theology Archives

Sin and Grace

How do you react to sin? How do you respond when someone in your family, your office, your work, sins against you? How do you respond when you are betrayed, gossiped about, insulted, slandered, or persecuted? Do you feel hurt, angry, or resentful? What if the person who wronged you was someone you loved and cared about? If you feel hurt when someone wrongs you, how do you think God feels?

In the beginning, God created Adam. God told Adam if he ate of the tree of Knowledge he would surely die. When Adam ate of the forbidden tree, it surely must have broke God’s heart. He loved Adam. He had created him. He had cared for him like a father. He gave Adam everything he could possibly need or desire. He gave him a paradise to live in, a place of ease and tranquility. A paradise on earth. But Adam wasn’t happy. He wanted more. He thought God was holding something back. It didn’t occur to him that God may have been hiding something from him for a reason. For his own benefit, God didn’t want Adam to discover evil. Surely, God felt the sting of betrayal. He had been like a father to Adam and Adam broke his promise to never eat of the forbidden tree. God could have easily sought revenge, but he didn’t. In fact, it was within his right to snuff out the life of Adam right then and there. He did warn Adam that if ate of the tree, he would surely die. But God’s heart welled with compassion. Adam and Eve had yet to bear any children. If God took away their lives, human history would have ended before it had a chance to begin. In his mercy, he did not slay Adam right then and there, even though God had every right to do so. Instead, God sent Adam away to a place where life would no longer be easy for him. From that moment on, Adam would have to grow his crops in a place full of weeds. He’d have to learn to survive through hard work and suffering. God’s actions were an expression of mercy. God could have killed off the human race right then and there, but he chose not to. Instead, he allowed Adam to live a long life. In fact, Adam lived to see nine generations of his offspring. Wow! What a blessing! How many people do you know have lived 900 years old?

Is it then any wonder that life was so highly prized by those of faith in the Old Testament?

Life was deemed precious by the faithful. Every breath of life was not only a blessing, but an act of mercy from God. Surely, as sinners, we all deserve death, just as Adam did. Surely, God has every right to slay us all. But he doesn’t. Why? He mercifully gives us life so that we may acknowledge him, the giver of life. Whether life is hard or easy, we have breath in our lungs. And that’s a gift.

Luke 13 begins with a group of people who tell Jesus about some Galileans who were brutally killed by the Romans. Apparently, these individuals thought the Galileans got what was coming to them – God allowed them to die a brutal death because of their sin. But Jesus puts them in their place. “Do you think they died because their sin was greater than yours?” He asks them. “No, that’s not why they perished.” Apparently, these people considered themselves holier than thou. They thought of some people more deserving of death and punishment than themselves. They wagged their fingers, claiming those Galileans got what they deserved. But Jesus turned the tables on them. He tells them that the sins of “those people” are no worse than their own. Ouch! And if they don’t repent, the same fate will happen to them. What was Jesus saying? He was saying that because of their sin, they all deserve the same fate as the Galileans they were so busily wagging their fingers against. But God decided not to slay them, as he did the Galileans, even though that’s what they deserved. He chose instead to allow them to live. And this was an act of grace. An act of mercy. God was under no obligation to save anyone, but he chose to allow some to live anyway. And if those of whom he restores, saves, and protects, do not recognize God’s act of mercy and repent of their sins, God will allow the same harsh judgment to fall upon them. The fate of the Galileans was meant as a warning to those still living. They were to repent and acknowledge God for his mercy, for preserving their lives.

There are two things that God requires of us: thankfulness for his goodness towards us, and to always trustingly call upon his Name in times of trouble. To call upon his Name means to recall to mind God’s character. And what do we know of his character? We know his character is one who is eager to show mercy. And when he shows mercy by answering our prayer, what should we do? We should thank him for his mercy!

How does this tie into sin?

I have often heard it said that God is a covenant making God, who is always faithful even we are not. But this frankly isn’t true, for two reasons. For one thing, covenants were made between pagan peoples. It was a pagan practice to perform covenant between two peoples. For another, covenants require swearing oaths, and Jesus commanded his followers not to swear oaths, but to simply let your yes be yes and your no be no. Thirdly, God has no need for oaths. Everything God says is true; therefore, if he says something is going to happen, it will. If everything he says is true, then all his promises are true. There’s no reason why he’d have any need to swear an oath. So why did he make covenant with his people? It is likely God condescended to make vows with men according to man’s customs at the time, so that people who lived in that time and culture might understand the seriousness of God’s intentions. God condescends to speak to us in the manner and language that is most meaningful. That is what he did in the Old Testament. But he had no need to “make covenant”. His promises were true regardless of whether or not he had sworn an oath. The other issue I have is that once a covenant has been broken, the other party is under no obligation to fulfill their end of the bargain. That is, God might have been faithful to his promises to the Israelites in spite of their unfaithfulness to their Mosaic covenantal vows, but God was under no obligation to do so. He was faithful, not because of covenantal vows which are based on conditional promises which had been broken time and time again by the nation of Israel, but because of God’s purity of character. God repeatedly told the Israelites that it was on the account of his Name that he’d forgive the Israelites their sins and fulfill his promises to them. His Name refers to his character and reputation. In describing his relationship with the nation of Israel, God described himself as a husband married to an unfaithful wife. And Jesus claimed that the only valid reason for a man to divorce his wife is unfaithfulness. Thus, God had every right to “divorce” Israel and attach himself to some other people group. It was out of his consistent character of all surpassing grace, mercy, and love, that God chose to fulfill his promises to Israel even when they sinned against him, not because of covenantal obligations which had been nullified the moment Israel broke their vows.

