Who is your king?
Everyone has one. We might not call him a king (or her a queen, if you prefer), but we each have one authority that we answer to, one that transcends all others. Humans are made that way. Christ proclaimed that we cannot serve two masters. There is one, and only one, that we defer to above all others, albeit imperfectly at times. The question for all of us who claim Christ then becomes is Christ really that king?
A friend who taught me years ago described it this way: If you can think of something that you would not give up for God, then that is your god. While that can answer the question in some cases, it can be very hard to give an honest answer to that question, even to ourselves. A good deal of our lives is not about what we give up, but what we give, and then manner that we give. Looking at my own life, I prefer to think of it this way: Your God is the one you seek to please.
That sounds like a simple enough principle, but it is not one that people take to readily. While God loves us unconditionally, he has no trouble distinguishing between the people He loves and the works that He does not. This isn't the elementary school talent show where everyone gets a prize just for showing up. We're not doing favors for a friend down on his luck. We are offering service to the King. It has to be done right.
The Bible says that without faith, it is impossible to please God. The Bible also says that believing "in God" is not enough. We have to believe God. We have to be prepared to take him at his word.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
The Concept of the King Part 3: The King Stands Apart
It doesn't really matter whether you are talking about a king or president, the general of an army, the captain of a ship. There is always a separate place for the one in charge. Part of it relates to status. The palace, or residence, is part of the office, an acknowledgement that those who make the grander decisions deserve the grander surroundings. But there is more to it.
There is something in human nature that tends to trivialize the familiar. No matter how grandiose, how impressive a sight or personage, we become inured over time. It doesn't simply apply to people. Most of us tend to become accustomed to most things around us, no matter how special, if we are exposed often enough. We lose the mystery. We lose the wonder, the awe. And perhaps this trait, more than simply a desire for the largest house on the block, set the custom among men of the leader dwelling apart. Or perhaps it was the reflection of a different kind of king.
When God established the people of Israel in the promised land, He too had a dwelling place apart from the people. They could approach Him at the tabernacle, and later the temple, but only so near. Beyond a certain point, only the priests were permitted. And beyond that, in the Holy of Holies, only the High Priest dared to go once a year to make atonement for the people. A rope was tied about his waist in case he offended during the sacrifice.
The people of Israel were called to present themselves to God at sacrifices and festivals several times a year. In human realms, things were seldom so regular. Depending on how large the kingdom and where a person lived, you could pass your entire life and hear little about the king. Or you might see him at a distance, but few would ever really know him. And this takes us to one of the great tragedies in modern Christianity: So many who profess to believe do not know the one they claim. More than that, they refuse to know Him.
There is something in human nature that tends to trivialize the familiar. No matter how grandiose, how impressive a sight or personage, we become inured over time. It doesn't simply apply to people. Most of us tend to become accustomed to most things around us, no matter how special, if we are exposed often enough. We lose the mystery. We lose the wonder, the awe. And perhaps this trait, more than simply a desire for the largest house on the block, set the custom among men of the leader dwelling apart. Or perhaps it was the reflection of a different kind of king.
When God established the people of Israel in the promised land, He too had a dwelling place apart from the people. They could approach Him at the tabernacle, and later the temple, but only so near. Beyond a certain point, only the priests were permitted. And beyond that, in the Holy of Holies, only the High Priest dared to go once a year to make atonement for the people. A rope was tied about his waist in case he offended during the sacrifice.
The people of Israel were called to present themselves to God at sacrifices and festivals several times a year. In human realms, things were seldom so regular. Depending on how large the kingdom and where a person lived, you could pass your entire life and hear little about the king. Or you might see him at a distance, but few would ever really know him. And this takes us to one of the great tragedies in modern Christianity: So many who profess to believe do not know the one they claim. More than that, they refuse to know Him.
Monday, January 13, 2014
The Concept of the King Part 2: The King's Word is Law
Imagine if you can the following situation: An administrative assistant comes in and hands the CEO of a company an important policy memo. The CEO takes a look at it, and is shocked. The document bears very little resemblance to the document that he dictated. He questions the assistant about the changes, and the assistant says "Well, sir, I was pretty sure that the policy that you dictated wouldn't be very popular in a lot of the offices. I thought that some of the offices might grumble about you, and I know that they would be angry with me, so I decided to changes around it bit. You know: Make it a little easier to take."
