Is the pursuit of knowledge a good thing? Some people are going to respond with something along the lines of “pursuing the knowledge of good things is a good thing.” How do we know what good things are unless we explore knowledge to a greater extent than what we would deem “good” and then back off to the boundaries of goodness? In Bible terms we are to seek for wisdom. How can one seek wisdom without also encountering through trial and error at least some foolishness? Do we only limit our knowledge to Biblical things? Can we even understand the Bible without having knowledge of other things as well? Is understanding mathematics good? Is pursuing knowledge of world history good? How about understanding other religions? How about understanding the ins and outs of modern day slave trafficking?

There is a natural tension between the danger of picking up viruses in the pursuit of knowledge and the danger of ignorance. In fact, there might not even be such a thing as “balance” in this regard. One cannot at the same time remain completely ignorant while educating oneself.

We tend to be critical of religious people in the world who don’t question the basis of their faith and compare it closely to the Biblical and historical record. Yet, at the same time, we would also tend to be critical of people in our own faith who have the same degree of questioning and inquiry about our own tenets. We would applaud a church that welcomed in a speaker to present the idea of the Christian hope as resurrection, but aghast that an ecclesia welcomed in a speaker to present the concept of heaven-going. This is not, by the way, a criticism of our practices in so doing, it is simply pointing out the fact that this problem of ignorance versus the pursuit of knowledge is complex and nuanced for which there are no quick and easy answers.

Every parent who wants to raise a godly child has to deal with this issue. How many ideas do you introduce to them? Certainly, the Bible says “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” (Pr. 22:6) From this verse we would glean that it is a parental mandate from God to instruct our children in the Bible and proper moral conduct. Yet, it really doesn’t address the issue at hand, does it? Does a child need to be exposed to the ideas of humanism, for example, so that they can recognize it when they see it? Does a child need to be exposed to those things we would consider false theology so that they can refute it? If so, doesn’t that present an inherent danger?

You may recall the strange case of John Walker Lindh. This California boy was detained after being captured fighting for the Taliban. It all began with a single thought when he watched the movie Malcolm X when he was 12 years old. He saw in the movie Malcolm X’s trip to Mecca and as a result became interested in Islam. When Lindh turned 16, he converted to Islam and regularly attended mosque. Lindh continued his studies in Yemen and eventually ended up in Pakistan where he attended an Islamic fundamentalist school. According to Lindh, “I was in [Pakistan's] Northwest Frontier Province. The people there in general have a great love for the Taliban. So I started to read some of the literature of the scholars and my heart became attached to it. I wanted to help them one way or another.” (quote from CNN interview)

Maybe we don’t have quite as dramatic stories where our children end up in the Taliban, but many brethren can tell heart-wrenching stories of how their children were exposed to ideas which resulted in them making bad choices to the point of losing their eternal and/or natural lives. Similarly, most of us can, if pressed, dissect our own bad decisions into the underlying viruses that caused us to make those bad decisions.

As a parent, what can we learn, if anything, from the case of John Walker Lindh. The lesson for many parents would be to control the access of thoughts and ideas to their children. At some level, we all agree on this. Children should have limited exposure to potentially harmful language, images, ideas and so forth. The key questions are how great the restrictions are and for how long do we exercise control.

Let’s look at the home school versus public school debate. There are parents who will argue that they don’t want their children exposed to certain ideas and behaviors so they teach their children at home. Other parents feel that in order to fight a virus, you have to be exposed to it – a sort of mental vaccination. Which idea is right? We have probably seen many kids shuffled off to public school who come home with very bad ideas or behaviors. On the other hand, if we home school our children are they going to be prepared when they eventually do meet up with these ideas in their adult lives. We’ve also probably all seen very odd parents home school their children to produce very odd kids. If the parents are strange with strange ideas, there is no moderating influence on the kids if they are not around others who might provide some balance. My point is not to evoke a debate on home school versus public school. I know many feel very strongly about this topic. My point is to use this issue as an example to get us thinking about the value of exposure to ideas versus isolation from ideas. What is the right approach for our kids, for our ecclesias, for our friends and for ourselves? What is the right amount of risk of both ignorance and information that we should consider acceptable?