A year ago, I participated in a Bible study of the Old Testament. Specifically, we studied the Hebrew people during the time when their kingdom was divided into Israel and Judah. The nation of Israel had one wicked king after the other. The nation of Judah had a sprinkling of kings who were faithful to God, but they were not much better. During these turbulent years, God sent prophet after prophet to warn the Hebrew people that they needed to turn back to God. And over and over again, they were rejected. Jeremiah was one of the last of these prophets. For forty years he warned the people that God would punish them by allowing their enemies to conquer their nations, massacre their people, and send the survivors into exile. But no one believed him. No one believed him because it went against God’s covenantal promise to always place a descendent of Judah as ruler over the people. Jeremiah would have been reminded by the people that God had specified that this was an eternal promise. Therefore, God would always protect the nation of Judah. Always. Forever. He would never allow Judah to fall. It was inconceivable for them to think otherwise. God had always kept his promises. Why would he suddenly stop? But God did abandon them, and both Israel and Judah fell to their enemies.

When our class ended, we discussed why God abandoned them. And it was agreed that they were abandoned because of their sin. But this conclusion defies logic. Clearly, both nations sinned greatly against the Lord long before they were destroyed. God gave them many chances to turn away from their wickedness, but they refused. And it gets worse. God accuses them of committing greater sins than that of the pagan nations around them! If it was sin, God should have struck them down long before things got out of hand. But he didn’t. Why? Because love covers a multitude of sins. In God’s loving nature, God forgave them, over and over again. God loved his people. But his people did not recognize him. They did not give him honor or thanksgiving. They never grieved over their sins, and they took God’s merciful nature completely for granted. God was willing to give his people chance after chance after chance to confess their sins and turn away from their wickedness. But like stubborn children, they continued doing whatever they were doing before, without a care in the world that there might be consequences. At one point in the book of Jeremiah, God acts like a frustrated father, at the end of his rope. He lists their numerous sins and his growing wrath. But then he does something unexpected. He tells them (and I’m paraphrasing here), “Ok, guys. You all have turned against me. You could care less about the laws and precepts I gave you. You insist on going your own way. Fine. Whatever. I am at my wits end and have given up hope of you embracing my laws anymore. So, I’ll make you a deal. If you do this one thing for me – just this one thing – I promise to relent on my anger. I won’t punish you for your wickedness. I will forgive you and cancel the debt.” It’s like a parent telling an unruly child, “Ok, I give up! Day after day I’ve been after you over something. If it’s not one thing, it’s another. Any time I ask you to do something, you do just the opposite. I am done with having any high expectations from you anymore! So, I’ll make a deal with you. If you do this one thing for me, just this one thing, I’ll be happy. That’s how low my expectations are right now. Clean your room and all will be forgiven!” Israel’s sins were great. Surely, they deserved punishment. It was out of grace that they weren’t. God chose to abandon Israel after they refused to do that one thing (in this case, God asked them to release their Hebrew slaves). God had asked them to obey a single command – and they couldn’t even do that right. God hadn’t abandoned the people; the people had abandoned him. And it was only then that God turned away from his own people and let them fall under the hands of their enemies.

So, what do we learn from this? We learn that God will not reject us because of sin. But he will reject us if we take God completely for granted. If we assume he does not care if we do as we please. If we assume he must not care about our actions if no just punishment falls upon us (yet).

Does that mean God is a legalist? That he expects perfection? No. God simply wants us to be contrite about our sins. To view sin and wickedness for what it is. It is evil. And it is abhorrent to God. To embrace the wisdom to love that which is good and to reject that which is evil. If we love God, then we love the things that God loves. If we love God, all evil becomes repugnant. When we find ourselves doing the evil we do not want to do, we are reminded of Saint Paul’s remarks in Romans 7. We no longer love the part of ourselves that does evil, but we are reminded that our sins have been crucified with Christ on the cross. When our hearts agree that God’s law is good, that our own deeds have conflicted with God’s law, and believe that Christ endured the punishment that should have been ours, the full wrath of God, God will not only have mercy with regards to our sins, but grant us a new resurrected life with him. And if our hearts are in agreement with all of that, then gratitude will naturally bubble up inside of us. We are no longer afraid when we sin. We see God as a god of mercy and goodness, and not a merciless taskmaster. We see our lives as glorious gifts from God and not a curse or a torment. Sin may persist, but as long as we still have breath and life, we live under God’s redeeming grace. Thus, Saint Paul was right when he said, when sin increases, God’s grace increases all the more!

The question is, are you thankful? Are you grateful? Are you grateful for your life and all the good things God has given you? Are you grateful for God’s great gift, the gift of his Son? Are you thankful for the sacrifice He made on your behalf? Will you give him your thankfulness, devotion, and praise? Will you trust in his mercy in your time of need? Will you praise him with your heart when he delivers you? Or will you go on your way, doing whatever you were doing before, giving him neither your acknowledgement nor praise, nor one shred of your obedience?

Homosexuality: Sin Or Not?

Much is being said about the United Methodist Church General Conference. The bigger question is why has the issue of homosexuality become a divisive one for the church?

First, some background should be noted on the social change that has occurred in the United States over the last thirty years.

I grew up in the 80’s. At the time, AIDS was a nameless untreatable pestilence that was rampantly spreading among gay men. To be afflicted with the disease meant certain death. Scientists and medical professionals tried to sound an alarm. They tried to push for government grants to investigate the disease. Time after time their requests were denied. They were denied when government officials were told that the only people coming down with the disease were gay men. The only reason why the grants were finally approved is because one scientist warned that it was inevitable that the disease would eventually spread to heterosexuals too. That scientist went on to discover the HIV virus and finally gave the disease a name – AIDS.