I've tried to imagine any number of possible responses from the CEO, but most of them only change in how quickly the assistant is fired and kicked out of the building. While something like this might work well as a plot for a comedy, anything less would be a recipe for certain disaster. A CEO that allowed himself to be overridden so easily could hardly be counted on to stand by any tough decisions that were required. And as soon as the assistant realized how easy it was to impose his will on the boss, it would be the assistant running the company, not the CEO.
And these are the civilized days. In less gentle times, simply approaching a king without invitation could lead to death. Back then, the king's word was law. In the case of the ancient Medes and Persians, that law was so sacred even the king himself could not change it once it had been decreed. It sounds harsh in modern times, and it was, but that doesn't mean that it was without cause. In a time when "state of the art" communication could still involve months at sea or on horseback, things had to be settled the first time. There was no waiting and asking for clarification. You obeyed or not, with consequences to follow. Consequences were likely to be severe. A king that ruled by decree could not allow his words to be changed. If he did, he would no longer be king.
He certainly could not be God.
I've tried to imagine any number of possible responses from the CEO, but most of them only change in how quickly the assistant is fired and kicked out of the building. While something like this might work well as a plot for a comedy, anything less would be a recipe for certain disaster. A CEO that allowed himself to be overridden so easily could hardly be counted on to stand by any tough decisions that were required. And as soon as the assistant realized how easy it was to impose his will on the boss, it would be the assistant running the company, not the CEO.
And these are the civilized days. In less gentle times, simply approaching a king without invitation could lead to death. Back then, the king's word was law. In the case of the ancient Medes and Persians, that law was so sacred even the king himself could not change it once it had been decreed. It sounds harsh in modern times, and it was, but that doesn't mean that it was without cause. In a time when "state of the art" communication could still involve months at sea or on horseback, things had to be settled the first time. There was no waiting and asking for clarification. You obeyed or not, with consequences to follow. Consequences were likely to be severe. A king that ruled by decree could not allow his words to be changed. If he did, he would no longer be king.
He certainly could not be God.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
The Concept of the King - Part 1
There are times when I think that America was a bit hasty in tossing off the monarchy concept entirely at our founding. Not that I have any desire to be ruled by kings or queens or any other strain of local royalty, but there are some practical reasons for a token monarchy even in this day and age. I would much rather have a charming, well-bred sophisticate representing the nation at sporting and humanitarian event than a president. Having very little power to deliver anything, expectations would be limited from the start, as would the temptation to promise the impossible. A king or queen would also not feel duty-bound to verbally assault his political opponents at every event. I think that would make him an instant favorite on the national scene, and improve the level of civility in politics immensely.
One of the main characteristics of royalty that has faded from memory over time, particularly in the West, is the notion of sovereignty. This is hardly surprising. Most Western nations have had some level of democracy for centuries. We are a people of discussion and consensus. The idea of absolute authority, or any absolutes for that matter, is frightening to people today. Though millions of others may still live under similar conditions today, they are far from us. Dwelling too hard on the fact induces a moral reaction akin to nausea, so we do not. We simply go on ordering our worlds according to our own perceptions and concepts, of which royalty has no part. And in doing so, we miss a great opportunity for understanding.
The Lord is a king. More than that, the Lord is THE King. The Lord is sovereign. He was the original king, and the authority by which many others, rightly or wrongly, claimed the authority for their kingship. He is the one who is worthy, not only of worship, but of obedience. He sets the standard, because He is the standard.
The church has often gone to great lengths to assure the world of the mercy and tenderness of Christ, the love and forgiveness available. I understand the reasoning. This aspect of God's character was so important that He demonstrated it by coming and dying for all mankind. As such, it can never be over-emphasized, and that's the truth. And here's another truth: God is still a King.
If we embrace Christ as Savior, but reject Him as Lord, we still are trusting in only half a God. That can have consequences.