Have a great week,

So far in this series we have mostly discussed the “hardware” of the brain and the ramifications upon us. The “software” of the brain, if we use a computer analogy, has even greater implications. The “software” is the “programs” or thoughts in our head that shape who we are and how we behave.

So far in this series we have mostly discussed the “hardware” of the brain and the ramifications upon us. The “software” of the brain, if we use a computer analogy, has even greater implications. The “software” is the “programs” or thoughts in our head that shape who we are and how we behave. Who we are as people – our personality, character, belief system, our behavior – is for the most part the sum total of our thoughts and beliefs. We each form our unique set of beliefs from the highly significant (i.e. I believe in God) to insignificant (i.e. I prefer chocolate to vanilla). This unique collection of thoughts forms us as individuals and shapes our behavior. In fact, if one were able to plot all of our thoughts and beliefs in a chart, it would be easy to predict how we might react in any given situation. It would show why some people act one way and others act in an entirely different way.

We cannot overestimate the power of a single thought. It was a thought behind the invention of penicillin and the writing of the works of Shakespeare. It was also a thought behind the Holocaust. Again, if we continue in our computer analogy, we can think of our thoughts as helpful programs which do helpful things and viruses that cause hurtful things.

Let’s take a very simple Bible example to illustrate. Adam and Eve had one law – don’t eat of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This is all they know until the serpent shares with them this new thought.

Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.(Gen. 3:4,5)

Eve now has another belief choice introduced to her. One thought is truth and another is a virus. Now, if we were able to get into Eve’s head and see her belief system which now included the idea that the tree was “good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise” and that she believed what the serpent said, we could predict that Eve was going to eat the fruit. Her thoughts were an accurate predictor of her coming behavior.

The Bible expresses this idea in terms of faith bringing forth works. We tend to equate this idea with Bible faith (belief in God, etc.) compels us to act godly. This is true, but not at limited to the positive side of the equation. All people operate by their belief system whether good thoughts or viruses. I personally know a man who killed a woman for the simple reason that he thought he needed to kill someone in order to “be a man.”

This insight into human behavior is extremely helpful. First, it can help us through careful self-examination to understand why we do what we do. We can peel back the onion on our own belief system and determine the root causes of our own behavior. What deep seeded beliefs and thoughts cause us to act as we do? Once those underlying beliefs are comprehended, we can question their validity and try to correct them with God’s word as our guide. In the same manner, it is also valuable in us helping others. When we see destructive behavior in others, what we are witnessing is a symptom of a collection of thoughts. Yet all too often, we simply try to address the symptom rather than the root cause. When we see someone steal, we need to ask, what underlying beliefs are causing this behavior? If we can help that person address the underlying behavior, we can truly help them on a more meaningful level. For example, we might convince someone not to steal because of the possible ramifications for stealing such as damage to their reputation or even going to prison. How much more helpful is it, however, if we can convince a person to actually believe that stealing is wrong and overcome the desire to do so?

Because thoughts are potentially so harmful both to our mental health, spiritual well-being and our behavior, we are encouraged to think on good things and reject things that are hurtful. Paul writes in his epistle to the Philippians,

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable-if anything is excellent or praiseworthy-think about such things.(4:8 NIV)

As we all know, this is not so easy. These “viruses” are in us and ready to work their mischief. Jesus said,

For out of the heart come evil thoughts-murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.(Mt. 15:19 NIV)

Notice the strange way Jesus phrases this. He doesn’t say “hatred is in the heart which causes murder”, he says murder – a physical action – is in our heart. Jesus knew that the virus was the root problem. Good thoughts equal good behavior and bad thoughts equal bad behavior.

Have a great week,

Several years ago in Bible class, an elderly sister who is now deceased, said “People believe when you die you go to heaven. We don’t believe that, do we?” Sadly, this once well-grounded sister could no longer remember the basic elements of our Hope. As you might suspect, there were no calls for her immediate withdrawal. There were no inquiries or allegations. The only response was sympathy for her plight.

How can we justify allowing this elderly sister to be so unsure of the simplest principles to remain in good standing while holding others to a higher standard? One verse we would use to support a sliding scale of responsibility would be found in Luke 12:48. It reads,

But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

We can also, by extension, assume that the reverse is equally true – for whomsoever little is given, of him little shall be required. As in the case of this elderly sister, what is required of us may change during the course of our life. When we are young, little is required of us. As we get older, more is required. As we age to the point of mental and physical infirmity, less and less is required of us. This is fair and intuitive but also disconcerting when we think too much upon it in certain circumstances. What should we require of people? How fair and just can we be when we hold differing standards for people?