At that time, gays were social pariahs. They were not talked about within social circles. They were not represented on TV or in movies. Gays in general were treated as if they didn’t exist. They just weren’t talked about at all.

But as time went on, the media started to shine a light on the AIDS epidemic, and in doing so, they also shone a light on the gay victims of the disease. As they documented the afflictions of AIDS patients, they couldn’t help but notice other forms of suffering these men were already going through. If an AIDS patient was rendered incapable of caring for himself and had a life partner, that partner had no legal say on his lover’s medical care. Hospitals had no other legal choice but to call the closest living relatives, who, more often than not, had disowned that person years or even decades before because of the man’s gay lifestyle. Well-meaning relatives didn’t have a clue on knowing what the patient’s best interests might be; at the same time, they were often completely closed to what the patient’s partner would suggest.

The whole situation seemed grossly unfair. If a homosexual man is too ill to make decisions on his own, shouldn’t his partner have a say in his treatment and care? A gay man’s partner was often also his best friend, someone who would know more intimately than anyone else what would be in the best interests of his sick lover. There seemed to be a loophole in the law, a situation the law never considered. Meanwhile, heartless family members, who could care less about the person afflicted with the disease, were making all the decisions.

I remember watching such profiles and feeling a sense of compassion and sympathy for these men. It was hard not to feel for them.

And yet, there were plenty of other Christians I knew that didn’t have that compassion. It is shameful to say it, but I remember hearing Christians making statements that implied homosexuals were “getting what they deserve” as if God were punishing them for their homosexual lifestyles.

I remember feeling greatly disturbed by these statements. As Christians, we believe every person is a sinner, and therefore, deserving of death and eternal punishment. But because of God’s great love, He chooses not to punish us. If God’s love is great enough to cover our sins and remove from us the punishment we deserve, then why should it not be great enough to cover the sins of others? God takes no joy in our sufferings. Neither should we take any measure of satisfaction in the suffering of others, regardless of what sins we believe they’ve committed.

And thus the social conscious of both secular and social thought began to change. However, change did not happen without a decent amount of friction. As more and more gay men and women started coming out of the closet, there were equally a number of stories of outright hatred against homosexuals. Even worse, were the hate mail sent to some openly gay individuals who claimed to be Christian.

Some good came out of the change. Christians now I think understand where they went wrong. They had used Scripture as an excuse to oppress a particular subgroup of individuals, much as they had to blacks, women, Jews, and others. They had treated homosexuals as if they were less than human, not worthy of the same rights as others. Even worse, they had seen them as committing a vile sin that, at least in their eyes, is somehow greater than everyone else’s, and beyond redemption.

Scripture used in this sense is ALWAYS wrong! We should NEVER use Scripture to justify hate or oppression.

And while all this may be true, does that necessarily mean we should condone homosexual sex acts? If you believe homosexual sex acts are sinful, then no, we cannot. To marry a homosexual couple would be like wedding any other couple in which sex is flatly forbidden, such as marrying two of close relations: a man and his daughter; a brother and his aunt; etc. But if you believe homosexual sex acts aren’t sinful, then marriage and pastoral ordination should be accepted.

And this goes to the crux of the matter: Is homosexuality a sin?

There are those who believe strongly that, yes, it is a sin. This view has a lot of biblical backing. There are at least 6 different verses within Scripture that mention homosexual acts, and all of them condemn these acts as sin. In all cases in which marriage is described, it is always in the context of a union between a man and a woman. Keep in mind, too, these verses are found in both the Old and New Testaments. In the only Scripture in which sexual desire is intimately described, in the Song of Solomon, it is described in the context of the passion between a man and a woman. God also commanded in the Old Testament that mankind should “be fruitful and multiply”, something that cannot be achieved naturally through homosexual partnerships. These facts cannot be denied. It seems clear taking all these verses together that God intended sexual partnerships to exist solely within the context of marriage between a man and a woman, not just for sexual intimacy, but for the purposes of procreation.

But wait! This seems unfair. Why should a monogamous homosexual partnership, committed to mutual fidelity, be considered “bad” and a heterosexual one be considered “good”? Why would God view one partnership as “sin” and the other not sin? If God is just, this seems very unjust. If each dedicated partner also confesses Christ, what difference does it make?

Well, you have to admit, there are an endless number of human relationships in which it would be very inappropriate to add sex into the mix. Leviticus 18 lists numerous laws that define sexual immorality, not just for the people of the Old Covenant, but for modern society. I think most people of modern secular society would agree that sex between a brother and a sister is wrong, or between a father and his daughter, or a man and his mother, or a man and an animal. Wedged within the mix of what much of modern society would mutually agree as morally repugnant sins is this one: “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” Hmm. Well. Considering this, we must consider also the question: why would such an act be viewed as “detestable”? More to the point, considering these were laws directly passed down by God Himself, why would GOD view such an act “detestable”?

Here is a possible explanation, or at least one I’ve heard mentioned by some: The Old Testament contained many laws about cleanliness. Many of these laws are no longer considered relevant to the New Covenant. For instance, the Old Testament law forbidding the consumption of meats from certain animals because of their uncleanliness was superseded by Saint Peter’s vision in which God declared all living things within His creation as clean. Jesus Himself was often criticized by the Pharisees for hanging out with “sinners”, or those deemed too “unclean” to socialize with because of their sins. Jesus also approached, touched, and also healed lepers and those ostracized because of the “uncleanliness” of their disease. He also criticized the Pharisees for being “white washed tombs” who ardently followed the laws of outward cleanliness while possessing hearts that were either cold or dead. Taking all these things together, as followers of Christ and the New Covenant, “cleanliness” laws no longer seem to have any relevance. And so, it is perhaps possible that the Levitical law forbidding sex between two men was placed there because such relations were deemed as unclean.