One of the main characteristics of royalty that has faded from memory over time, particularly in the West, is the notion of sovereignty. This is hardly surprising. Most Western nations have had some level of democracy for centuries. We are a people of discussion and consensus. The idea of absolute authority, or any absolutes for that matter, is frightening to people today. Though millions of others may still live under similar conditions today, they are far from us. Dwelling too hard on the fact induces a moral reaction akin to nausea, so we do not. We simply go on ordering our worlds according to our own perceptions and concepts, of which royalty has no part. And in doing so, we miss a great opportunity for understanding.
The Lord is a king. More than that, the Lord is THE King. The Lord is sovereign. He was the original king, and the authority by which many others, rightly or wrongly, claimed the authority for their kingship. He is the one who is worthy, not only of worship, but of obedience. He sets the standard, because He is the standard.
The church has often gone to great lengths to assure the world of the mercy and tenderness of Christ, the love and forgiveness available. I understand the reasoning. This aspect of God's character was so important that He demonstrated it by coming and dying for all mankind. As such, it can never be over-emphasized, and that's the truth. And here's another truth: God is still a King.
If we embrace Christ as Savior, but reject Him as Lord, we still are trusting in only half a God. That can have consequences.
Monday, January 6, 2014
Jiminy Justice and Our Crickit-in-Chief
Always let your conscience be your guide.
These words, voiced by a wise and well-dressed insect, first echoed across the silver screen in 1940 to the delight of audiences across the nation. And, while not perfect, the advice is generally sound. While there are any number of people around happy to steer you this way or that on all manner of decisions, the responsibility for our actions is ultimately ours. That can also include consequences, both good and bad.
It makes sense then that in a free society the government would allow the people as much latitude as possible to follow the dictates of that conscience when taking action. That's what the Founding Fathers intended when they framed the Constitution. That's why they included the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, limiting the actions that Congress could take to infringe upon the rights of the people both to speak and act upon matters of conscience. Sadly, it seems that no branch on government holds those protections as binding in a modern age, least of all the President.
The latest evidence of this disregard came as the Attorney General filed suit against a group of Catholic nuns, the Little Sisters of Mercy. This charity, like many religious groups, wants no part of the mandate to provide contraception to employees, whether through funding of their own or through a third party exemption. Either method, they insist would violate their religious principles. The President, through the Attorney General, insists that no violation of conscience exists. The Little Sisters disagree, and are willing to fight for their beliefs. It's a battle neither side feels they can afford to lose.
Once upon a time, not so long ago, a standard liberal refrain was "you can't legislate morality." Conservative myself, it was a refrain I agreed with. In more recent times, it seems that liberals concern themselves with little except legislating morality, after defining it to suit their preferences. Several years ago, while the battle over "gay marriage" was still largely in the debate stage, the standard retort to anyone opposing the position was that if you opposed gay marriage, simply "don't get one." I attempted to explain to many at the time that adopting such unions inevitably resulted in the loss of freedoms of other citizens in favor of privileges for the minority. I was met with anything from polite skepticism to mockery at the time. Since then, I have been shown correct by any objective standard as people in California have had several referendums nullified, denying millions of people due process. In states that have adopted such unions, business people attempting to avoid participating in such unions on religious grounds have been threatened with loss of business licenses, fines, and harassment. Clearly, relying on a personal conscience is frowned upon.
Government frowns begin early, as school literature takes a definite positive position towards gay parenting and relationships. This is rather strange, considering that the CDC reports that overall those practicing the gay lifestyle are still many times more likely to be involved in the transmission of STD's than their straight counterparts, and the most comprehensive study done to date on gay parenting shows significantly higher incidences of promiscuity, abuse, and depression in children adopted by two gay parents.
Any specific at this point is merely a symptom, however. The problem is that the government is acting not simply as a legal authority, but also as the arbiter of public morality. This is a task that it was never intended to assume. Assuming the Affordable Care Act is not overturned, agents of this government will have nearly unlimited access to the most personal details of everyone in the country. That combined with the desire for control they have already exhibited, can only end in the worst kind of tyranny.
These words, voiced by a wise and well-dressed insect, first echoed across the silver screen in 1940 to the delight of audiences across the nation. And, while not perfect, the advice is generally sound. While there are any number of people around happy to steer you this way or that on all manner of decisions, the responsibility for our actions is ultimately ours. That can also include consequences, both good and bad.