If science uncovers genetic abnormalities that cause certain behavior, will our foundations be shaken? I would like to think that we would handle this in the same manner that we do similar matters today; that is to say, with an eye to be fair, just and compassionate based on the individual circumstances while not extending the same lenience to others more capable. The balance seems to be upholding God’s Divine principles and teachings which include compassion for those to whom little is given.

The topic of differing standards based on specific circumstances is not broached too often in public because it makes us uncomfortable and raises questions which we prefer to leave unaddressed. Some may even pretend these issues don’t exist. They do exist, however, and illustrate a Divine principle — God has a sliding scale of accountability based on ability. The problem is not when God operates on the sliding scale, but when we do. God perfectly takes into account all factors and renders precise judgment while we struggle with what is the right thing to do given particular circumstances.

At times we have solved our dilemma by codifying the answer. In the Doctrines to be Rejected portion of many Statements of Faith, it says we reject “That heathens, idiots, pagans, and very young children will be saved.” An “idiot” used to be a legitimate medical term synonymous with what we now call profound mental retardation and represented a patient having an IQ below 30. I still struggle with this Doctrine to be Rejected as usurping of God and Jesus’ authority to judge salvation over any individual. It bothers me even more because it concerns someone who has been given so little. What is required of someone who has been given so little? Based on Luke 12:48, it would be very little. Frankly, I don’t know what is required of them but am content to leave this matter in the hands of a loving Creator with all of the facts. This puts the onus of judgment back where it belongs – on God and Christ. Yet, it doesn’t solve our dilemma of what to do until the time comes when God and Jesus’ judgment is no longer subject of debate in the age to come.

God knows people’s mental and psychological limitations. We know based on the principle of “to whom much is given much will be required” that God will hold varying standards for people. He will exercise “righteous judgment” with the perfect blend of mercy and justice. Until such a time as God reveals His righteous judgment, we are left to discern to the best of our abilities through prayer, study and meditation on God’s word, how to exercise “righteous judgment” bringing to bear all of the factors that make us unique individuals. The better we get at finding “righteous judgment” this side of the Kingdom on earth to life’s tricky problems, the more consolation we can find in the words of the Lord’s prayer “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.”

Have a great week,

When we think about how God makes each one of us, we all know and understand that God creates us with differing skills and abilities. For example, when we talk about one person being a faster runner than another person, we understand and accept this idea. There seems to be a great deal more reluctance, however, when we switch to the subject of how our different, God-created brains may change our behavior. Many people seem hesitant to accept these differences are from God in any way.

As we consider the human mind and morality, our thoughts are directed towards the oft-debated passage in Romans 9 which asks the question “Is God unjust?” (v. 14) when He makes people to carry out His will. Paul goes on to answer it the question by saying,

Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?(vvs. 20-21)

This seems to have direct bearing on the topic at hand. God declares that, as a Creator, He is makes people” for special purposes and some for common use” and we have no right to question this. Our study of the brain seems to bear out this fact. Some people are just wired differently than others. Some people have high enough IQs to put them in the genius category while some others barely have enough brain power to sustain their vital organs. Some people have natural abilities in the arts such as music or painting while others may be gifted in things like math. More importantly for our discussion, some people may be wired for great acts of altruism while others seemed wired to be sociopaths.

Of Pharaoh in Romans 9, it says “For Scripture says to Pharaoh: ‘I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’” Is this saying that God intervened in Pharaoh’s free will and hardened his heart or is the passage telling us that God pre-wired Pharaoh to be a hard-hearted individual and arranged things such that he could be in the right place at the right time? The latter seems more in keeping with our understanding of free will.

The answer that is provided in Romans 9 itself is not an answer per se, but another question with implications. The “answer” is:

One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? (vvs. 19-20 NIV)

Isn’t this the very argument that is coming up today? If God made us to be a certain way, how can He blame us for being that way? The answer is to not talk back to God. Who are we to question the Creator? This answer seems unsatisfactory for many – especially those who question God’s justice. Yet for those of us who believe in a loving, active God who is willing that none should perish, it is intrinsic to our understanding that God is fair and working with a bigger picture of what is going on than we do.

