacob, "'Give me children or else I die!' And Jacob's anger was aroused against Rachel, and he said, 'Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?'" We learn of Hannah, in I Samuel 1:6, "And her rival also provoked her severely, to make her miserable, because the Lord had closed her womb," and in verse 10, "And she was in bitterness of soul, and prayed to the Lord and wept in anguish." And when Elizabeth finally became pregnant, we see in Luke 1:25 "Thus the Lord has dealt with me, in the days when He looked on me, to take away my reproach among people." Many of these women were Godly; Elizabeth was, "righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, blameless" (Luke 1:6).
My wife and I are childless, and like many other similar couples, we looked for medical assistance with conception. The fertility business deals a great deal with statistics, and many of the proposed medical regimens have different success rates. You are advised not to waste too many precious cycles on treatments that have lower chances, and encouraged to move towards in-vitro fertilization, for it has better prospects. This requires creating embryos, often many, and each is a life-- only some are implanted into the womb for a chance of being born. My wife and I did not consider this approach, and have accepted the answer that God has given to our many prayers. Medical science continues to advance, and we can now create life in a test tube from people that never knew each other, implanting that life in yet another stranger. In the near future, I forsee that we will be able to replicate ourselves with cloning, re-creating a life that God has already established. You could clone yourself, and implant the embryo in a womb, yet change your mind and abort the fetus; would that be murder or suicide?
One day my wife and I will see the Lord and know why we did not have children. Although for many infertility is seen as a curse, we do not consider ourselves to be suffering. For now, we are completely at peace with His will for us. We have a contract with Him, a covenant through His Son Jesus Christ, and would not seek to usurp His power to create life. There are others who will create life here on earth and give themselves children, only to lose their own lives for eternity because they reject His Son. They are taking out a contract on themselves.
1. http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/04/health/surrogacy-kelley-legal-battle/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
2. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/251768.php
This takes place in Connecticut, and involves a young woman named Crystal Kelley, single, and an un-named married couple. Ms. Kelley decided to rent her uterus out as a surrogate mother for the couple who could no longer have children of their own. Kelley was currently unemployed and would receive $22,000 by becoming pregnant with the couple's child.
The couple had previously gone through the in-vitro fertilization process and had some leftover frozen embryos. They thawed them out, placed two in Kelley, and one survived to create a pregnancy. At twenty-one weeks, an ultrasound was performed that showed that the fetus would likely be born with severe birth defects. The parents wanted Kelley to have an abortion; they told her that she, "...should be God-like and have mercy on the child and let her go." Ms. Kelley felt that was the wrong thing to do... at least at that point.
The agency coordinating all of this, Surrogacy International, then became the go-between for communications between the parties. First they told Kelley that the parents wanted her to know that if she carried the child to term, they would not accept the defective child as their own. Secondly, the parents offered her an additional $10,000 to have an abortion. Ms. Kelley felt that was the wrong thing to do... at least at that point.
She later decided that for $15,000 it would be the right thing to do and made a counter-offer to the parents, offering to abort the child for an additional five grand. (As best I can tell, the fetus was not involved in the negotiating process, but even if she had been, it is doubtful that she would have had the cash to make an offer for her own life.) The parents rejected this counter-offer. Kelley then continued to carry the child.
Time was a-wasting, as the pregnancy neared the twenty-fourth week, and after that, it would be illegal to have an abortion. The parents got lawyered up and invoked a clause in the surrogacy contract that Kelly had signed stating that she had to have an "abortion in case of severe fetal abnormality." Absent the $15,000, Kelley decided that abortion was not the morally correct thing to do, and would not abort under any circumstances. The parents now wanted their surrogacy fee and the child back after it was born, so they could turn her over to the State of Connecticut for foster care. In Connecticut, the genetic parents are the legal ones entitled to custody.