It makes sense then that in a free society the government would allow the people as much latitude as possible to follow the dictates of that conscience when taking action. That's what the Founding Fathers intended when they framed the Constitution. That's why they included the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, limiting the actions that Congress could take to infringe upon the rights of the people both to speak and act upon matters of conscience. Sadly, it seems that no branch on government holds those protections as binding in a modern age, least of all the President.
The latest evidence of this disregard came as the Attorney General filed suit against a group of Catholic nuns, the Little Sisters of Mercy. This charity, like many religious groups, wants no part of the mandate to provide contraception to employees, whether through funding of their own or through a third party exemption. Either method, they insist would violate their religious principles. The President, through the Attorney General, insists that no violation of conscience exists. The Little Sisters disagree, and are willing to fight for their beliefs. It's a battle neither side feels they can afford to lose.
Once upon a time, not so long ago, a standard liberal refrain was "you can't legislate morality." Conservative myself, it was a refrain I agreed with. In more recent times, it seems that liberals concern themselves with little except legislating morality, after defining it to suit their preferences. Several years ago, while the battle over "gay marriage" was still largely in the debate stage, the standard retort to anyone opposing the position was that if you opposed gay marriage, simply "don't get one." I attempted to explain to many at the time that adopting such unions inevitably resulted in the loss of freedoms of other citizens in favor of privileges for the minority. I was met with anything from polite skepticism to mockery at the time. Since then, I have been shown correct by any objective standard as people in California have had several referendums nullified, denying millions of people due process. In states that have adopted such unions, business people attempting to avoid participating in such unions on religious grounds have been threatened with loss of business licenses, fines, and harassment. Clearly, relying on a personal conscience is frowned upon.
Government frowns begin early, as school literature takes a definite positive position towards gay parenting and relationships. This is rather strange, considering that the CDC reports that overall those practicing the gay lifestyle are still many times more likely to be involved in the transmission of STD's than their straight counterparts, and the most comprehensive study done to date on gay parenting shows significantly higher incidences of promiscuity, abuse, and depression in children adopted by two gay parents.
Any specific at this point is merely a symptom, however. The problem is that the government is acting not simply as a legal authority, but also as the arbiter of public morality. This is a task that it was never intended to assume. Assuming the Affordable Care Act is not overturned, agents of this government will have nearly unlimited access to the most personal details of everyone in the country. That combined with the desire for control they have already exhibited, can only end in the worst kind of tyranny.
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Desperate America
For years, the television show "Desperate Housewives" was one of my Sunday night guilty pleasures. There were those I ran across who said that it was glorifying any number of immoral lifestyles. I disagreed. While there may have been a season of profit for all manner of misdeeds, inevitably there were consequences. Often, the consequences were appropriate. Sometimes people learned from the consequences, and sometimes they did not. In that respect, if no other, the show struck me as amazingly true-to-life.
To me the consequences were never as starkly displayed as they were in the very first episode. As one of the husbands was away doing business, one of the wives was at home, doing (ahem) the lawn boy. At one point in the discussion afterward, as she is complaining about her life as it is, the lad asks why she got married. She replied that her husband had promised to give her everything she had ever wanted, and when pressed further, she confirmed that yes, he had kept his word. That left him with a final question: "Then why are you here with me?"
"Because I wanted all the wrong things," she replied.
I had to give the writers respect for that one. It was original conflict, and the one that never goes out of style, as much a part of today as it was right back at the beginning. People have an infinite talent for wanting the wrong things. And even when we discover that one "thing" that we have been after is the "wrong thing," that still doesn't mean that we won't go after something else that is just as wrong. It seems to be our nature. We ignore that at our peril.
Right now, there are many in America, and the rest of the world, that are a lot like that particular housewife. They are very attached to the stuff that others provide for them, they feel absolutely entitled to it as a matter of fact. But they don't really appreciate it, and it doesn't make them happy. It can't, because deep down it reminds them that they are not doing for themselves. That's a great way to live for a domestic pet, and acceptable for those truly disabled, but for a human being still able to work, with more than a shred of dignity left, it's a rotten existence. Fortunately (or not?), stay on the roles very long and the dignity goes pretty fast.
