Our sermon series has been traversing by exposition the book of 1 Timothy. Our message this past Sunday was in chapter 4 verses 12-16. A powerful list of leadership qualities was presented that I am unable to hold in, and compelled to share as a challenge to all. Firstly, leadership is communicated by Paul to Timothy as a matter of character and conduct. This is striking because when we speak of leaders these are rarely if ever presented at the front of our natural proclivities toward the subject. In the main we are interested in strength, great natural talent, good communication skills, adeptness in motivational techniques, a natural persuasive personality, a skill set and knowledge base second to none in the field of specialization and the like. If we look at Paul's list of qualifications we see a stark contrast to what our first instincts would tell us.
"Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in the word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity."
I realize these items are from Paul to Timothy for the example he is to be for the church, but how about applying that for a list of traits to those looked at in job interviews? What if the first area of investigation was into the speech of the prospective leader? What if, for prospective leaders in all walks of life the expectation was for one who was an example to others in love? What if, leaders were expected to be examples in spirit? What if there was an expectation of faith in those who would lead? What if the standard across the board for those who would lead others was purity? Before even looking to diplomas, years of experience, ability, etc., these character issues were held under scrutiny? What kind of difference would that make? Next up, following the character traits, Paul addresses the conduct:
"Meditate on these things; give yourself entirely to them, that your progress may be evident to all. Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them..."
Note two things especially here, first that one who possesses the character traits remains a work in progress and progress should be evident, and second that there is a continuing process of self-evaluation and personal work being done. There is no room for lethargy or complacency. There is an expectation of living out exactly what is being taught and a continued process of change and growth toward a more perfect outworking of those character traits previously listed.
Two final notes:
1) There is no doubt that absent the power of the Holy Spirit such character qualities would not really exist. If we believe the Word then we understand that no man lives according to the purpose of their existence and even if some of the qualities listed were present in observance they could not be held with truly good motivation. We cannot begin down a path of Truth until we have been made a new creation. Theologically speaking, regeneration must precede true progress relative to lifestyle. Heart change is required, and that is a work of the Holy Spirit.
2) Pride and boasting is completely discounted. Embedded in this list and exhortation is the prior understanding that continued mistakes, asking for forgiveness, prayer and change of behavior will be expected. How could one stand up and say they have arrived and all should follow them because of their perfect example when there is an expectation of a noticeable evidence of progress? Leaders who possess the character traits can and should be followed, as they will no doubt have a grave sense of humility, understand better than anyone else how far they have yet to go to fulfill the expected requirement in these areas (perfection) and be completely reliant on the power of the Holy Spirit and not on any ability within.
What if these principles were expected and exhibited, with a continued desire to strive after them with abandon for all in leadership? Thank God for common grace, and for the realization that we can all strive for such quality of character regardless of any temporal distinctive.
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Monday, January 30, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Truth Be Told
I'm coming to the close of my personal daily devotions in 1 John, 2 John and 3 John and wanted to post some of the common themes that emerged as prominent in my mind as I have been studying and meditating on these letters in the last few months. There are three that are foremost in my thinking, and all three gained that place of prominence in my mind because of several verses in particular, although the themes were common throughout.
Theme number one: Jesus is Lord and Christ, the Son of God.
"We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. And so we know and rely on the love God has for us." 1 John 4:13-15
"Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God." 1 John 5:5
The Gospel of Christ according to John also provides much textual support of the connection between the man Jesus and the link to Christ, Lord and God ("My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." John 10:29-30, for example).
Theme number two: We know love and truth because we know the Son.
"...because of the truth, which lives in us and will be with us forever: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father's Son, will be with us in truth and love." 2 John 2-3
"It gave me great joy to have some brothers come and tell about your faithfulness to the truth and how you continue to walk in the truth. I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth." 3 John 3-4
"But you have an annointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ...Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God, and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands, and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us." 1 John 2:20-22a; 3:21-23
Theme number three: Resist false teaching that opposes the love and truth known through the Son.
"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world." 1 John 4:1-3
"Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work." 2 John 9-11
"Dear friends, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God." 3 John 11
It would do all who call on the name of Christ to think carefully on these and spend some time reinforcing these truths each day as we live each day knowing truth and love because of the work of the Holy Spirit who shined the light of truth in our hearts so that we might know Jesus as both Lord and Christ and empowers us to study the Word of Truth to show ourselves approved and recognize deception and false teaching. God doesn't need us to defend Him as He was and is and ever will be God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit regardless any earthly circumstance, but there are those who will seek to lead others away from the Truth and so we can be about lifting up Love and Truth as it is only legitimate - through Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior.
Theme number one: Jesus is Lord and Christ, the Son of God.
"We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. And so we know and rely on the love God has for us." 1 John 4:13-15
"Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God." 1 John 5:5
The Gospel of Christ according to John also provides much textual support of the connection between the man Jesus and the link to Christ, Lord and God ("My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." John 10:29-30, for example).
Theme number two: We know love and truth because we know the Son.
"...because of the truth, which lives in us and will be with us forever: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father's Son, will be with us in truth and love." 2 John 2-3
"It gave me great joy to have some brothers come and tell about your faithfulness to the truth and how you continue to walk in the truth. I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth." 3 John 3-4
"But you have an annointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ...Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God, and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands, and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us." 1 John 2:20-22a; 3:21-23
Theme number three: Resist false teaching that opposes the love and truth known through the Son.
"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world." 1 John 4:1-3
"Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work." 2 John 9-11
"Dear friends, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God." 3 John 11
It would do all who call on the name of Christ to think carefully on these and spend some time reinforcing these truths each day as we live each day knowing truth and love because of the work of the Holy Spirit who shined the light of truth in our hearts so that we might know Jesus as both Lord and Christ and empowers us to study the Word of Truth to show ourselves approved and recognize deception and false teaching. God doesn't need us to defend Him as He was and is and ever will be God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit regardless any earthly circumstance, but there are those who will seek to lead others away from the Truth and so we can be about lifting up Love and Truth as it is only legitimate - through Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior.