Think about it this way, if science ever did discover a “gay gene” should it really impact our theology? The logic suggested by some is that if there is a gay gene, those who practice homosexuality aren’t morally culpable. Yet, Paul argues in Romans 9 that God does make people a certain way which may lead to their destruction but it is fair nevertheless.

This begs the question of whether God making person a certain way negates free will. I would suggest to us that it does not. First of all, we have to understand that there is a huge difference between free will and free reign. Many people think that free will means that we can do anything we want to do. This is clearly not the case made by Scripture. James says,

Now listen, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.” Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.” (James 4:13-15)

We all have limits placed on us by God whether by birth (country of origin, intelligence, predispositions, etc.) or our present circumstances (weather, health, finances, etc.) We are allowed certain choices within the confines of those limits. Mankind is responsible for the way we play the hand, not for the hand we are dealt. Each one of us must do the best we can do with the natural abilities or inabilities God has given us as well as the circumstances that surround us at any given moment in time. These God-limiting circumstances appear to include the way God has made our minds.

Have a great week,

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a procedure by which brain activity can be measured by changes in blood flow. When faced with different stimulus, doctors can now see normal brain activity compared to abnormal brain activity.

Attorneys, using fMRI results, are now starting to use a defense called the My Brain Made Me Do It defense. In a recent interview, Jeffrey Rosen, author of Constitution 3.0 Freedom and Technological Change, describes the defense thusly:

After someone’s been convicted at the sentencing phase, they’ll try to introduce fMRI evidence that the amygdala – which is the area of the brain responsible for emotion and impulse – is overactive, and the prefrontal cortex – which is supposed to be the restraint or the conscience on the amygdala – is not doing its job. And based on that evidence, they’re trying to claim that they didn’t have the ability to control themselves, and therefore should be, if not – if their guilt shouldn’t be excused, it should at least be mitigated.

To date, no jury has bought this line of argument. Juries don’t tend to care why we did what we did unless we were insane or under duress (forced to do something), but only need to see proof that we actually did it. This doesn’t mean that they won’t buy this line of argument at some point in time. The ramifications of such a change in thinking would be seismic. The end result would be the conclusion that you can’t punish people for anything because everything is really just a function of our brain over which we really have no control. It also means a scenario could exist that if you have an overactive amygdale and underactive prefrontal cortex, you could potentially be incarcerated before you even do anything simply because you are pre-wired to do something bad. It conjures up images of the futuristic movie Minority Report where Tom Cruise locks people up before they commit a crime.

The underlying question is: is the brain just another piece of hardware in our body (like our heart or our kidney) that performs electric and chemical functions that produce thought or action? Or are we sentient beings that have a higher moral being greater than the sum total of our chemical and electrical parts? As you can imagine, religion plays a huge role in determining what answer you choose. If you believe in evolution, then it leads you down the path to concluding we are just a big bag of chemicals. If you believe in God, it leads you down the path to humans having a spark of the divine which gives us a higher calling and purpose than other animals with brains.

Let’s look at another hotly debated and related topic. It is said that some people are born with the so-called “gay gene.” Others argue that people choose to become gay or they have other factors (such as how they are raised) that turn them into gay people. This has been boiled down to the phrase “nature or nurture.” The moral argument that the nature people suggest is that because they are born gay (i.e. God made them that way), they have no choice in the matter. Their opponents argue that God wouldn’t make someone gay so therefore the answer has to be “nurture.”

The implications of issues such as these are large. It frames how we see morality in the same way in which we see the above fMRI argument. The argument is assuming someone has a so-called “gay gene”; that is, they are born attracted to the same sex, are they morally culpable? It seems to me it is the same question as person with the misfiring amygdale and prefrontal cortex; are they still responsible for what they do? In my estimation, the answer is everyone is responsible for their actions unless they are under duress or insane. To me, the argument of whether there is a gay gene is irrelevant to the greater question of moral culpability with some caveats that we will start getting into in the coming weeks. We are all flawed in some way, shape or form. We are all imperfect. And, yes, God made us all that way.