Different states have different laws, so Kelley absconded with child in-utero to Michigan, where she would legally be considered the parent. She got on Medicaid, and the deadline for a legal abortion passed. Kelley found another couple to adopt the child after it was born. Then it turns out that the parents weren't exactly the genetic parents; they had used an egg donor for the in-vitro fertilization process. By now, the lawyers were having quite a time arguing over who was really the legal parent of the child, who insisted on being born in the midst of the arguing. The little girl has indeed had multiple surgeries for birth defects and faces an uncertain future. She has since been adopted by the couple friendly to Kelley. As far as I know, her uterus is currently vacant and available again for rent.
This child was constructed under contract with sperm from the father, an egg from a donor, and raised in the womb of a surrogate. In vitro fertilization carries with it an increased risk of birth defects, and apparently Ms. Kelley had two prior miscarriages, often associated with embryonic abnormalities. In an effort to engineer this pregnancy using extreme measures, it would seem that the odds were stacked against the little girl. We talk of "taking out a contract" on someone to mean hiring someone to kill another, but this child had a contract taken out on her before she was conceived, to ensure her death should she be less than perfect.
In the Bible, many times there was talk of the "barren" womb and how this was often seen as a sign of divine disfavor. In Leviticus Chapter 20, certain sexual sins were to be punished by the Lord by childlessness. There were many women in the Bible who were anguished by not conceiving. Sarai in Genesis 16, stated that, "the Lord has restrained me from bearing children." She encouraged Abram to have a child with her servant Hagar, leading to great distress in their household. In Genesis 30:1-2, we hear Rachel cry to Jacob, "'Give me children or else I die!' And Jacob's anger was aroused against Rachel, and he said, 'Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?'" We learn of Hannah, in I Samuel 1:6, "And her rival also provoked her severely, to make her miserable, because the Lord had closed her womb," and in verse 10, "And she was in bitterness of soul, and prayed to the Lord and wept in anguish." And when Elizabeth finally became pregnant, we see in Luke 1:25 "Thus the Lord has dealt with me, in the days when He looked on me, to take away my reproach among people." Many of these women were Godly; Elizabeth was, "righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, blameless" (Luke 1:6).
My wife and I are childless, and like many other similar couples, we looked for medical assistance with conception. The fertility business deals a great deal with statistics, and many of the proposed medical regimens have different success rates. You are advised not to waste too many precious cycles on treatments that have lower chances, and encouraged to move towards in-vitro fertilization, for it has better prospects. This requires creating embryos, often many, and each is a life-- only some are implanted into the womb for a chance of being born. My wife and I did not consider this approach, and have accepted the answer that God has given to our many prayers. Medical science continues to advance, and we can now create life in a test tube from people that never knew each other, implanting that life in yet another stranger. In the near future, I forsee that we will be able to replicate ourselves with cloning, re-creating a life that God has already established. You could clone yourself, and implant the embryo in a womb, yet change your mind and abort the fetus; would that be murder or suicide?
One day my wife and I will see the Lord and know why we did not have children. Although for many infertility is seen as a curse, we do not consider ourselves to be suffering. For now, we are completely at peace with His will for us. We have a contract with Him, a covenant through His Son Jesus Christ, and would not seek to usurp His power to create life. There are others who will create life here on earth and give themselves children, only to lose their own lives for eternity because they reject His Son. They are taking out a contract on themselves.
1. http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/04/health/surrogacy-kelley-legal-battle/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
2. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/251768.php
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Defending Your Self
When Jesus was brought before the authorities before His crucifixion, he was accused of many things. After many charges were brought against Him, we learn in Matthew 26:62-3 that the high priest (Caiphas) said, "'Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?' But Jesus remained silent." Later, we find in Matthew 27:12-14, "But when He was accused by the chief priests and elders, He gave no answer. Then Pilate said to Him, 'Do you not hear how many things they testify against you?' But He gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed." This refusal to answer the charges against Him was actually a fulfillment of prophecy. In Isaiah 53-7, it was foretold: "He was oppressed, and He was afflicted, yet he opened not His mouth."