Friday, January 20, 2012
A Practical Application
The last post dealt with a general scenario about what was clear and explicit in scripture being extended to a similar position in which the Bible was granted to be silent. Nice discussion so far as hypothetical general scenarios go. Now, perhaps a specific case study that is actively and sometimes contentiously debated to put into practice what we have as yet handled just theoretically.
1 Timothy 3:2,4 and 12 says the following: "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife...He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect...," and "A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must handle his children and household well." This is a clear and explicit establishment of men in the position of overseer (elder, bishop) and deacon in church leadership. The Bible, however, is silent on the issue of women in the same position of leadership. By silent we mean that we do not read explicitly worded anywhere in scripture something like "the overseer who is a woman must be the wife of but one husband, faithful to her children and husband;" nor do we read something like "only men are allowed to be elder or deacon, women shall not be allowed in positions of elder or deacon." So what are we to believe about women as elder or deacon. Well we look through the Bible and find the general principle of loving God, serving God and effective leadership to be a good thing. We also find the general principle of working together in the church as a body, each with their own part to make the whole body function. We also find the general principle of spiritual gifts, of individuals being called to specific gifts and functioning within those gifts. We find principles of love and grace toward one another. We look to churches thoughout the nation and see with ever-increasing regularity embracing women in positions of elder and deacon. Therefore, since the Bible is silent on women as elder and deacon, and since we see many general principles and our observation of church operation today, we fix our position that God is pleased when capable, and responsible adults serve joyfully in positions of leadership in the local church. We therefore endorse and celebrate women in the position of elder and deacon. We further purpose to defend this position against all who would draw some line of non-compromise on an issue in which the Bible is silent and which encompasses so many general qualities otherwise stated to be good throughout scripture, and to encourage those holding to such hardline positions to see the danger in their uncompromising belief.
What do you think about this position? Totally agree? Any problems?
Think about it carefully and then scroll down for my take, and let me know your thoughts.
Suppose you ask me to play chess. I've never played chess before, but I like your company and have always wanted to learn. You bring out your board (made of etched glass), your pieces (a nice hand carved ebony and ivory set) and your rule book and spend hours teaching me the rules, the spaces on the board the vernacular of the game, the pieces names, their strengths and weaknesses and how they move around the board, and how the end result can be a win or draw and what compromises either outcome. I thank you for your time and ask you to come to my house the next day to play our first game. You arrive at my house and i'm excited to see you express how ready I am to play and lead you into my living room where I have everything set up. You take a look around and ask me what's going on. I tell you I don't know what you mean, I have the board and pieces ready to go. You point out that I have the gameboard for SORRY! set out with sixteen "good" Lego Star Wars figures and sixteen "bad" Lego Star Wars figures scattered all over the board. And so naturally I ask you what the problem is, you told me explicitly what chess was (board, pieces, goal of the game, rules) but I noted that generally speaking games are fun, that there are lots of different kinds of games, that games are meant for two people to have a good time and since you never told me that a SORRY! board and Lego Star Wars pieces couldn't be used, obviously this is just legitimate an arrangement as what you went over with me yesterday.
The principle is very simple. If a single set of explicit standards or arrangements are presented, implicit in that explicit establishment is the understanding that one need not exhaustively reject all other possible arrangements. The fact that it is established in the Bible that the office of elder and deacon are set out for men (of but one wife, who handles his family well and children show him proper respect, etc.) implicitly leaves out all other arrangements. One doesn't even have to spend time saying - "The Bible condemns women in all places of such leadership." It is obvious and explicit as well as implied that the only arrangement for church leadership established by God through the revealed Word is men, not women. The arrangement simply should not be recognized.
Now, having established men who are husbands of one wife, and who manages his family well, and meets the other requirements for either elder or deacon; one can ask questions about what qualities a married man that handles his family well might bring to church leadership that God felt important in the local body; about how that structure agrees with other arrangements throughout scripture; about how that arrangement should impact other members of the body and how it should augment our worship of God who set those established framework in place. In short, we should not look at general principles and what we observe around us as common practice to see what arrangements that are not clearly and explicitly established we can incorporate into what is clear and explicit. Rather, we should read what is clear and explicit, endorse and celebrate that which is clear and explicit and spend our time meditating on why God established it in that clear and explicit manner. To do otherwise is to run the risk of endorsing and celebrating that which is in direct opposition to what was clearly and explicitly established by God; to stand on dangerous ground.
1 Timothy 3:2,4 and 12 says the following: "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife...He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect...," and "A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must handle his children and household well." This is a clear and explicit establishment of men in the position of overseer (elder, bishop) and deacon in church leadership. The Bible, however, is silent on the issue of women in the same position of leadership. By silent we mean that we do not read explicitly worded anywhere in scripture something like "the overseer who is a woman must be the wife of but one husband, faithful to her children and husband;" nor do we read something like "only men are allowed to be elder or deacon, women shall not be allowed in positions of elder or deacon." So what are we to believe about women as elder or deacon. Well we look through the Bible and find the general principle of loving God, serving God and effective leadership to be a good thing. We also find the general principle of working together in the church as a body, each with their own part to make the whole body function. We also find the general principle of spiritual gifts, of individuals being called to specific gifts and functioning within those gifts. We find principles of love and grace toward one another. We look to churches thoughout the nation and see with ever-increasing regularity embracing women in positions of elder and deacon. Therefore, since the Bible is silent on women as elder and deacon, and since we see many general principles and our observation of church operation today, we fix our position that God is pleased when capable, and responsible adults serve joyfully in positions of leadership in the local church. We therefore endorse and celebrate women in the position of elder and deacon. We further purpose to defend this position against all who would draw some line of non-compromise on an issue in which the Bible is silent and which encompasses so many general qualities otherwise stated to be good throughout scripture, and to encourage those holding to such hardline positions to see the danger in their uncompromising belief.