This would be a valid argument if it weren’t for the passages in the New Testament that also condemn homosexual relations. Romans 1:24-27 describes an undeniably harsh and damning view of those enslaved by sexual lust, especially lusts involving homosexual relations. Of course, one has to also consider the context of these passages. Saint Paul had visited places that literally worshipped the Greek goddess of love, and who practiced such “worship” with all forms of prostitution and sexual depravity. It is very likely that many of these individuals became also victims of sexually transmitted diseases. This would engender disgust in any morally conscious individual. It is why Saint Paul so ardently implored new believers to honor their bodies as holy temples of the Spirit of God by living free from all sexual impurity.

Also, as a Pharisee and one knowledgeable in Levitical law, he would naturally consider also homosexual relations as sexually immoral. That may be true, but he nullifies the argument that his aversion to homosexuality had anything to do with cleanliness. He claims those who engage in homosexual relations have “exchanged natural relations with unnatural ones.” Hmm. Okay. Let us ponder on this one for a bit. What could he mean by that?

Homosexual partnerships, by their very nature, cannot procreate. It is undeniable that human beings would not have been able to procreate since the days of Adam and Eve if not for the benefit of heterosexual relations in conceiving children. Remember the words of the Old Testament – be fruitful and multiply. Women were honored by the number of children they conceived. Test tube babies aside, it would be biologically impossible for the human race to survive into a new generation if everyone were homosexual. By “natural relations” Saint Paul could be literally meaning “of nature”, or consistent with Creation, gender roles, and our biological need to procreate.

The language Saint Paul uses implies that indulging in homosexual relations is a choice. But there are those who argue that homosexuals are “born that way” – that is, there is something inborn in their biology that causes them to lust after those of their own gender. Let us then consider this view. If it is inborn, what would that look like? If human biology was designed by God in part for procreation, why would “nature” allow for homosexual relations? If it did, it would be considered a biological abnormality, since what is biologically normal require relations that encourage the natural conception of human life. This would also imply that homosexual behavior is the result of some kind of biological flaw. But I don’t see too many people advocating that. If it were considered a defect, why aren’t doctors trying to find a cure?

Perhaps there are those who consider it a biological abnormality, but a harmless one.

If you had watched television during the 80s and 90s, you would have seen the stories, the various stories of men who felt forced by society into leading double lives, one devoted to their wives, and another life, hidden from their families, in which they let loose their secret homosexual urges in closeted affairs with men. We who lived during that time frame would have seen them all on TV – both in fiction and in documentaries – of how families were destroyed once they find out the truth. It forced people to wonder that perhaps such men would have been better off in an openly gay monogamous relationship, a relationship that would be both sexually satisfying and without the hypocrisy.

I agree that such men would be happier, and heterosexual women would also better off by simply knowing which men are not worth investing their time in.

The Bible does say, that if two people can’t control their urges, they should marry, lest they burn with passion. So, if two men burn with passion for one another, why should they not marry?

Our U.S. Constitution states that everyone has the right to “the pursuit of happiness.” If having the right to marry makes homosexuals happy, why is that a bad thing? And doesn’t this bring equality to both heterosexual and homosexual couples?

From a legal standpoint, and a constitutional standpoint, there can be no argument made that would justify denying homosexuals of the same rights and privileges of heterosexual couples. Like I mentioned earlier, the denial of rights to homosexual partners came at a great cost during the AIDS epidemic. Regardless of how you feel about such partnerships, we have a social and moral responsibility to provide these individuals the same respect as human beings and citizens of this country.

But while I may have compassion on them in that respect, I am unconvinced that it is not a sin.

While people who prefer like-gender relations would certainly be happier in a physical and emotional sense, does that earthly happiness necessarily mean that God approves of such unions? Saint Paul indicates that God will “give over” those who seek sexual relations with those of their own gender. That is, God will not stop them. He will do nothing to prevent them from pursuing and indulging their lusts. In fact, He will hand them over to be enslaved by them. If they become enslaved, they can have no part with God.

Is this the doom we want homosexuals to endure? Do we want homosexuals to be doomed to an eternity apart from God? As Christians, do we not value and esteem our relationship with God over any other relationship? Isn’t it better to be miserable in this life by denying ourselves of certain earthly pleasures for the sake of an eternity with our Lord? Or are we being unreasonably harsh, unfair, and unrealistic to expect homosexuals to be celibate for the sake of our Lord? You might as well also say Jesus was being unrealistic, unreasonable, and unfair when He tells us to love our enemies, bless those who curse you, turn the other cheek, to give a thief your cloak after he just stole from you another one. (I am of the belief that to love as Jesus asks us to love can only be achieved with the power of the Holy Spirit. Apart from the Holy Spirit, we cannot genuinely love our enemies.)

To truly dedicate oneself to God, you must rely on the Holy Spirit. Without Him, we can do nothing.