Certainly we learn at an early age to defend ourselves and our actions, chiefly to avoid punishment for our misdeeds. It becomes almost reflexive that when we are accused of something, we seek to either deny it or explain our actions. Later, as we grow older, we are often less concerned about punishment than we are about damage to our reputations. We are very concerned about what others think about us, and feel that we must speak up when we are accused of impropriety or labelled as having undesirable qualities.
If we are unfortunate enough to be charged with a crime of which we are innocent, then in our legal system it behooves us to mount a defense to avoid serious penalties. With simple criticisms, however, we must listen and decide if they have merit. To always deny criticism can actually be unhealthy and stunt our spiritual growth. We may be able to learn from valid assessments of our shortcomings by objective friends. In fact, if you are always denying any and all criticism, you run the risk of moving from defending to defensive.
In my book, Suriviving the Suffering, I detail two categories of suffering I call Pruning and Spirtual Warfare. Pruning is that process whereby God seeks to remove those parts of us that are not Christ-like, and it is an occasionally painful process that leads us to be more fruitful. It generally involves revealing truths about us that we must accept. We must not resist God's work in this matter, and oftentimes one of the things that must be pruned is our pride. We must not defend ourselves against God.
Spirtual Warfare, on the other hand, is an attack by Satan, and it usually involve lies about ourselves. We may be the victims of libel or slander. Satan seeks to instill doubt in ourselves and our relationship to God. We may be influenced to doubt our salvation or our worthiness. Under such pressure, we may erroneously accept responsibility for our suffering.
In another form of suffering, Christian Persecution, individuals may be charged with crimes or accused of wrongdoing purely because of their Christian beliefs and sharing the Gospel. Fortunately, this is really not a part of life here in America. We may have to endure cultural abuses, but is is rare that anyone in this country will truly suffer purely because they are a Christian.
The word reputation comes from the Latin "re-" (to do again) and "putare" which means to consider, to evaluate, to reckon. (Compute comes from the same root.) Our reputation is that which others see as they reconsider us and reevaluate us. It is the rare person that at one time or another does not have someone attack their reputation. And one of the things that we must decide is whether or not we should respond. I would submit that the answer is not always "yes."
Obviously, as Christians, we should always be prepared to defend our faith. Peter tells us in I Peter 3:15-17, "...always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with a gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil." When God's reputation is at stake, we must speak up.
If it is our reputation that is in question, I think there are two useful questions to ask ourselves. One is, will defending myself make any difference? Some people will always think things about us that we would not wish, but it may be a huge waste of time and energy to try and change their opinions by simple words. Many will have their minds made up, and all the attempts to change them will be for naught. Sometimes, the best you can hope for is that time, prayer, and good behavior on your part will reveal to them their misconception. A second useful question to ask is whether or not you are defending yourself out of necessity or out of pride. Our prideful self-image does not always need to be defended. Humility does not always have to set the record straight.
When Christ was accused, He did not need to speak. He was not going to change the minds of the Jewish leaders or Pilate, and in fact was not supposed to do so. He had a mission to complete for the Lord, and that was to die for us that we might join Him in eternal life. God's plan for Him was more important than correcting the accusers or establishing His good name.
There is one final interesting note. The Latin word "putare" coincidentally also means to "prune." (I am not making this up.) It would seem that the meanings of "putare" to consider, to evaluate, to reckon are reconciled with pruning in so far as that when we evaluate things, we prune away the unnecessary things that obscure the accurate picture. It is hoped that when people assess our reputation, they are doing it accurately, considering what they know of us to be true and not just swallowing gossip. Just as we occasionally need to be pruned by valid criticism, the people who offer it must prune the unnecessary and irrelevant to make a real and useful contribution to the edifice of our reputation. We should accept valid criticism and defend our reptutation from the invalid, up to a point. However, we have more important things to do in our life for the Lord. We can spend more time running around trying to put patches on our reputation than we can living the Christian life and letting His light shine through the holes.