What do you think about this position? Totally agree? Any problems?
Think about it carefully and then scroll down for my take, and let me know your thoughts.
Suppose you ask me to play chess. I've never played chess before, but I like your company and have always wanted to learn. You bring out your board (made of etched glass), your pieces (a nice hand carved ebony and ivory set) and your rule book and spend hours teaching me the rules, the spaces on the board the vernacular of the game, the pieces names, their strengths and weaknesses and how they move around the board, and how the end result can be a win or draw and what compromises either outcome. I thank you for your time and ask you to come to my house the next day to play our first game. You arrive at my house and i'm excited to see you express how ready I am to play and lead you into my living room where I have everything set up. You take a look around and ask me what's going on. I tell you I don't know what you mean, I have the board and pieces ready to go. You point out that I have the gameboard for SORRY! set out with sixteen "good" Lego Star Wars figures and sixteen "bad" Lego Star Wars figures scattered all over the board. And so naturally I ask you what the problem is, you told me explicitly what chess was (board, pieces, goal of the game, rules) but I noted that generally speaking games are fun, that there are lots of different kinds of games, that games are meant for two people to have a good time and since you never told me that a SORRY! board and Lego Star Wars pieces couldn't be used, obviously this is just legitimate an arrangement as what you went over with me yesterday.
The principle is very simple. If a single set of explicit standards or arrangements are presented, implicit in that explicit establishment is the understanding that one need not exhaustively reject all other possible arrangements. The fact that it is established in the Bible that the office of elder and deacon are set out for men (of but one wife, who handles his family well and children show him proper respect, etc.) implicitly leaves out all other arrangements. One doesn't even have to spend time saying - "The Bible condemns women in all places of such leadership." It is obvious and explicit as well as implied that the only arrangement for church leadership established by God through the revealed Word is men, not women. The arrangement simply should not be recognized.
Now, having established men who are husbands of one wife, and who manages his family well, and meets the other requirements for either elder or deacon; one can ask questions about what qualities a married man that handles his family well might bring to church leadership that God felt important in the local body; about how that structure agrees with other arrangements throughout scripture; about how that arrangement should impact other members of the body and how it should augment our worship of God who set those established framework in place. In short, we should not look at general principles and what we observe around us as common practice to see what arrangements that are not clearly and explicitly established we can incorporate into what is clear and explicit. Rather, we should read what is clear and explicit, endorse and celebrate that which is clear and explicit and spend our time meditating on why God established it in that clear and explicit manner. To do otherwise is to run the risk of endorsing and celebrating that which is in direct opposition to what was clearly and explicitly established by God; to stand on dangerous ground.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Certainty in Opinions
Much discussion has welled up again on a familiar topic that deserves some serious thought and discussion. Namely, on opinion and fact relative to scripture. The discussion goes something like this: There are undeniable truths in the Bible that are unquestioned and then there are things that are just our opinion, things that are not "Thou Shalt Not" in nature and therefore terms like "Christian liberty" would apply. What are these things? How do we know? What kind of scripture can we say are applicable to all and what scripture are we to use our own judgment? Even these questions seem loaded and problematic so the trouble is where to begin. For this post I'm going to begin with a couple of comments that a visitor posted and then my response. The visitor asked permission to posit the question and the comment would be visible by all in the comment section so I don't believe i'm taking any undue liberty posting it here. First the comment:
A few questions, if I may... 1. You DO agree that Paul is clearly telling us in Romans 14 that there IS such a category as non-essential questions of opinion on which we ought to live and let live, yes? 2. I'm curious as to how large your list of "essential" matters on which Christians ought NOT disagree and where we OUGHT to argue with one another, calling into question someone else's (ie, God's) servant? I'd gladly suggest that my list of essential, non-disputable matters is pretty small. I'd limit it to matters that I think are exceedingly clear (and, to be honest, I probably wouldn't even create a list, but if I did, it would look something like this...) God is love. Humanity sins/humans have a sinful nature. Humanity needs salvation. Salvation comes by God's grace, through faith in Jesus. God cares for the "least of these" and expects us to do so as well. Those who don't - or those who oppress the least of these - will be held in judgment. Something like that. And even within that, I'd have the grace to allow some disputation about what that means. For instance: Sure, all of humanity has a sinful nature, but does that mean that a one day old infant sins? No, that is not a valid conclusion. Yes, we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus, but what does that look like? Well, I think it could look like a lot of things and I'm not sure that I could spell them all out, nor am I interested in trying. Like that. I'd have a short, flexible list because I think that, as fallible humans, we have a finite amount of genius and perfection and are quite capable of being mistaken. Oftentimes, historically, much of what we traditionally have called "GOD'S WILL," has been more a matter of opinion, rather than God stating something as fact. Thus, my list is short and gracious. How 'bout you?
Jeremy, if I may offer a few thoughts on this old post... Judge is defined as, “to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises.” Surely this is not the normally intended usage that is found to be so objectionable. Yes, I know that many people whip out "thou shalt not judge" as if it were the end all/be all command and do so at the risk of taking it out of context (as if to say, "Don't judge any body or anything!"). The thing is, if you ask most of them, of course they'll admit that it's okay to make judgements: To judge an oppressive tyrant as unfit to continue holding his office, for instance, or to judge a child abuser unfit to take care of children. Practically no one truly thinks that there should be NO judgment happening, even those who'll over-extend the "judge not" passage. Could we agree there? I'd posit that what folk are doing is reacting AGAINST an abusive of religious domination, and in so doing, sometimes, they may take it too far. As we have seen discussed over on Stan's recent post, Romans 14 makes it clear that we are NOT to be overly judgmental at least on matters of opinion, on "disputable matters." Based on this passage and other passages, clearly there ARE some matters where we ought not be judgmental or perhaps overly judgmental. I would posit that in Jesus' time, as today, there are many in the religious world who make a habit of "judging God's servant," in the sense that they lack in showing grace and christian liberty to other Christians to seek God's will. In Baptist circles, we speak of the Priesthood of the Believer, the notion that each believer is accountable to God and we ought not be sniping one another about their decisions/beliefs, AT LEAST on non-essential questions.