Do not members of Alcoholics Anonymous seek the strength of a Higher Power to overcome their addictions? And aren’t such programs been proven successful in breaking people’s addictions, including those who may have a biologically genetic disposition towards addictive behaviors (born that way)? Do not “sinners” everywhere seek the empowerment of the Holy Spirit to let go and overcome their sinful weaknesses? Do we believe God can empower a person to overcome even sexual behaviors that are deemed displeasing to God? Or is our faith too weak to believe such a thing can happen? Or do we believe that, because a person slips again and again into indulging his sexual desires, that he must be “beyond hope” of ever changing? Do we then, at that point, when faced with the reality that the person may never change, decide we must have been in the wrong for encouraging that person to change in the first place? God forbid we adjust our thinking on what is right and what is wrong based on the difficulty a person endures in trying to adjust their lifestyle to that change! While we may have compassion and great mercy on that person as they go through that adjustment of realigning their lives according to what Christ would desire of them, we must still point out their wrong, but in a loving way that still builds them up with the courage to press on. No one said removing sinful desires from our lives would be easy! It’s a lifelong process.

Jesus makes it clear – we cannot love anything or anyone more than Himself. We cannot love any human relationship, even with our spouse, our children, our friends, above that of our relationship with Him. If we pursue any relationship at the risk of losing our relationship with God, then we are in trouble. We are playing with fire. It is one thing to sin and stumble from time to time. It is quite another to become enslaved and addicted to a relationship God does not approve of.

How Shall We Celebrate the Life and Legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.?

Recently, we celebrated the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr.

I grew up in California in the 80’s and I don’t remember much being said about his name or legacy in the public media. My parents talked more about MLK than either my teachers or the media did. Since MLK lived in their generation, it made sense that his influence would have a more meaningful effect on their lives.

Now, it is 2024, and I now live in Atlanta. I am not sure how the rest of the nation views MLK’s life and influence, but at least here in Atlanta, his name has somehow reached the status of legend. He is viewed as a larger than life figure, like some kind of Marvel superhero who valiantly went to battle against the oppression of racism. Yet, nothing could be further than the truth.

A few years ago, I read MLK’s book, Where Do We Go From Here?, a book that was published posthumously, a few years after his death. For people who want to know how the man thought about the world around him and wrestle with how they might continue his mission, read his book.

Martin Luther King was both a Christian, and a black man. As a black man, he both suffered, and saw the suffering of others. And it weighed on his heart, as it did with many of his contemporaries. But while he and other civil rights leaders of his time all agreed that change was badly needed, they all argued over how to go about bringing change into the spotlight. Many of his contemporaries desired a more drastic approach. Some advocated violence. Surely, there was a lot of rage that had been built up over time. And underneath that rage, was a mountain of hurt, sorrow, and anguish from suffering under the chains of cultural racism. MLK understood all this. He’d even sympathize. But he still refused to advocate an “eye for an eye” attitude. He says in his book that he was often criticized – by blacks, other civil rights leaders – for advocating a non-violent, non-forceful approach. While others advocated a “hate thy enemy” approach, he refused to give in. He’d be the only one in the room, all alone. No one took his side. But he said if all the world disagreed with him, it wouldn’t have mattered. As a determined Christian, a follower of Christ, a follower of the man Jesus who taught to “love thy enemy” and “bless those who curse you”, Martin Luther King was utterly resolute in making his stance against racism by some other means.

In his book Where Do We Go From Here? he notes that after civil rights laws had been passed, and civil rights was no longer in the media spotlight, volunteerism had plummeted. Everyone acted as if their cause had ended. And yet, he noted that at the time of his writing, a year after laws had been passed, only one school had been desegregated. He was dismayed that so many felt that the civil rights battle had been fought, and won, and now there’s nothing more to do. There was plenty to do! The battle was still ahead, he felt. There was still much that needed to change, if only people were willing to carry on the fight.

Where, then, is the battle of racism still going on today?

In his book, Just Mercy, published in 2014, Bryan Stevenson exposes the flagrant racism that still exists today within our criminal justice system. And I can attest, as a volunteer within the prison ministry, that there is a disturbing disproportionate number of inmates who are black versus any other race. Bryan Stevenson embodies what MLK stood for. He saw oppression and injustice and decided to do something about it. Bryan Stevenson also reminds us that racism still exists. It’s still a dark shadow of which we have yet to completely eliminate. It’s a stain that still remains in areas within our culture.

But I think it is unwise to consider MLK’s life as one who cared only about eliminating racism. While the remnants of racism still exist, MLK was more than a civil rights activist. He was a devout Christian man who was stirred with compassion for all those under oppression. His compassion was not just reserved for blacks only. He cared also for whites. It might surprise people that MLK considered his next mission in life as a crusade against poverty. Here is what he says in his book:

“The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them. The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty.” [King Jr, Martin Luther. Where Do We Go from Here (King Legacy) (p. 176). Beacon Press. Kindle Edition.]

Why, then, do we honor the man merely for his crusade against racism? His crusade was not just for African Americans. It was for all Americans. All Americans who were subjected to oppression of any kind. Racism is just one form of oppression, and while racism is most certainly a vile form of oppression, there are many others.

As Christians, if we are to learn anything from MLK, it is to be sensitive to the oppressed within our society, whether they be black, white, or some other people group. It is also to be determined to take action, to not sit still and “pray” that someone else will lead the charge. It is also to be unwaveringly determined to instigate change using peaceful means. It is to show compassion, even onto those who are responsible for the oppression in society. It is to deliberately break those laws or standards which are unjust – and then heap grace upon grace on those who inflict harsh punishment.

It is to live a life we should all be demonstrating as believers in Christ: To seek justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God. To learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow. To feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit the prisoner. To show compassion on the foreigner and not turn them away. All these things are biblical. All these are within the calling of the Church, the spiritual Body of Christ. No one individual has a calling to do all these things, but the Body of Christ together works to do all of these.

