When I was in college, I knew a guy whose 2nd favorite song was "Without Clouds". The refrain went (something like):
"Without clouds, the rain can't wash the land,
without rain, the grass can't hide the sand,
without grass, the flower's bloom won't grow,
without pain, the joy in life won't show."
I read a lot, some sci-fi, some historical fiction, some other stuff. Almost always when I read about a person (either historical or fictional) who does something courageous, the point is made that fear is a part of courage. If the hero wasn't afraid, then what he did wasn't really courageous, was it?
In these examples the presence of the negative enhances, or adds a second positive quality to, the positive.
Last night - as I listened to a sermon about ancient Israel's king David, before he was king & when he was fleeing for his life from the current king, Saul - I began to muse on the nature of faith. I thought about how depression and doubts are frequently expressed by people who are called faithful. And it occured to me that doubt might have the same relationship to faith that fear has to courage...that clouds have to flowers. That is, rain (or water, anyway) is essential to the production of flowers. Fear is an integral part of courage. Is doubt an essential, integral part of faith?
Put another way: If I never have any doubts, is it because my faith is so strong? Or is it because what I have is a dogma that I have been taught to accept without thinking & not really faith at all - but a conditioned response?
James says (something like) ...count it all joy when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience... . If my faith is never tested by various trials does it merely mean that my patience is under-developed? Or does it mean that I don't really have faith?!
. . .
One of my favorite stories is about an old country preacher whose hallmark was thankfulness. He was thankful to God in every situation. One Sunday morning in February it was bitter cold. The roads were all but impassible. The water pipes in the church building had frozen and burst. A window had been broken and snow had blown into the sanctuary. And the heater was old, tired, and not even close to being up to the task of warming the building. The faithful few wryly commented to each other on the way into the service that the preacher could not possibly have anything to be thankful about today. He proved them wrong, though, with his opening prayer: "Dear God, we thank You that it is not always like it is today...". Maybe my next post will be a little lighter. I can't always be like I am today.
Monday, September 24
Friday, September 21
What do we want in a US President?
I have been hearing a lot about the crowd of people that are running for (the various party's nominations for) President of the United States. So and so is great. So and so is nothing but an old so and so.
Today I thought, what qualities do I really want in a President?
So I looked in my copy of the Constitution of the United States for the duties of the President. I jotted them down and sorted them into categories. Here is the result:
Head of the executive branch - sees that laws are faithfully executed
Commander in Chief of the armed services
& commissions officers of the United States
Makes treaties
Appoints ambassadors
Receives ambassadors / public ministers
Appoints Supreme Court judges
Give the legislature info on the state of the union
Gives recommendations to congress
Convene or adjourn congress
So the President has the duty, generally, of a CEO. He has the duties, specifically, of handling foreign policy (commander in chief of the armed forces & dealing with ambassadors & foreign ministers - both ours and theirs), appointing Supreme Court justices, and giving advice to Congress. I have never heard of the President exercising his authority to convene or adjourn Congress - in modern times, anyway. One of the things that Presidents do as part of their CEO duties is to provide and explain a vision for the way the United States should develop. This is frequently referred to as the President's "bully pulpit", I think. President Reagan refined this to a high art. It is the reason why he was the greatest president of the late 20th century (IMHO).
I don't think that anyone expects the President to personally command warfighting operations. So specific expertise in that area is not required. He is supposed to exercise oversight, though. And although he makes treaties, usually - but not always - the actual negotiating of the treaty is left to an ambassador.
So what does that leave us with, as qualities we need to have in a President? I think there are 2 things:
1. decision making skills (wisdom)
2. people skills
To see how we can determine if a person is likely to have wisdom, I think that we can look at the requirements for an elder (bishop) in I Timothy 3 -
"This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. " (There is a similar passage in Titus 1.)
This says a lot about people skills, too. But mostly only one-way -- how people view the candidate. The President must also be able to speak to people well, and to understand / judge people well. We can tell how well a candidate can speak to people (provide vision via the "bully pulpit") by observing him on the campaign trail. We can get an idea of how well he understands / judges people by looking at the people he surrounds himself with.
Before I ask you what you think, notice what I have not said. I have not said that a President of the U.S. needs to espouse a certain position on any particular issue. Personally, I think that the requirement that a President have wisdom gives conservatives the inside track. Remember Winston Churchill's famous quote: "If a young man is not liberal, he has no heart. If an old man is not conservative, he has no brain." (or something like that). But I don't think a particular political doctrine is as important - in a President - as wisdom & people skills (some might say - character).
What do you think?
Today I thought, what qualities do I really want in a President?