And now my response:
The question posed in the first comment is really about the length of list of items that are essential to the Christian faith, as opposed to those that are non-essential. In essence we are trying to come to agreement on the items within Biblical teaching that are beyond debate and are applicable to everyone with condemnation as the result of disobedience, and everything else that we all make up our own minds and leave each other to it. There are two elements to this question, the logical and the theological. In terms of pure logic I believe it to be an impossible question to answer, or just a faulty question. For there to be a list of non-negotiables that all have no choice but to consent to, there would have to be language exactly like the following: "The following items are beyond debate, non-negotiable, applicable to all people and will bring condemnation if violated..." If that is not present then even the list that is formed could be considered merely the opinion of the one making the list. We are all aware that debate over just such a list has gone on since the inception of the church and necessarily spawned the denominational seperation that currently exists. I realize this is not the heart of the question. The heart of the question is the theological one - namely, what do we adhere to unswervingly to be obedient to God and what do we let pass.
My response to the theological question is another question: what is the goal of the disciple of Christ? Is our goal anything other than being Christlike? Are we not being transformed into the likeness of Christ through the process of sanctification daily? Are we not commanded in scripture to be perfect and Christ is perfect, to be holy and Christ is Holy? The question that follows naturally is: How do I know what it is to be Christlike? And here is the rub in this whole line of questioning. The only way we know is by comparing our lives to what is Christlike, and the only thing we have to compare our lives to is the Word of God. We must acknowledge the Bible as the litmus, the measuring stick against which we compare all we think, do and say. Put together, what we are left with is the necessity to read the Bible as a complete system - Genesis to Revelation - for how to direct our lives to be conformed to the likeness of Christ. Therefore every perfectly written principle in the Bible must be non-negotiable. Please notice the distinction i'm making here, the human being who is the disciple of Christ is not perfect, the written Biblical principle is perfect. Here is where the grace for one another comes in. Grace for one another is not being silent except on issues that make our list of non-negotiables. Grace for one another is recognizing that those who are disciples of Christ are at different places on their journey of sanctification and so we challenge one another with the whole council of God to better change our thoughts, actions and speech to better conform to the perfect Biblical principles. I hope that is perfectly clear. Now the only question that remains is: Is the questioner a disciple of Christ? This is the list that is really important. Does the questioner believe that Jesus is Lord and God, that He died on the cross and whose shed blood is the only thing efficacious for the remission of sin, the expunging of the wrath of God and able to reconcile our relationship with our Heavenly Father, and that He rose from the dead to defeat death and the grave and give the hope of eternal life in the presence of God? That's a good place to start.
Now the second comment, which is a derivative of the first. In relation to the particulars of judgments again the issue is motivation. For the disciple of Christ we are to share the Truth in love for the sake of the Gospel. We don't make judgments on activities and bring them to someone else's attention to prove our point, to be argumentative, or for any other reason than we love them and desire a change in a behavior whose principle is clearly laid out by the whole council of God through the entire Biblical system. Again, we are all ultimately accountable to God but we are also commanded to make disciples - to let other believers know where their behavior does not line up with the clear principles of scripture, in love, for change. Grace is not a matter of leaving well enough alone unless a behavior is recognized by both parties as essential, or addressing an issue as being on my list and so I suggest you think about considering a change unless you disagree and then I won't bring it up anymore because we differ in opinion. Grace is saying you are wrong and need to change your behavior because your actions deviate from clear Biblical principles and I love you too much to back down, but I also understand you may not like it and it may take time for the Holy Spirit to cultivate the desire to repent in this area and change so I won't beat you up or resort to hateful language or actions to force your hand. I hope you can see that difference. The principle is not a matter of opinion, it is forever settled, we are to exhort one another to change where our lives are inconsistent with those principles in love without wavering.
I'll close with an illustration. My boys and I are reading through the Chronicles of Narnia series again and tonight we are closing out Book 1 - The Magician's Nephew. Consider the following passage:
"When he had come close up to them (the golden gates to the garden) he saw words written on the gold with silver letters; something like this: Come in by the gold gates or not at all, Take of my fruit for others or forbear, For those who steal or those who climb my wall Shall find their hearts desire and find despair. 'Take of my fruit for others," said Digory to himself. 'Well, that's what i'm going to do. It means I musn't eat any myself, I suppose...'I know what errand you have come on,' continued the Witch,...you are going to carry it back, untasted, to the Lion; for him to eat, for him to use. You simpleton! Do you know what that fruit is? I will tell you...Eat it, Boy, eat it; and you and I will both live forever and be king and queen of this whole world...'And I suppose because she took it in the wrong way it won't work for her'...'Alas,' said Aslan, shaking his head. 'It will. Things always work according to their nature. She won her heart's desire...But length of days with an evil heart is only length of misery and already she begins to know it. All get what they want; they do not always like it...'That is what would have happened, child, with a stolen apple. It is not what will happen now. What I give you now will bring joy. It will not, in your world, give endless life, but it will heal. Go. Pluck her an apple from the Tree."
What was written on the gate was the Truth. Stolen fruit may look sweet, but will bring despair. In the Witch's opinion stealing or receiving was all the same. She was wrong because her opinion did not line up with the writing on the door. She got what she wanted, but despair as well. By way of illustration we too must keep the perfect principle at the forefront, not our opinions about it, as well as the motiviation behind all we think, do and say. We must only partake of the apple given us, not decide for ourselves what to eat and when to eat it and let God sort it out later.