Some people might call this kind of indefinite support charity. Others might call it using government to take care of people. Honestly, it is neither. Charity by its nature is voluntary, which cuts out anything to do with the government. And government is not equipped to "care." Anyone who has ever had consistent dealings with the IRS, the DMV, and Postal Service knows what I am talking about. The best that you can hope for is a reasonable amount of professionalism as they accomplish their duties. The worst is the stuff of the evening news. Most falls somewhere in between.
I bring up the subject of benefits because it is likely to become a hot-button issue this year. Unemployment benefits for many have already stretched out to the allowed maximum of 99 weeks, with people clamoring for another extension. This will be a heavy burden on an economy that, despite administration claims, is still weak and likely to get worse under the demands this year of Obamacare and several areas raising the minimum wage. The final pieces of the discouraging puzzle are the annual deficits, and total national debt. We could not afford the benefits we had before. We cannot afford the increased structure that begins this year. Additional taxes will not fill the hole. It is not a question of if people lose benefits, but when, how, and how much debt continues to accrue to future generations.
Most of our leaders have already shown that they are unwilling to make the hard choices needed to correct the situation. It is up to the voters to express their will. Unless the nation gets a spine back, and quickly, things are going to be getting a lot more desperate around here soon.
To me the consequences were never as starkly displayed as they were in the very first episode. As one of the husbands was away doing business, one of the wives was at home, doing (ahem) the lawn boy. At one point in the discussion afterward, as she is complaining about her life as it is, the lad asks why she got married. She replied that her husband had promised to give her everything she had ever wanted, and when pressed further, she confirmed that yes, he had kept his word. That left him with a final question: "Then why are you here with me?"
"Because I wanted all the wrong things," she replied.
I had to give the writers respect for that one. It was original conflict, and the one that never goes out of style, as much a part of today as it was right back at the beginning. People have an infinite talent for wanting the wrong things. And even when we discover that one "thing" that we have been after is the "wrong thing," that still doesn't mean that we won't go after something else that is just as wrong. It seems to be our nature. We ignore that at our peril.
Right now, there are many in America, and the rest of the world, that are a lot like that particular housewife. They are very attached to the stuff that others provide for them, they feel absolutely entitled to it as a matter of fact. But they don't really appreciate it, and it doesn't make them happy. It can't, because deep down it reminds them that they are not doing for themselves. That's a great way to live for a domestic pet, and acceptable for those truly disabled, but for a human being still able to work, with more than a shred of dignity left, it's a rotten existence. Fortunately (or not?), stay on the roles very long and the dignity goes pretty fast.
Some people might call this kind of indefinite support charity. Others might call it using government to take care of people. Honestly, it is neither. Charity by its nature is voluntary, which cuts out anything to do with the government. And government is not equipped to "care." Anyone who has ever had consistent dealings with the IRS, the DMV, and Postal Service knows what I am talking about. The best that you can hope for is a reasonable amount of professionalism as they accomplish their duties. The worst is the stuff of the evening news. Most falls somewhere in between.
I bring up the subject of benefits because it is likely to become a hot-button issue this year. Unemployment benefits for many have already stretched out to the allowed maximum of 99 weeks, with people clamoring for another extension. This will be a heavy burden on an economy that, despite administration claims, is still weak and likely to get worse under the demands this year of Obamacare and several areas raising the minimum wage. The final pieces of the discouraging puzzle are the annual deficits, and total national debt. We could not afford the benefits we had before. We cannot afford the increased structure that begins this year. Additional taxes will not fill the hole. It is not a question of if people lose benefits, but when, how, and how much debt continues to accrue to future generations.
Most of our leaders have already shown that they are unwilling to make the hard choices needed to correct the situation. It is up to the voters to express their will. Unless the nation gets a spine back, and quickly, things are going to be getting a lot more desperate around here soon.
Saturday, January 4, 2014
A Hazy Future for Colorado
By now most people have heard that Colorado "legalized" the recreational use of marijuana. I use the scare quotes because it really is a huge fiction all around. What it amounts to is an agreement between the state and the citizens that local forces won't arrest or prosecute under certain conditions in exchange for a certain amount of control and tax revenue.
Under federal law, the possession, use, and sale of marijuana is still illegal, and the Supreme Court has upheld the Constitutionality. Whether or not the Court should have is one of many questionable decisions for another time, but under the current system the Federal Government is still bound to uphold the law. Given the track record of the current administration, recreational users in Colorado are probably safe from prosecution. If they claim they are illegal aliens, they are probably safer. For the moment however, I am less concerned about the legal aspects of the situation than the social and economic impacts.