But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.(2 Cor. 12:9-10 NIV)

Have a great week,

On September 13, 1848, a worker by the name of Phineas Gage was working to build a railroad near Cavendish, Vermont. His job was to prepare the rock for a dynamite blast. While working with a three and a half foot long tamping iron in a bored hole, the charge ignited prematurely sending the metal tamping iron through his left cheek, into his brain and out of the top of his head. What makes this case particularly interesting is the fact that Mr. Gage survived this violent accident, but also that he had a marked personality change.

Here is the description of the incident by his physician, Dr. John Martyn Harlow:

The equilibrium or balance, so to speak, between his intellectual faculties and animal propensities, seems to have been destroyed. He is fitful, irreverent, indulging at times in the grossest profanity (which was not previously his custom), manifesting but little deference for his fellows, impatient of restraint or advice when it conflicts with his desires, at times pertinaciously obstinate, yet capricious and vacillating, devising many plans of future operations, which are no sooner arranged than they are abandoned in turn for others appearing more feasible. A child in his intellectual capacity and manifestations, he has the animal passions of a strong man. Previous to his injury, although untrained in the schools, he possessed a well-balanced mind, and was looked upon by those who knew him as a shrewd, smart businessman, very energetic and persistent in executing all his plans of operation. In this regard his mind was radically changed, so decidedly that his friends and acquaintances said he was “no longer Gage.”

Perhaps we haven’t experienced anything quite as dramatic as this in our own lives, but I am sure many of us have seen something similar. Maybe we have seen a person’s personality change after a stroke or the onset of Alzheimer’s disease. Perhaps we know a soldier who has come back with a brain injury and has difficulty adjusting to civilian life as a result. As a rule, we do not hold people responsible for their behavior (at least to the same extent) if they have a severe head injury or a brain altering disease. For example, if someone is born with mental retardation, we tend to “grade on the curve” for them. It is the same difference between the Olympics and the Special Olympics. We have high expectations for Olympians but are thrilled that the Special Olympians simply try.

So here, in a nutshell, is our dilemma. We impugn no (or little) moral culpability to those who suffer horrific accidents or have brain diseases. We do not dismiss their actions and may do things to prevent them from causing harm to themselves or others, but we do not grade them on the same curve as someone without those disabilities. It is easy to make such a determination when we naively divide the world into the mentally healthy and the mentally unhealthy, but aren’t we all at least a little bit mentally unhealthy. My friend Ken Roth told me once, “We are all mentally ill, it is just a matter of degree.”

Let’s use an example to illustrate this problem. My father is extremely claustrophobic. If you tried, as a joke, to stuff him into a box and close the lid, I don’t doubt that he might very well hurt you. He wouldn’t mean to. As a believer in Jesus and a confirmed conscientious objector, he is not a violent person. Yet, in his panic, I am sure he would do anything he could do not to be put in that box and that might include hitting, kicking or biting. At 81 years old, he would probably not only hurt you, but himself. His claustrophobia is a mild form of being mentally unhealthy. We all are scared of something to varying degrees – snakes, bugs, heights, etc. Those who are extremely fearful sometimes act irrationally when confronted with their fear.

Lest anyone start plotting my course in this series already, my point is not to say that we have no moral culpability nor is it to say that there is no right or wrong. My purpose here initially is to paint a picture of the issue and make us think about it. We are not finished with portraying the issue. After we have an idea of the issues involved, we hope to look at some Biblical principles to help us put a framework around this. None of what we will suggest will nullify the truth of Scripture. We might not answer all of our questions satisfactorily, but hopefully we will have a greater appreciation of these topics and will be able to discuss them intelligently from a Biblical perspective.

Have a great week,

I would like you to pretend for a moment that you are with your family in a restaurant having a quiet dinner. For whatever reason, the cook decides to put a powerful, mind-altering drug such as PCP in your food. Within moments of ingesting the drug, you become extremely loud and disruptive in the restaurant. Before too long you become violent and the police are called. You are arrested and placed in jail after resisting arrest. In the meantime, the detectives discover what has taken place and arrest the cook. At your trial, your attorney puts up the following defense. You are normally a calm, law-abiding citizen. The cook, unbeknownst to you, put this drug in your food which caused you to act completely out of character and therefore you should be found not guilty of the crime of disturbing the peace and resisting arrest.