A few questions, if I may... 1. You DO agree that Paul is clearly telling us in Romans 14 that there IS such a category as non-essential questions of opinion on which we ought to live and let live, yes? 2. I'm curious as to how large your list of "essential" matters on which Christians ought NOT disagree and where we OUGHT to argue with one another, calling into question someone else's (ie, God's) servant? I'd gladly suggest that my list of essential, non-disputable matters is pretty small. I'd limit it to matters that I think are exceedingly clear (and, to be honest, I probably wouldn't even create a list, but if I did, it would look something like this...) God is love. Humanity sins/humans have a sinful nature. Humanity needs salvation. Salvation comes by God's grace, through faith in Jesus. God cares for the "least of these" and expects us to do so as well. Those who don't - or those who oppress the least of these - will be held in judgment. Something like that. And even within that, I'd have the grace to allow some disputation about what that means. For instance: Sure, all of humanity has a sinful nature, but does that mean that a one day old infant sins? No, that is not a valid conclusion. Yes, we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus, but what does that look like? Well, I think it could look like a lot of things and I'm not sure that I could spell them all out, nor am I interested in trying. Like that. I'd have a short, flexible list because I think that, as fallible humans, we have a finite amount of genius and perfection and are quite capable of being mistaken. Oftentimes, historically, much of what we traditionally have called "GOD'S WILL," has been more a matter of opinion, rather than God stating something as fact. Thus, my list is short and gracious. How 'bout you?
Jeremy, if I may offer a few thoughts on this old post... Judge is defined as, “to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises.” Surely this is not the normally intended usage that is found to be so objectionable. Yes, I know that many people whip out "thou shalt not judge" as if it were the end all/be all command and do so at the risk of taking it out of context (as if to say, "Don't judge any body or anything!"). The thing is, if you ask most of them, of course they'll admit that it's okay to make judgements: To judge an oppressive tyrant as unfit to continue holding his office, for instance, or to judge a child abuser unfit to take care of children. Practically no one truly thinks that there should be NO judgment happening, even those who'll over-extend the "judge not" passage. Could we agree there? I'd posit that what folk are doing is reacting AGAINST an abusive of religious domination, and in so doing, sometimes, they may take it too far. As we have seen discussed over on Stan's recent post, Romans 14 makes it clear that we are NOT to be overly judgmental at least on matters of opinion, on "disputable matters." Based on this passage and other passages, clearly there ARE some matters where we ought not be judgmental or perhaps overly judgmental. I would posit that in Jesus' time, as today, there are many in the religious world who make a habit of "judging God's servant," in the sense that they lack in showing grace and christian liberty to other Christians to seek God's will. In Baptist circles, we speak of the Priesthood of the Believer, the notion that each believer is accountable to God and we ought not be sniping one another about their decisions/beliefs, AT LEAST on non-essential questions.
And now my response:
The question posed in the first comment is really about the length of list of items that are essential to the Christian faith, as opposed to those that are non-essential. In essence we are trying to come to agreement on the items within Biblical teaching that are beyond debate and are applicable to everyone with condemnation as the result of disobedience, and everything else that we all make up our own minds and leave each other to it. There are two elements to this question, the logical and the theological. In terms of pure logic I believe it to be an impossible question to answer, or just a faulty question. For there to be a list of non-negotiables that all have no choice but to consent to, there would have to be language exactly like the following: "The following items are beyond debate, non-negotiable, applicable to all people and will bring condemnation if violated..." If that is not present then even the list that is formed could be considered merely the opinion of the one making the list. We are all aware that debate over just such a list has gone on since the inception of the church and necessarily spawned the denominational seperation that currently exists. I realize this is not the heart of the question. The heart of the question is the theological one - namely, what do we adhere to unswervingly to be obedient to God and what do we let pass.
My response to the theological question is another question: what is the goal of the disciple of Christ? Is our goal anything other than being Christlike? Are we not being transformed into the likeness of Christ through the process of sanctification daily? Are we not commanded in scripture to be perfect and Christ is perfect, to be holy and Christ is Holy? The question that follows naturally is: How do I know what it is to be Christlike? And here is the rub in this whole line of questioning. The only way we know is by comparing our lives to what is Christlike, and the only thing we have to compare our lives to is the Word of God. We must acknowledge the Bible as the litmus, the measuring stick against which we compare all we think, do and say. Put together, what we are left with is the necessity to read the Bible as a complete system - Genesis to Revelation - for how to direct our lives to be conformed to the likeness of Christ. Therefore every perfectly written principle in the Bible must be non-negotiable. Please notice the distinction i'm making here, the human being who is the disciple of Christ is not perfect, the written Biblical principle is perfect. Here is where the grace for one another comes in. Grace for one another is not being silent except on issues that make our list of non-negotiables. Grace for one another is recognizing that those who are disciples of Christ are at different places on their journey of sanctification and so we challenge one another with the whole council of God to better change our thoughts, actions and speech to better conform to the perfect Biblical principles. I hope that is perfectly clear. Now the only question that remains is: Is the questioner a disciple of Christ? This is the list that is really important. Does the questioner believe that Jesus is Lord and God, that He died on the cross and whose shed blood is the only thing efficacious for the remission of sin, the expunging of the wrath of God and able to reconcile our relationship with our Heavenly Father, and that He rose from the dead to defeat death and the grave and give the hope of eternal life in the presence of God? That's a good place to start.
Now the second comment, which is a derivative of the first. In relation to the particulars of judgments again the issue is motivation. For the disciple of Christ we are to share the Truth in love for the sake of the Gospel. We don't make judgments on activities and bring them to someone else's attention to prove our point, to be argumentative, or for any other reason than we love them and desire a change in a behavior whose principle is clearly laid out by the whole council of God through the entire Biblical system. Again, we are all ultimately accountable to God but we are also commanded to make disciples - to let other believers know where their behavior does not line up with the clear principles of scripture, in love, for change. Grace is not a matter of leaving well enough alone unless a behavior is recognized by both parties as essential, or addressing an issue as being on my list and so I suggest you think about considering a change unless you disagree and then I won't bring it up anymore because we differ in opinion. Grace is saying you are wrong and need to change your behavior because your actions deviate from clear Biblical principles and I love you too much to back down, but I also understand you may not like it and it may take time for the Holy Spirit to cultivate the desire to repent in this area and change so I won't beat you up or resort to hateful language or actions to force your hand. I hope you can see that difference. The principle is not a matter of opinion, it is forever settled, we are to exhort one another to change where our lives are inconsistent with those principles in love without wavering.