Certainly we learn at an early age to defend ourselves and our actions, chiefly to avoid punishment for our misdeeds. It becomes almost reflexive that when we are accused of something, we seek to either deny it or explain our actions. Later, as we grow older, we are often less concerned about punishment than we are about damage to our reputations. We are very concerned about what others think about us, and feel that we must speak up when we are accused of impropriety or labelled as having undesirable qualities.
If we are unfortunate enough to be charged with a crime of which we are innocent, then in our legal system it behooves us to mount a defense to avoid serious penalties. With simple criticisms, however, we must listen and decide if they have merit. To always deny criticism can actually be unhealthy and stunt our spiritual growth. We may be able to learn from valid assessments of our shortcomings by objective friends. In fact, if you are always denying any and all criticism, you run the risk of moving from defending to defensive.
In my book, Suriviving the Suffering, I detail two categories of suffering I call Pruning and Spirtual Warfare. Pruning is that process whereby God seeks to remove those parts of us that are not Christ-like, and it is an occasionally painful process that leads us to be more fruitful. It generally involves revealing truths about us that we must accept. We must not resist God's work in this matter, and oftentimes one of the things that must be pruned is our pride. We must not defend ourselves against God.
Spirtual Warfare, on the other hand, is an attack by Satan, and it usually involve lies about ourselves. We may be the victims of libel or slander. Satan seeks to instill doubt in ourselves and our relationship to God. We may be influenced to doubt our salvation or our worthiness. Under such pressure, we may erroneously accept responsibility for our suffering.
In another form of suffering, Christian Persecution, individuals may be charged with crimes or accused of wrongdoing purely because of their Christian beliefs and sharing the Gospel. Fortunately, this is really not a part of life here in America. We may have to endure cultural abuses, but is is rare that anyone in this country will truly suffer purely because they are a Christian.
The word reputation comes from the Latin "re-" (to do again) and "putare" which means to consider, to evaluate, to reckon. (Compute comes from the same root.) Our reputation is that which others see as they reconsider us and reevaluate us. It is the rare person that at one time or another does not have someone attack their reputation. And one of the things that we must decide is whether or not we should respond. I would submit that the answer is not always "yes."
Obviously, as Christians, we should always be prepared to defend our faith. Peter tells us in I Peter 3:15-17, "...always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with a gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil." When God's reputation is at stake, we must speak up.
If it is our reputation that is in question, I think there are two useful questions to ask ourselves. One is, will defending myself make any difference? Some people will always think things about us that we would not wish, but it may be a huge waste of time and energy to try and change their opinions by simple words. Many will have their minds made up, and all the attempts to change them will be for naught. Sometimes, the best you can hope for is that time, prayer, and good behavior on your part will reveal to them their misconception. A second useful question to ask is whether or not you are defending yourself out of necessity or out of pride. Our prideful self-image does not always need to be defended. Humility does not always have to set the record straight.
When Christ was accused, He did not need to speak. He was not going to change the minds of the Jewish leaders or Pilate, and in fact was not supposed to do so. He had a mission to complete for the Lord, and that was to die for us that we might join Him in eternal life. God's plan for Him was more important than correcting the accusers or establishing His good name.
There is one final interesting note. The Latin word "putare" coincidentally also means to "prune." (I am not making this up.) It would seem that the meanings of "putare" to consider, to evaluate, to reckon are reconciled with pruning in so far as that when we evaluate things, we prune away the unnecessary things that obscure the accurate picture. It is hoped that when people assess our reputation, they are doing it accurately, considering what they know of us to be true and not just swallowing gossip. Just as we occasionally need to be pruned by valid criticism, the people who offer it must prune the unnecessary and irrelevant to make a real and useful contribution to the edifice of our reputation. We should accept valid criticism and defend our reptutation from the invalid, up to a point. However, we have more important things to do in our life for the Lord. We can spend more time running around trying to put patches on our reputation than we can living the Christian life and letting His light shine through the holes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)