Do we have the courage to walk in MLK’s shoes? We limit his example by saying it’s all about racism and nothing else. It’s about living up to our calling as Christians. Living up to our calling as followers of Christ. Living up to crusading in some manner on behalf of those who are “weak”, scorned, helpless, disabled, deprived, indigent, oppressed, hungry, naked, homeless, rejected, orphaned, abandoned, etc.

MLK would not appreciate people idolizing him. He would not want people putting him on a pedestal. He would want people to simply do what they already know they should be doing all along. And that is to love one another in action and not just in words. And God willing, we will do so.

Suffering

A friend of mine shared with me a couple videos in which the speaker addressed the issue of suffering.

I admit, suffering is a difficult topic to tackle, especially if you’ve experienced much personal suffering yourself, have been a witness to the suffering of others, or have felt burdened with anxiety by the stories of tragedies, wars, injustices, and pandemics, going on all over the world.

In my own personal life, I’ve survived indescribable trauma from neglect and abandonment at a very young age. These experiences left deep scars. Emotions that had been suppressed for decades suddenly bubbled up to the surface some years ago. I thought I had forgiven those who had hurt me, but I had been blind. I had been in denial of how deep the scars were.

The question that was addressed in the video is this: How do we reconcile suffering with a good God?

I believe that if we ask this question, it is because we have not meditated long enough upon the sufferings of God Himself. Surely, God has suffered. He is painfully cut to the heart each time He is sinned against and rejected by those of whom He had created to be His image bearers. His Son, also, was well acquainted with suffering, sorrow, persecution, even death on a cross. How do we reconcile Christ’s suffering with His perfect, sinless life? He who knew no sin… suffered the humiliating death of a criminal. What an injustice! And God the Father did nothing to save Him. Even so, God the Father suffered the most heartbreaking loss any parent could endure: the loss of his only Son.

Contrast this suffering to the suffering that affects all mortal human life. It is the suffering every human being endures. It is the result of the Fall. This type of suffering is meant to make us humble, so that we never think more of ourselves than what we ought. God told Adam that if he ate of the forbidden tree, he would surely die. But God in His mercy allowed Adam to live. Even so, God was very harsh on Adam. He threw Adam out of the garden and told him that from now on, life will no longer be easy. Instead, it will be full of suffering. And we’ve been living under that curse ever since.

When the sufferings of this life felt overwhelming, the faithful in the Old Testament cried out to the Lord for mercy. Why did they cry out for mercy? Because they considered their very lives to be a blessing from God. Surely, God would have been just to end the entire human race since all had rebelled against Him in some way. And if our very lives are blessings from God, we have no right to complain, even of our sufferings. The faithful pleaded with God not because they felt they had any right to complain, but because they knew God to be a God of mercy. They understood God as a Father who is compassionate towards those who love Him.

“Suffering is having what you don’t want or wanting what you don’t have.”

This is the definition that was given in the video. However, in my opinion, this definition sounds a bit too self-centered. Based on this logic, if I don’t get what I want, then I’m… suffering? Any minor inconvenience could fall into that category. But I wouldn’t call that “suffering”. If a person feels he is suffering every time he doesn’t have what he wants, then he is a miserable soul indeed! This definition certainly describes the needless “suffering” of a self-centered soul, who resents the things he does have and covets the things he doesn’t. I don’t see how it applies to the sufferings of someone of faith. It describes someone who grumbles whenever things don’t go as planned, or the petulant “suffering” of a child who has been deprived of his toys. This definition may describe the reason why people indulge in resentful complaining when things don’t go their way. But this isn’t suffering.

True suffering goes far deeper. Suffering is enduring great hardship, pain, or loss.

We all know what it means to suffer. The wounds are deep and painful. You are cut to the heart. Both your heart and spirit are broken, shredded, and trampled on. It is the heartbreak over a broken relationship. It is the rejection of friends and family. It is the affliction of an intensely painful disease. It is the indescribable loss of someone dearly loved. It is enduring the ugliness of abuse and the persecution and betrayal of friends. It is walking in the same shoes as Job did, experiencing the same hardships he did, when he lost his wealth, his marriage, and his entire household, and he sat in ashes as boils afflicted his skin.

Suffering HURTS. It is PAINFUL. And if neither loss nor tragedy causes you pain, sorrow, or tears, you need to check your pulse. Because suffering will happen to us all, both Christian and non-Christian alike. No one is immune.

Suffering will do one of two things to a person: either it will soften the heart, or it will harden it. A softened heart will humbly accept the pain and will pour out their heart before God and others, in unashamed tears of sorrow. A hardened heart will be too proud to indulge in sorrow. A hardened heart may even consider the pain unacceptable. Such people will either fight bitterly against it, attempt to flee from it by avoiding, minimizing, or dulling the pain, or they will wallow in self-pity. Suffering will build up the character of someone whose heart is softened, but it will only worsen the character of someone whose heart is hardened.

May we never trivialize the sufferings of Christ. Certainly, He suffered, but He thought nothing of His own sufferings, or His own wants and cares, but He purposed Himself to consider and do only the will of His Father. God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son to die a brutal death upon a Cross. Yet in no way did Christ despise the Cross of which He experienced the greatest physical pain one can imagine. Not only did He not despise it – He embraced it gladly because He knew the gain His followers would receive as a result of His sacrifice. His greatest “want”, His greatest desire, was not to gain anything for Himself, but for us to gain an eternal inheritance. Surely, Christ achieved this goal. But it was not without great sorrow and loss! It was not without suffering!