I'll close with an illustration. My boys and I are reading through the Chronicles of Narnia series again and tonight we are closing out Book 1 - The Magician's Nephew. Consider the following passage:
"When he had come close up to them (the golden gates to the garden) he saw words written on the gold with silver letters; something like this: Come in by the gold gates or not at all, Take of my fruit for others or forbear, For those who steal or those who climb my wall Shall find their hearts desire and find despair. 'Take of my fruit for others," said Digory to himself. 'Well, that's what i'm going to do. It means I musn't eat any myself, I suppose...'I know what errand you have come on,' continued the Witch,...you are going to carry it back, untasted, to the Lion; for him to eat, for him to use. You simpleton! Do you know what that fruit is? I will tell you...Eat it, Boy, eat it; and you and I will both live forever and be king and queen of this whole world...'And I suppose because she took it in the wrong way it won't work for her'...'Alas,' said Aslan, shaking his head. 'It will. Things always work according to their nature. She won her heart's desire...But length of days with an evil heart is only length of misery and already she begins to know it. All get what they want; they do not always like it...'That is what would have happened, child, with a stolen apple. It is not what will happen now. What I give you now will bring joy. It will not, in your world, give endless life, but it will heal. Go. Pluck her an apple from the Tree."
What was written on the gate was the Truth. Stolen fruit may look sweet, but will bring despair. In the Witch's opinion stealing or receiving was all the same. She was wrong because her opinion did not line up with the writing on the door. She got what she wanted, but despair as well. By way of illustration we too must keep the perfect principle at the forefront, not our opinions about it, as well as the motiviation behind all we think, do and say. We must only partake of the apple given us, not decide for ourselves what to eat and when to eat it and let God sort it out later.
Friday, April 30, 2010
A ger Of An Issue - or - A Suggested Christian Approach to Immigration at the Southern US Border
Immigration in general, and the newly passed state law in Arizona in particular, has raised a great deal of debate (and I use the term as loosely as possible for most media outlets) surrounding the United States and immigration. I've been thinking about this issue for a long time (over a year to date) and I would respectfully submit my thoughts and a proposal. One word of note to begin, and that is that my address is specifically pointed to followers of Christ. My hope in all my thinking is to bring together the biblical consideration that followers of Christ should give to any topic, some ancillary but related issues and contemporary cultural ideas that tend to cloud the issue. With that as a backdrop, I begin with what I believe to be the requisite initial definition.
A Christian position on immigration must be based on biblical truth. A quick perusal of just the Old Testament reveals a good portion of scripture dealing with the issue, and it is incumbent upon us as believers who understand the Bible as the inspired Word of God to investigate the terms so we can have a well founded understanding of what is intended and not just force a personal interpretation on the text. gwr is the hebrew root for the words used in the Old Testament to speak on the topic. Here I am going to include a significant excerpt of John T. Willis' translation, edited by Botterweck and Ringgren from the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament by William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company of Grand Rapids, Michigan, pages 439 to 449. Any mistakes, typographical or otherwise are mine.
"Hebrew lexicography reckons with several roots of gwr. In connection with an investigation of the root gwr I, 'to tarry as a sojourner,' the important question is whether gwr II=subordinate form of grh, 'to attack, strive,' and gwr III=subordinate form of ygr, 'to be afraid,' are independent homonymous roots, or whether possibly an original connection can be established between these roots, so that the various meanings represent special meanings of the same root...
...gwr I occurs in the qal 81 times...the subst. ger occurs 92 times...meghurim means 'sojourning' and occurs 11 times...
...In the OT, the ger occupies an intermediate position between a native ('ezrach) and a foreigner (nokhri'). He lives among people who are not his blood relatives, and thus he lacks the protection and the privileges which usually come from blood relationship and place of birth. His status and privileges are dependent on the hospitality that has played an important role in the ancient Near East ever since ancient time. In the early period of Israel, the legal position of the ger is comparable with that of the metics of Greece...However, under the sign of religious integration, the concept develops more and more toward the proselyte, the non-Israelite who becomes an adherent of the Yahweh faith...
...The reasons why someone becomes a ger, separates himself from his clan and his home, and places himself under the legal protection of another man or group of men, are varied. The most frequent reason given in the OT is famine...Military encounters can also force people to lead the life of a ger...In addition, individual distress or bloodguilt can cause a person to seek protection and help among foreigners as a ger...
...As a rule, of course, the protected citizen could acquire no property, and thus was left to the legal protection of the fully enfranchised citizen...
...when the ger is mentioned in connection with the treatment of the quality of sacrifice in Lev. 22:17-33, and when Nu. 15 in supplements to the regulations concerning sacrifice (Nu. 15:14, 15 [twice], 16, 26, 29, 30) explicitly states that the ger has the same rights as the native, and that the expiatory power of the sin-offering is also given to the ger who lives in the midst of the whole community of the Israelites, again it is quite clear that in late strata of P (the Pentateuch) the ger is the fully integrated proselyte. Therefore, in this portion of P one should regard all laws as also applicable to the ger, even if he is not explicitly mentioned. And this means that the ger has his place in the community as a proselyte by circumcision and mode of life...
...The Israelites are commanded to treat the protected citizen kindly (Dt. 10:19; cf. Ex. 22:20 [21]; 23:9), because they know what it is to be a ger (nephesh hagger, 'the soul [heart] of a stranger'), they have the responsibility of extending the law of loving their neighbor as themselves (Lev. 19:18) to the ger...The idea that man simply lives the life of a ger here on earth if of special significance. Thus, the psalmist knows that he is only a ger, 'guest' and a toshabh, 'sojourner', before Yahweh, like all his fathers...Yahweh alone is owner of the land, and thus they can only be hereditary tenants of his possesion...The distress of earthly existence leads to the recognition that God must support and help man like a patron, or else man will be lost."