Now, while the above scenario may seem a little outlandish, it is not out of the realm of possibility. We hear stories in the news about people putting drugs in other people’s food and drink like the so-called “date rape” drug. The reason I put this to you is that I would like you to consider a couple of questions about how you think about this scenario. The questions are:

1. Do you feel like the verdict of “not guilty” was “just” or should you have been held responsible for your actions despite the presence of the drug in your food?
2. Suppose you had heard prior to going to dinner that this restaurant was a little sketchy but decided to go anyway. Would you still feel “not guilty” was the right verdict?
3. Suppose the same scenario happened, but instead of the cook putting a drug in your food, your own body unexpectedly started producing the same chemical in the drug and caused the same reaction. Would you be guilty then?
4. Finally, suppose instead of the cook putting the drug in your food, you willing ingested it knowing that it had dangerous side effects. Would you be guilty then?

Our subject is the human brain and morality. Advancements in understanding how the brain works are opening interesting and challenging questions for the believer. As we understand how the brain works electronically, chemically and mechanically, how does this affect the way we understand morality, culpability and free will? Theologians, legal professionals, legislators and ethicists are grappling with various versions of the above scenario daily in regard to how the human brain works.

For many years a similar scenario has played out in courtrooms with the insanity defense. The argument is that a person was insane at the time of the offence and instead of jail time, they should be committed. The idea is that a person is not guilty of a crime if they don’t understand that they are committing a crime. John Hinckley, who attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan in 1981 to impress actress Jodi Foster, was acquitted after pleading insanity. We will talk more about the insanity defense and how fMRI technology is now being deployed by defense lawyers later, but suffice it to say for now; this is akin to the scenario we painted above. Can a person be morally culpable if their brain is not functioning properly?

Our intent in this series is to make the reader aware of the issues that are coming because of advances in technology and our understanding of the human brain in the context of morality and culpability. We truly live in an age of marvels. As you begin to see all of the very interesting things that are going on, perhaps you will be encouraged to follow them more closely in the media and ponder the implications to our faith.

Have a great week,

It’s a timeless phrase from the theatre; advice to the would-be performer. I do hope you don’t find the wording offensive; the phrase is not of my creation. I suspect the last word is tacked on merely to make the resulting acronym (KISS) more memorable. Nor is it a dictum that was ever primarily intended to be directed at another, but rather to oneself. I recall playing the notorious villain Bill Sykes, a woman-beating drunkard and murderer, in a Dickens adaptation. Standing in the wings, I fretted over how I could dramatize slapping my fellow actress to the ground without actually hurting her, yet maintaining the audience’s belief in the action. There’s no substitute for rehearsal, but the last-minute self-exhortation of the whispered mantra: “Keep It Simple, Stupid,” helped calm my nerves significantly; and together we enacted the attack, and ultimate dispatch, of the hapless Nancy with nary a hitch. It may seem odd to comment that it warmed my heart to receive the virulent chorus of boos that accompanied my stalking from the stage, glowering triumphantly towards Nancy’s crumpled corpse; but warm my heart it did (such is the typecast villain’s lot, after all). We’d kept it simple, and it had worked well.

In many senses discipleship must be the opposite of acting. Rather than adopting a persona not one’s own, as one does when acting, discipleship’s considerably harder, contrasting, requirement is to peel away the inherent facades of pretension and barriers of ego until the true self is exposed before the Lord, naked and vulnerable, to be offered in submission to his gentle, shaping hands. Yet the theatrical mantra: “Keep It Simple, Stupid” still has much to offer the would-be disciple. For example, I’m struck how often Jesus’ answers to the cunningly crafted questions from the Pharisees and Sadducees were breathtakingly simple; yet equally unstoppable in piercing the sophistry of the question – and heart of the questioner.

• Surface question: “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”
• Latent question: “Who are you going to side with: those who capitulate to the Roman occupation or those who resist? Either way you’ll lose the support of the others.”
• Jesus’ answer: “Let the toy-collectors have their toys; but the disciple’s purpose is to submit all things to the Father.”

• Surface question: “Which of the seven husbands to which this woman was married will be her husband in the resurrection?”
• Latent question: “Isn’t it obvious that resurrection is a false doctrine, since it creates these ludicrous scenarios in the supposed after-life?”
• Jesus’ answer: “You fools, did you not realize marriage is only relevant for this dispensation and not the next? We are to be as gods!”