Christ’s sufferings remind me of a classic story, Sleeping Beauty. As you might recall, the princess is in a deep sleep, and only the kiss of a prince will revive her. But in the story, the valiant prince, her betrothed, is imprisoned, and once released, he must go on a quest fighting a fierce dragon. He endures one hardship after another, one battle after another, but he does so willingly and without complaint, because his eye is on his prize – his betrothed. In similar fashion, out of love for His Bride, the Church, Christ was willing to endure any quest, any hardship, any form of suffering, to raise up the Church, from death to life.

To love as Jesus loved is to love so deeply that all our self-focused wants and desires are nothing in comparison to being with Him, in meeting the needs and interests of others, to give until it hurts, so that others will not be in want, to intercede on behalf of the saints to the point of tears, to ache in our hearts for those who have fallen away from the faith, to bless those who curse you so that they may receive a blessing and know the grace of God. To suffer as Jesus suffered is to look towards our eternal inheritance: “For the joy set before Him, He endured the cross.” For the joy set before us, eternal life with our Lord and Savior, we gladly accept our momentary sufferings in this world.

Suffering in this way puts an end to all manner of attitudes of self-interest. Never again will you give any thought to consider suffering “unacceptable”. In fact, Saint Paul considered his suffering the “glory” of the people of whom he ministered to. When he was questioned regarding his qualifications as an apostle, he could have listed all the churches he had started during his missionary journeys, but instead, he listed all the sufferings and hardships he had faced since becoming a disciple of Christ: he had been stoned, flogged, shipwrecked, imprisoned, all for the sake of the gospel. How might our own attitudes of suffering change if we looked at suffering in the same perspective?

John chapter 9 describes a story of a man born blind. The story begins with Jesus’ disciples discussing what “caused” the man to be born blind: was it his sin, or the sin of his parents? Jesus’ response blows the mind and flips all our assumptions about suffering on its head: “Neither, but so that the glory of God may be revealed.”

This verse had earth-shattering implications for me. I have suffered eye disease since early childhood. I have gone through countless eye surgeries. I thank God every day for the vision I still have, but I must confess, there had been times I’ve asked the question, “Why, God?” Jesus’ answer regarding the man born blind gave me great hope that God could use my suffering for His glory. I have since shared my story to others, and I’ve given God all the credit for preserving my eyesight for the last forty years. God has watched over me, and I’ve done more with my life than I ever thought possible, considering all that I have endured since early childhood. He alone sustains me.

“We say that there ought to be no sorrow, but there is sorrow, and we have to accept and receive ourselves in its fires. If we try to evade sorrow, refusing to deal with it, we are foolish. Sorrow is one of the biggest facts in life, and there is no use in saying it should not be. Sin, sorrow, and suffering are, and it is not for us to say that God has made a mistake in allowing them. Sorrow removes a great deal of a person’s shallowness, but it does not always make that person better. Suffering either gives me to myself or it destroys me.” – OSWALD CHAMBERS

Romans 8:18 – “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.”

FAITH

Christians use the word faith a lot. But do Christians really know what the word means?

I believe it is vital for Christians to know and understand the definitions of the words they use all the time; words such as faith, grace, love, covenant, sacrament, etc.

Here is what faith is not:
• It is not simply having a belief in something
• It is not wishful thinking
• It is not being smart enough to be able to use the word faith in a sentence
• It is not having all the Scriptures memorized that has the word faith in them
• It is not a catch phrase
• It is not ‘blind’

So, what is it?

One place to start is the dictionary.

faith /fāTH/ noun

complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Let’s think about this. Let’s ponder it deeply. Having faith is having complete trust. It means you are 100% confident that something is true. Thus, if you have faith in a person, that means you have 100% trust in him. That person is 100% reliable. There isn’t a doubt in your mind. It is “complete trust”. Therefore, if you say you have faith in God, then you are saying you have complete trust in Him. It doesn’t mean simply that you believe God exists. It means you consider Him 100% reliable. He is 100% dependable.

Here is another thing to keep in mind. The book of James says that faith without works is worthless. Now, let’s not confuse “works” that James refers to with the empty “works” that St. Paul talks about in his letters. James is making the point that some people are frankly hypocrites. They say one thing and do another. I think we can all agree that the “faith” of hypocrites is no faith at all! It is worthless. The faith that God wants us to have, the faith that God consistently honors and blesses throughout Scripture, in both the Old and New Testaments, is a faith that is so sure, so unwaveringly certain, that one responds with unquestioning obedience to whatever God asks of that person, even if what He promises or asks of a person may seem illogical, dangerous, or downright crazy. God asked Abraham to believe he’d father a child even in his old age. He asked Gideon to form an army of a measly two hundred to confront enemy armies of thousands, and tens of thousands. He asked Noah to build an ark and told him to just trust Him that He would flood the earth, even though such a thing had never happened before in the history of all mankind, and Noah had never even seen rain fall from the sky. He had never seen a rainbow. God had anointed David as heir to the throne, but David had to put his entire trust in God while dodging enemies on all sides, including King Saul, who were trying to kill him. None of these valiant folk were hailed for their passionate submission to the Mosaic Law, as written in the Ten Commandments and expounded in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. But they were hailed by their faith, their complete confidence that they could depend on God. If God said something was going to happen, they believed it. If God told them to do something, they did it without question because they knew God as an all-knowing god who knew what He was talking about. They loved God and all the things that God valued and loved. They loved all His characteristics. They knew God as a god who was merciful, just, forgiving, gracious, tenderhearted, compassionate, almighty, powerful, a great protector, defender, dependable, honest, honorable, and kind. And God never did anything “out of character”. The Law taught them only that they fell far short of being considered worthy of acceptance as His holy people. They understood that their standing as God’s chosen people rested entirely on God’s faithful willingness to forgive and give them a clean slate every time they repented. Thus, they relied not on themselves but solely on the integrity and character of God. And this is the faith of a Christian – that we are realistic of who we are: flawed, weak, and corrupted human beings, who will one day die and return to the earth as dust – and of who God is: singular (there is only one god), eternal, holy, divine, perfect, all-knowing, all powerful, sovereign king, judge, healer, life-giver, provider, comforter, savior, defender, protector, and friend – AND we act on that knowledge in the things that we do, in at least one aspect of our lives. That is, perhaps we’ve learned to depend on God in our activities in some areas of our lives but not in others, such as perhaps we hit a rough spot in our marriage and we learned to “give it to God” and when we did that, things worked themselves out. Or perhaps you lost your job and you’ve had to depend on God to provide for basic things like food or enough money to pay the bills, something you never had to do before, you always lived comfortably before and kind of took it for granted that you always had more than enough to provide for your needs. Ironically, when we let go of ourselves and the dependence we’ve always had on our own strength to get us through, that is when we are the most free. And that is when our faith in God shines the brightest. And this is precisely the type of faith God consistently honors again and again all throughout Scripture.