End extended excerpt
There are several ideas that come to the front of my thinking. First, the biblical understanding of the sojourner was that there was a significant impetous occuring in someone's native land that would drive them away (drought, famine, military action, bloodguilt, etc.). The implication here is that people are not just milling about for no reason, wandering to and fro, but rather something is driving them to leave the protection and privilages afforded him in his native land. They are placing themselves at the mercy of their hosts. Second, there was an expectation of assimilation into the culture and the beliefs, the term proselyte is used. The implication here is that all the laws of the land are expected to be followed and although the guest is protected and allowed to live securely, obtain private possessions, hire others to work for him, etc. there is the understanding of full assimilation into the culture. Third, respectful treatment is required by the native in the land. It is critically important to remember the position of mankind as a "hereditary tenant" of God's possession; such that caring for visitors is as part of good stewardship.
Now to bring in the related legal issues. I'll be brief here because this portion could be an entire post on its own. Governments and laws are established by God and are limited in power by God. As Harold O.J. Brown says in his article Civil Authority and the Bible, "The first of these limits if quite clearly expressed in Scripture and is universally accepted by Christians and, to some extent, even respected by the civil laws of secular states: We may not do that which God's law prohibits, even when the secular authority commands it (Dan. 3:4-6), and we must do what God's law requires, even when secular (or religious) authorities prohibit it (Dan. 6:7-12; Acts 4:18; 5:28)." Further, R.C. Sproul in his article The Biblical View of Submission of Constituted Authority states, "The apostles were driven to continue their ministry by an overarching ethical imperative. What words they couched in a gossamer veil of the rhetorical in Acts 4, the proclaimed "without horns" in chapter 5: "We ought to obey God rather than men" (v. 29). This ethical imperative, resting on an obligatory oughtness, is structured in a comparative form. The operative word in the comparison is 'rather.' It is not a universal license for revolt against all human authority...The 'rather' comes into play only when there is a conflict between the lesser and the greater magistrate. The principle is always and ever prior obligation to the higher authority...The'governing authorities' can also be rendered 'higher powers.' The powers or authorites (exousia) in view are not restricted to the supreme office of king or emporer but are applied to anyone who is in authority over us. In 1 Peter 2:13 reference is made to the king who is supreme, but in this text no single class of magistrates is compared with another. Our obligation is submission to all who hold magisterial authority over us. There are encompassed by the word higher (hoperechon)."
And now to my recommendation, which is based on a more complete study of the full texts of the documents refrenced above and others and which I hope will be seen to be a balanced biblical approach for followers of Christ. It seems to me that we need to incorporate the ideas of treating visitors well (as we understand even ourselves to be only caretakers of God's property), proselytizing and submitting to authority. It would not be biblical or Godly to say everyone should just stay out and leave us alone because this is OUR country. It would also not seem to be biblical or Godly to ignore the status of the soul of whoever comes in and out of the nation. It would also not be biblical or Godly to say ignore the law and let everyone come in without a second thought. My position, after careful consideration, which I consider to be a balanced biblical view of the issue, is that Christians in this country should endeavor to minister in the border areas where those to our South are entering the country. At first thought, the ministry would be some combination of providing food, clothing, shelter for those wishing to enter the US while also explaining the current laws relative to immigration, helping to complete and submit the proper documentation for legal entry into the country, begin offering some basic English language to aide in assimilation into US culture, sharing the gospel and possibly even help in placement for employment and/or location once the legal documents for lawful entry have been received.
This seems to me to be a proper Christian respone to the issue. It remains true to helping those in need and treating all people with dignity and respect because they are created in God's image, to be true to the biblical principle of submitting to authority where it does not conflict with God's law, and to make disciples of all nations. It also seems to me to be a very difficult and potentially dangerous road to take, but that should be seen as possibly the best evidence for its being a legitimate solution for Christians. Those who are called to being on the front lines would most certainly be in physical danger, but would have a wide open mission field of not only those who genuinely seek refuge from a situation that is forcing them to flee the provision and protection of their own native land and put themselves at the mercy of another but also to those who would attempt to smuggle drugs into the US. It would also be another opportunity for all Christians across the nation to contribute to mission work right here in the United States.
A Christian position on immigration must be based on biblical truth. A quick perusal of just the Old Testament reveals a good portion of scripture dealing with the issue, and it is incumbent upon us as believers who understand the Bible as the inspired Word of God to investigate the terms so we can have a well founded understanding of what is intended and not just force a personal interpretation on the text. gwr is the hebrew root for the words used in the Old Testament to speak on the topic. Here I am going to include a significant excerpt of John T. Willis' translation, edited by Botterweck and Ringgren from the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament by William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company of Grand Rapids, Michigan, pages 439 to 449. Any mistakes, typographical or otherwise are mine.
"Hebrew lexicography reckons with several roots of gwr. In connection with an investigation of the root gwr I, 'to tarry as a sojourner,' the important question is whether gwr II=subordinate form of grh, 'to attack, strive,' and gwr III=subordinate form of ygr, 'to be afraid,' are independent homonymous roots, or whether possibly an original connection can be established between these roots, so that the various meanings represent special meanings of the same root...
...gwr I occurs in the qal 81 times...the subst. ger occurs 92 times...meghurim means 'sojourning' and occurs 11 times...
...In the OT, the ger occupies an intermediate position between a native ('ezrach) and a foreigner (nokhri'). He lives among people who are not his blood relatives, and thus he lacks the protection and the privileges which usually come from blood relationship and place of birth. His status and privileges are dependent on the hospitality that has played an important role in the ancient Near East ever since ancient time. In the early period of Israel, the legal position of the ger is comparable with that of the metics of Greece...However, under the sign of religious integration, the concept develops more and more toward the proselyte, the non-Israelite who becomes an adherent of the Yahweh faith...