So very simple. So very profound.

Most importantly of all, perhaps this is of genuine use when we are faced with apparently baffling scenarios in our own discipleships. To consider just one possibility from a thousand, perhaps you’ve wondered: “Should I share bread and wine with those whom all agree are Jesus’ brothers and sisters, yet whom both established tradition and many current elders tell me not to?”

What would Jesus say? Two possible answers:

1. “While we all desire unity, it is prudent to adopt the more measured response of holding back bread and wine from my brothers and sisters across this divide at this current time; at least until a more globally recognized document can be formally developed and ratified, having had appropriate input from all parties involved; and the necessary assurances given to those harbouring doubts – on both sides – that will provide suitable confidence in both a sound platform of shared understanding and a uniformly recognized fellowship boundary moving forward (without which any attempted unity would just cause many potential problems and correlated upset) and which assurances should incorporate sensitivity to such extenuating circumstances as may apply from local geographical, historical and familial complexities in the given region and demographics. Until then, practicing a divided household, while regrettable, is the only advisable road forward for any who would truly be my disciple.”
2. “I will share the fruit of the vine, new, with all my brothers and sisters at my Marriage Supper. And who are my brothers and sisters except those who are doing exactly that now?”

I don’t claim the insight of the Master, so I’ve had to guess at possible answers. Perhaps his answer differs markedly from either of the above. But I make no apology for sharing that I muse on the matter, for while I never mind acting the villain on stage, I don’t want to be one for real. That’s why, as I stand in the wings of my discipleship each week, I still whisper to myself: “Keep It Simple, Stupid.” I don’t whisper it because I believe secular theatre holds the answers to divine matters. I whisper it because I believe the holy scriptures repeatedly reveal that Jesus’ answer is always a simple answer. And I pray he guides all our hearts in exactly that manner in the week approaching.

Now: places, everyone! The new week’s curtain is about to rise.

Have a great week!

Is it ever appropriate for our giving to be more open and visible? While we would all agree that giving should be done quietly and unobtrusively, shrouding the act in secrecy denies our ecclesial community the benefit of positive modeling and witness.

The Apostle Paul realized the power of a positive role model. The brethren in Corinth appear to have required additional prompting from Paul to assist the brethren in Jerusalem. Perhaps to prick their collective conscience he wrote to them about the generosity of their brethren in Macedonia who despite real poverty, “urgently pleaded with us for the privilege of sharing in this service to the saints” (2 Cor. 8:4). Paul realized that there was value in giving the Corinthian brethren knowledge of the generosity of others to spur them on.

It is certainly true that those who do their ‘acts of righteousness’ before men– because they seek the honor and acclaim of their peers– already have their reward. God, though, will reward those who ‘give quietly, not telling anyone’ (Matt. 6:4). Why we give appears at the heart of the matter. Just as all prayer is not in secret, neither should the same qualification apply to all giving. The operative phrase of Jesus is ‘to be seen by them’. At issue is not preventing others from seeing our ‘acts of righteousness’ but rather it is a command not to do these things in order that we receive the recognition of men. Flaunting one’s ‘generosity’ is never appropriate, but sometimes our giving will be seen by others and can serve as a witness to our faith. Jesus said that believers’ love for one another would serve as a testimony to all men that they indeed were Jesus’ disciples. (Jn. 13: 35) But to serve as a witness to those round about, such acts of love would need to be known. We are exhorted to let our lights shine before men, that they may see our good deeds and glorify our Father in heaven. (Matt.5:16) Giving to gain personal recognition, though, loses sight of the reality that we are merely stewards of our Lord’s resources that are to be used to further His honor.

Positive examples of giving to glorify God can be a source of encouragement to the faithful. In 1 Chronicles 29 we have recorded David’s challenge to Israel as the materials were being assembled for the construction of the temple. His appeal to the people was based upon his own generous giving. He presented himself as a positive model for them to follow. As a consequence of his public example, the leaders of the people also gave willingly, the Scripture listing their contributions. ‘The people rejoiced at the willing response of their leaders, for they had given freely and wholeheartedly to the LORD’.