So I looked in my copy of the Constitution of the United States for the duties of the President. I jotted them down and sorted them into categories. Here is the result:
Head of the executive branch - sees that laws are faithfully executed
Commander in Chief of the armed services
& commissions officers of the United States
Makes treaties
Appoints ambassadors
Receives ambassadors / public ministers
Appoints Supreme Court judges
Give the legislature info on the state of the union
Gives recommendations to congress
Convene or adjourn congress
So the President has the duty, generally, of a CEO. He has the duties, specifically, of handling foreign policy (commander in chief of the armed forces & dealing with ambassadors & foreign ministers - both ours and theirs), appointing Supreme Court justices, and giving advice to Congress. I have never heard of the President exercising his authority to convene or adjourn Congress - in modern times, anyway. One of the things that Presidents do as part of their CEO duties is to provide and explain a vision for the way the United States should develop. This is frequently referred to as the President's "bully pulpit", I think. President Reagan refined this to a high art. It is the reason why he was the greatest president of the late 20th century (IMHO).
I don't think that anyone expects the President to personally command warfighting operations. So specific expertise in that area is not required. He is supposed to exercise oversight, though. And although he makes treaties, usually - but not always - the actual negotiating of the treaty is left to an ambassador.
So what does that leave us with, as qualities we need to have in a President? I think there are 2 things:
1. decision making skills (wisdom)
2. people skills
To see how we can determine if a person is likely to have wisdom, I think that we can look at the requirements for an elder (bishop) in I Timothy 3 -
"This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. " (There is a similar passage in Titus 1.)
This says a lot about people skills, too. But mostly only one-way -- how people view the candidate. The President must also be able to speak to people well, and to understand / judge people well. We can tell how well a candidate can speak to people (provide vision via the "bully pulpit") by observing him on the campaign trail. We can get an idea of how well he understands / judges people by looking at the people he surrounds himself with.
Before I ask you what you think, notice what I have not said. I have not said that a President of the U.S. needs to espouse a certain position on any particular issue. Personally, I think that the requirement that a President have wisdom gives conservatives the inside track. Remember Winston Churchill's famous quote: "If a young man is not liberal, he has no heart. If an old man is not conservative, he has no brain." (or something like that). But I don't think a particular political doctrine is as important - in a President - as wisdom & people skills (some might say - character).
What do you think?
Tuesday, September 18
A question of sainthood
I have been reading lately about Mother Teresa. Apparently people are writing biographies about her in the hopes of more quickly elevating her to sainthood status in the Roman Catholic church. This is, IMHO, a waste of time. Either she already is a saint, or she isn't. And the RC church doesn't have the authority to say either way. But it does bring me to the question:
Can one claim false doctrine about salvation their entire life and nonetheless be saved?
The example of Mother Teresa is prime. I never met her, but if the reports are to be believed she displayed as much spiritual fruit as anyone could be expected to display. But she strongly supported the RC doctrine that her salvation was partly due to her own efforts.
Is it possible that all her fruit was false fruit? If she was not truly a saint (in the Protestant sense of being a believer in Christ) then all her good works are the spiritual equivalent of trash - worthless - false fruit.
If she is truly a saint then it is in spite of, not because of, her adherence to RC doctrine about salvation via baptism, confession, ... (ones own works).
If I understand it correctly, the concept of "perseverence of the saints" (the P in TULIP - the 5th point of 5-point Calvinism) says - or at least implies - that a true believer will eventually show fruit. God will not allow him to stagnate forever, but will whip him into shape. Is the obverse - that a person who continually shows fruit (right up until the day of his death) necessarily a true believer? Obviously non-believers can occaisionally perform good acts. But this woman (again, if the reports are to be believed) constantly, regularly performed good acts & did very little else.
Let me state the question another way: Did Mother Teresa show us her faith by her works? Or did she prove her lack of true saving faith by her consistent profession of belief in salvation by works?
The example of Mother Teresa aside, this is an interesting concept to me.
On the balance, I have to say that Mother Teresa was never a believer because she trusted in the finished work of Christ plus her own works, instead of trusting only in Christ. But there is that nagging question: How can an unregenerate sinner consistently produce false fruit of such quality?
Let me know what you think.
Can one claim false doctrine about salvation their entire life and nonetheless be saved?
The example of Mother Teresa is prime. I never met her, but if the reports are to be believed she displayed as much spiritual fruit as anyone could be expected to display. But she strongly supported the RC doctrine that her salvation was partly due to her own efforts.
Is it possible that all her fruit was false fruit? If she was not truly a saint (in the Protestant sense of being a believer in Christ) then all her good works are the spiritual equivalent of trash - worthless - false fruit.