...The reasons why someone becomes a ger, separates himself from his clan and his home, and places himself under the legal protection of another man or group of men, are varied. The most frequent reason given in the OT is famine...Military encounters can also force people to lead the life of a ger...In addition, individual distress or bloodguilt can cause a person to seek protection and help among foreigners as a ger...
...As a rule, of course, the protected citizen could acquire no property, and thus was left to the legal protection of the fully enfranchised citizen...
...when the ger is mentioned in connection with the treatment of the quality of sacrifice in Lev. 22:17-33, and when Nu. 15 in supplements to the regulations concerning sacrifice (Nu. 15:14, 15 [twice], 16, 26, 29, 30) explicitly states that the ger has the same rights as the native, and that the expiatory power of the sin-offering is also given to the ger who lives in the midst of the whole community of the Israelites, again it is quite clear that in late strata of P (the Pentateuch) the ger is the fully integrated proselyte. Therefore, in this portion of P one should regard all laws as also applicable to the ger, even if he is not explicitly mentioned. And this means that the ger has his place in the community as a proselyte by circumcision and mode of life...
...The Israelites are commanded to treat the protected citizen kindly (Dt. 10:19; cf. Ex. 22:20 [21]; 23:9), because they know what it is to be a ger (nephesh hagger, 'the soul [heart] of a stranger'), they have the responsibility of extending the law of loving their neighbor as themselves (Lev. 19:18) to the ger...The idea that man simply lives the life of a ger here on earth if of special significance. Thus, the psalmist knows that he is only a ger, 'guest' and a toshabh, 'sojourner', before Yahweh, like all his fathers...Yahweh alone is owner of the land, and thus they can only be hereditary tenants of his possesion...The distress of earthly existence leads to the recognition that God must support and help man like a patron, or else man will be lost."
End extended excerpt
There are several ideas that come to the front of my thinking. First, the biblical understanding of the sojourner was that there was a significant impetous occuring in someone's native land that would drive them away (drought, famine, military action, bloodguilt, etc.). The implication here is that people are not just milling about for no reason, wandering to and fro, but rather something is driving them to leave the protection and privilages afforded him in his native land. They are placing themselves at the mercy of their hosts. Second, there was an expectation of assimilation into the culture and the beliefs, the term proselyte is used. The implication here is that all the laws of the land are expected to be followed and although the guest is protected and allowed to live securely, obtain private possessions, hire others to work for him, etc. there is the understanding of full assimilation into the culture. Third, respectful treatment is required by the native in the land. It is critically important to remember the position of mankind as a "hereditary tenant" of God's possession; such that caring for visitors is as part of good stewardship.
Now to bring in the related legal issues. I'll be brief here because this portion could be an entire post on its own. Governments and laws are established by God and are limited in power by God. As Harold O.J. Brown says in his article Civil Authority and the Bible, "The first of these limits if quite clearly expressed in Scripture and is universally accepted by Christians and, to some extent, even respected by the civil laws of secular states: We may not do that which God's law prohibits, even when the secular authority commands it (Dan. 3:4-6), and we must do what God's law requires, even when secular (or religious) authorities prohibit it (Dan. 6:7-12; Acts 4:18; 5:28)." Further, R.C. Sproul in his article The Biblical View of Submission of Constituted Authority states, "The apostles were driven to continue their ministry by an overarching ethical imperative. What words they couched in a gossamer veil of the rhetorical in Acts 4, the proclaimed "without horns" in chapter 5: "We ought to obey God rather than men" (v. 29). This ethical imperative, resting on an obligatory oughtness, is structured in a comparative form. The operative word in the comparison is 'rather.' It is not a universal license for revolt against all human authority...The 'rather' comes into play only when there is a conflict between the lesser and the greater magistrate. The principle is always and ever prior obligation to the higher authority...The'governing authorities' can also be rendered 'higher powers.' The powers or authorites (exousia) in view are not restricted to the supreme office of king or emporer but are applied to anyone who is in authority over us. In 1 Peter 2:13 reference is made to the king who is supreme, but in this text no single class of magistrates is compared with another. Our obligation is submission to all who hold magisterial authority over us. There are encompassed by the word higher (hoperechon)."
And now to my recommendation, which is based on a more complete study of the full texts of the documents refrenced above and others and which I hope will be seen to be a balanced biblical approach for followers of Christ. It seems to me that we need to incorporate the ideas of treating visitors well (as we understand even ourselves to be only caretakers of God's property), proselytizing and submitting to authority. It would not be biblical or Godly to say everyone should just stay out and leave us alone because this is OUR country. It would also not seem to be biblical or Godly to ignore the status of the soul of whoever comes in and out of the nation. It would also not be biblical or Godly to say ignore the law and let everyone come in without a second thought. My position, after careful consideration, which I consider to be a balanced biblical view of the issue, is that Christians in this country should endeavor to minister in the border areas where those to our South are entering the country. At first thought, the ministry would be some combination of providing food, clothing, shelter for those wishing to enter the US while also explaining the current laws relative to immigration, helping to complete and submit the proper documentation for legal entry into the country, begin offering some basic English language to aide in assimilation into US culture, sharing the gospel and possibly even help in placement for employment and/or location once the legal documents for lawful entry have been received.
This seems to me to be a proper Christian respone to the issue. It remains true to helping those in need and treating all people with dignity and respect because they are created in God's image, to be true to the biblical principle of submitting to authority where it does not conflict with God's law, and to make disciples of all nations. It also seems to me to be a very difficult and potentially dangerous road to take, but that should be seen as possibly the best evidence for its being a legitimate solution for Christians. Those who are called to being on the front lines would most certainly be in physical danger, but would have a wide open mission field of not only those who genuinely seek refuge from a situation that is forcing them to flee the provision and protection of their own native land and put themselves at the mercy of another but also to those who would attempt to smuggle drugs into the US. It would also be another opportunity for all Christians across the nation to contribute to mission work right here in the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)