Certainly in Acts 2, the brethren in Jerusalem who sold their possessions and gave to the needy would be known to the others. Some givers were even named for our benefit. In Acts 4, Barnabas sold a field and laid the money at the apostles’ feet. Barnabas’ act of generosity would have been commonly known and was publicly and permanently recorded in Acts. Sadly, Ananias and Sapphira gave for the wrong reasons, but the possibility of abuse doesn’t negate the principle. Christ’s ecclesia can benefit from seeing open examples of generous giving.

When the widow placed her two mites into the temple treasury, she did so publicly–Jesus could actually see the two coins. And he used her as a public illustration to his disciples. It was appropriate that the people were told the exact amount of her gift. Her motives were right. The public disclosure did nothing to nullify her good heart and the efficacy of her gift.

On a more practical note, how do young brothers and sisters in our ecclesias learn to give? Where can they go to see what giving looks like in the life of a faithful believer? Is it surprising that when there is no visible role model, they take their cues from our materialistic society steeped in greed and self? Have we failed as a community to provide a vision of giving by keeping it hidden? I appreciate that this can be a fine balance. Perhaps the answer lies in citing others’ generosity, rather than our own. (Prov. 27:2).

Giving shouldn’t be an add-on elective to a spiritual life, it should be at its very heart. If our children don’t learn about giving from us, then who will teach them? If we aren’t able to openly and humbly discuss our communal giving, how can we expect to raise up a generation of givers?

Have a great week!

Why does God cause us to prosper? When He blesses us materially, what does He expect of us? As we considered last week, health and wealth advocates would say that we may do whatever we please with God’s abundance-cars, trips, new clothes-as long as we give Him the credit. Some prosperity teachers would go so far as to say that God expects us to live in luxury. To do otherwise would make us bad witnesses! Certainly such thinking is not in keeping with Christ’s teaching. He didn’t say, ‘By this shall all men know that you are my disciples if you have the lifestyle of the rich and famous’. Rather, our witness is to be seen in our love for one another.

When it comes to sharing the abundance that God has entrusted to us, Paul says, ‘God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work’. (2 Cor. 9:8) Paul is teaching us that God has provided for our needs (not wants) in order that we can employ these resources for good works. Paul goes on to tell the believers in Corinth that God who ‘supplies seed to the sower’ will ‘increase your stock of seed’ (2 Cor. 9:10). And for what purpose? So that we can horde it, or eat it all ourselves? This seed was meant for sowing. It was God’s intention that it be spread out, take root and bear fruit.

Why does God make many of us rich? (And many of us certainly are rich by standards in the developing world!) It is not so that we can become self-reliant and insulate ourselves from the uncertainties of life. This simply serves to make us less dependant upon God. Rather Paul instructs us, ‘You will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God.’ (2 Cor.9:11) Paul was taking up a special collection to alleviate the suffering of the believers in Jerusalem. This would be an opportunity for the Gentile ecclesia in Corinth to come to the aid of their Jewish brethren in Judea.

Earlier, Paul had put forward the same reasoning: ‘Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality.’ (2 Cor. 8:13-14)

Many financial planners would tell us that we need to store up as much as possible for the future so that we’ll never have to rely on the generosity of others. This is nurtures our sense of independence and self-reliance. But the brethren in Corinth were exhorted to give of their abundance now, realizing that perhaps some day-particularly if they opened their wallets to the needs in Jerusalem-they would be in a position to receive from others. Imagine how this principle could benefit everyone. Giving away our money weakens us financially. This is contrary to our natural inclination to be financially secure. But giving away this excess does something for us that stockpiling never will. It makes us dependant on God and keeps us open to the possibility that at some point we may need to depend on others just as they currently depend on us.

One principle at work in God’s family is that we help each other out. And Paul illustrates this with the example of co-operation in the wilderness. “He that gathereth much had nothing over and he that gathereth little has no lack” (2 Cor.8:15) You’ll recall that the men of Israel were to gather manna for the family each morning-one omer per person. They wouldn’t have measured it out exactly, and when they got back to their tents, some would barely have enough, and others would have excess, so they would have shared their excess with the family who came up short next door. This reinforced the principle that those with the ability to offer assistance should meet the real and pressing needs of their brethren.

God gives some of His children more than they need and others less to teach His children to help each other. God distributes wealth unevenly not because he loves some more than others but so His children can distribute it to brothers and sisters on His behalf.

Have a great week,