Libertarians have been advocating for drug legalization for as long as I can remember. While I do not agree with their position, I cannot honestly say that they do not have some good points. The "war on drugs" that has been waged in the United States has been costly on many levels. The cost of police, investigations, courts, prisons, and other miscellaneous expenses have been staggering. And these losses do not even begin to account for the personal losses of the prison, the injuries and death of the enforcement officers. These are also great tragedies. Nevertheless, if I were in Colorado I would have still voted against legalization.
Going back to an earlier blog, whenever you lower the cost of something, you tend to get more of it. By removing the threat of prison for possession and use of marijuana in Colorado, you will have more of it. How much more? I don't know. How much is there now? I don't know. It's difficult to tell. I'm not aware of a quick and easy test for pot intoxication as there is for alcohol. I do know that detectable amounts can remain in a person's blood for up to month after heavy usage. Given that, how long are "affected?" How long before your taxi driver is okay to drive, before your childcare worker is competent to look after your child? What are the legal standards? Are there any legal standards? What about the " 'Take It Outside' " Campaign?" People aren't supposed to smoke cigarettes inside to preserve the indoor air quality for their children, but my understanding is that you are only supposed to use recreational marijuana indoors, so if you have children...?
Advocates point to studies and examples in Europe to claim that ending the ban on all drugs would be a great net positive for the U.S. I'm skeptical of the claims if, for no other reason then that Americans are not Europeans. We have always been a rougher, more aggressive culture. We push things harder, including our addictions. We also tend to drive a lot more, making our impaired time more dangerous for those on the roads with us. The only thing we know for sure is that there will be fewer arrests for low level possession of marijuana in Colorado. The other questions, the really important ones, will take decades to answer. The saddest part, at least for me, is that by then I don't think the answers will make a bit of difference one way or the other.
Under federal law, the possession, use, and sale of marijuana is still illegal, and the Supreme Court has upheld the Constitutionality. Whether or not the Court should have is one of many questionable decisions for another time, but under the current system the Federal Government is still bound to uphold the law. Given the track record of the current administration, recreational users in Colorado are probably safe from prosecution. If they claim they are illegal aliens, they are probably safer. For the moment however, I am less concerned about the legal aspects of the situation than the social and economic impacts.
Libertarians have been advocating for drug legalization for as long as I can remember. While I do not agree with their position, I cannot honestly say that they do not have some good points. The "war on drugs" that has been waged in the United States has been costly on many levels. The cost of police, investigations, courts, prisons, and other miscellaneous expenses have been staggering. And these losses do not even begin to account for the personal losses of the prison, the injuries and death of the enforcement officers. These are also great tragedies. Nevertheless, if I were in Colorado I would have still voted against legalization.
Going back to an earlier blog, whenever you lower the cost of something, you tend to get more of it. By removing the threat of prison for possession and use of marijuana in Colorado, you will have more of it. How much more? I don't know. How much is there now? I don't know. It's difficult to tell. I'm not aware of a quick and easy test for pot intoxication as there is for alcohol. I do know that detectable amounts can remain in a person's blood for up to month after heavy usage. Given that, how long are "affected?" How long before your taxi driver is okay to drive, before your childcare worker is competent to look after your child? What are the legal standards? Are there any legal standards? What about the " 'Take It Outside' " Campaign?" People aren't supposed to smoke cigarettes inside to preserve the indoor air quality for their children, but my understanding is that you are only supposed to use recreational marijuana indoors, so if you have children...?
Advocates point to studies and examples in Europe to claim that ending the ban on all drugs would be a great net positive for the U.S. I'm skeptical of the claims if, for no other reason then that Americans are not Europeans. We have always been a rougher, more aggressive culture. We push things harder, including our addictions. We also tend to drive a lot more, making our impaired time more dangerous for those on the roads with us. The only thing we know for sure is that there will be fewer arrests for low level possession of marijuana in Colorado. The other questions, the really important ones, will take decades to answer. The saddest part, at least for me, is that by then I don't think the answers will make a bit of difference one way or the other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)