If she is truly a saint then it is in spite of, not because of, her adherence to RC doctrine about salvation via baptism, confession, ... (ones own works).
If I understand it correctly, the concept of "perseverence of the saints" (the P in TULIP - the 5th point of 5-point Calvinism) says - or at least implies - that a true believer will eventually show fruit. God will not allow him to stagnate forever, but will whip him into shape. Is the obverse - that a person who continually shows fruit (right up until the day of his death) necessarily a true believer? Obviously non-believers can occaisionally perform good acts. But this woman (again, if the reports are to be believed) constantly, regularly performed good acts & did very little else.
Let me state the question another way: Did Mother Teresa show us her faith by her works? Or did she prove her lack of true saving faith by her consistent profession of belief in salvation by works?
The example of Mother Teresa aside, this is an interesting concept to me.
On the balance, I have to say that Mother Teresa was never a believer because she trusted in the finished work of Christ plus her own works, instead of trusting only in Christ. But there is that nagging question: How can an unregenerate sinner consistently produce false fruit of such quality?
Let me know what you think.
Sunday, September 16
A better wife than I deserve
One of the things that God has given me that is better than I really deserve is my wife.
"Who can find a virtuous woman? Her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband safely trusts in her... She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life... Strength and honour are her clothing... She opens her mouth with wisdom... Many daughters have done virtuously, but you excell them all. Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that fears the LORD, she shall be praised." Proverbs 31:10-ff (my paraphrase) King Lemuel never met my wife - but he knew her.
I thank God for her every day.
Everything that I am &/or aspire to be is made possible by the grace of God and the help of my wife.
And I think it is important that I say this about her in public. She doesn't often get the praise that I think she deserves. So I want to give her a little bit of it today.
"Who can find a virtuous woman? Her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband safely trusts in her... She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life... Strength and honour are her clothing... She opens her mouth with wisdom... Many daughters have done virtuously, but you excell them all. Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that fears the LORD, she shall be praised." Proverbs 31:10-ff (my paraphrase) King Lemuel never met my wife - but he knew her.
I thank God for her every day.
Everything that I am &/or aspire to be is made possible by the grace of God and the help of my wife.
And I think it is important that I say this about her in public. She doesn't often get the praise that I think she deserves. So I want to give her a little bit of it today.
Friday, September 14
What I deserve vs. What I get
I really am doing better than I deserve. I will tell you why I think so.
The concept of "what I deserve" is all about justice. If I do well, then I deserve a reward. If I do poorly, then I deserve to be punished. Many of us have parents that understood this concept very well. Personally, I grew up well acquainted with a belt. (If you know what I mean, and I think you do.)
Most people would probably say that they are willing to accept justice from life. This is because most people figure that they are doing better then average - or good enough to get by anyway. This would be true, if the standard by which their actions were judged was the average of all the actions of people in the world. (Although, a lot of them would be surprised - half the people are below average by definition.)
But the reality is much worse than that. The standard by which our actions are judged is the standard promulgated by God, and it is not true that the average man meets that standard. What is true is that only one man ever met the standard completely. The rest of us are in trouble.
The good news is that, because of the one man (Jesus, the Christ) that did meet the standard and what he did (give the fruit of his efforts to pay the penalty of my inability to meet God's standard), then I receive the reward that He deserves (life as a child of God) rather than the punishment that I deserve (death as an enemy of God).
I think that "doing better than I deserve" is an understatement.
What do you think?
The concept of "what I deserve" is all about justice. If I do well, then I deserve a reward. If I do poorly, then I deserve to be punished. Many of us have parents that understood this concept very well. Personally, I grew up well acquainted with a belt. (If you know what I mean, and I think you do.)
Most people would probably say that they are willing to accept justice from life. This is because most people figure that they are doing better then average - or good enough to get by anyway. This would be true, if the standard by which their actions were judged was the average of all the actions of people in the world. (Although, a lot of them would be surprised - half the people are below average by definition.)
But the reality is much worse than that. The standard by which our actions are judged is the standard promulgated by God, and it is not true that the average man meets that standard. What is true is that only one man ever met the standard completely. The rest of us are in trouble.
The good news is that, because of the one man (Jesus, the Christ) that did meet the standard and what he did (give the fruit of his efforts to pay the penalty of my inability to meet God's standard), then I receive the reward that He deserves (life as a child of God) rather than the punishment that I deserve (death as an enemy of God).
I think that "doing better than I deserve" is an understatement.
What do you think?
Thursday, September 13
The photograph from my ID card
I really am this serious much of the time nowadays. We are in the throes of implementing a new software package and spending a lot of time up to our necks in alligators (up to our necks in "bugs", really).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