Does that mean the Law is meaningless? What did King David do once he was confronted by Nathan regarding his sin? David had slept with Bathsheba, had her husband killed, and then took her as his wife. He had accomplished all this with cold-hearted determination. He had no conscious, no remorse. He was consumed with single-minded possessive lust. But once Nathan confronted him regarding his sin, his heart crumbled. You see, deep down inside, David loved the Lord. He had never lost his love for God. He loved the Lord and treasured all of God’s laws and statutes as being just and fair. When the realization of what he had done hit home, he confessed to God, “Against You only have I sinned.” Surely, he had sinned against a great number of people, but what broke his heart the most was the feeling that he had betrayed God. In his heart he knew he had done everything God despises – lust, adultery, deceit, murder, and countless other sins. He mourned in tears for many days and barely ate a thing. When confronted of our sins, our hearts should respond as David’s did. It should cut us to the heart. If we truly love God, it should tear us up inside. At the same time, we remember also who God is. There is no sin so great that God is unable or unwilling to forgive. We may feel low and dejected, cut to the heart, but at the same time, we can go before the throne of grace in tears and mourning, confessing our sins to God, confident that God who loves us with an all-consuming love, will forgive us and restore our broken spirits. This, too, demonstrates faith. David had faith in the Law as being good and just and also in God’s merciful nature, being someone who also was always eager to forgive a contrite heart.

Some people will say, “I have faith in God’s promises.” But we don’t put our faith in promises. Would you trust a promise made by a con artist to pay you back the money you loaned him? Probably not. But I’m guessing you would believe the same promise if it came from a trustworthy source, like a nun or priest. Thus, a promise is only as reliable as the promise-keeper. But what if you don’t trust nuns or priests. Then you wouldn’t put any faith in their promises either, even if they were good people. Thus, the amount of secure confidence you have in someone fulfilling their promise is only as great as your trust in that person’s integrity. Thus, your trust in God’s promises is directly linked to what you believe to be true about God Himself. If you think of God as distant, capricious, and uncaring, you probably are not going to have much faith in God’s promises to help you in your moment of crisis. However, if you think of God as intimate, merciful, compassionate, powerful, and attentive, you will be quick to call upon Him in faith that he will listen to your cries for help and save you in your time of need. You will be quick to believe in His promises because of what you believe about HIM.
I have often heard it said that God is a “covenant-making God”, as if that is supposed to be a mind-blowing concept. But we make covenants all the time. We get married, make promises to friends and family that we’ll spend more time with them, etc. We make promises and vows all the time. That’s not mind-blowing at all. It’s easy to MAKE promises. It’s easy to exchange wedding vows and throw a party. What’s mind-blowing about God is not that He makes covenantal relational vows with us. What’s mind-blowing is that He would be willing to stay loyal even when the covenant has been broken. There is one and only one condition that is acceptable by God for a man to divorce his wife and that is in the case of adultery. In the case of the covenant God made with Israel, God describes Himself as a husband being married to an adulterous wife (Israel). Over and over again, God reminds Israel, you have broken my covenant. By reminding Israel of this fact, He is saying, “Understand this: Because you’ve broken my covenant, I’m no longer bound by covenant to stay loyal to you or to keep my promises. You are acting like an adulterous wife, and I would be well within my rights to reject you and accept a new people, a new nation, to become my holy people. Even so, I have chosen NOT to reject you – I still love you, regardless of what you have done. Therefore, I choose to keep all the promises I had made to you, as if you had always been a faithful wife.”

Think about this. Ponder this deeply. Do you know anyone who would willingly put up with that kind of abuse?
This is mind-blowing. Adultery is the worst kind of betrayal. Imagine making promise after promise to your spouse, during your marriage’s honeymoon stage, expecting the relationship to last for as long as the two of you are alive, only to find out your beloved has been playing the field. Every instinct inside of you wants to leave this horribly dysfunctional and broken relationship. You feel angry, rejected, unappreciated, and unloved. Your heart is broken, and you know you have every right to leave the relationship for good. Yet, your heart breaks for your spouse. You find it in your heart to still love the person. And you make the conscious decision to not only stay faithful to that person as their spouse, but you are determined to fulfill all the promises you made from the moment you were first wed. If we are honest, we would probably call such a person a fool for being so naïve. That person is headed for heartbreak and disaster if they willfully choose to stay in such a relationship. But God was neither naïve nor blind when he made his decision. He knew what was in their hearts. He knew they’d probably betray Him again and again. He knew exactly what He was getting into. He knew He would ultimately suffer a lot of pain and heartache from a people who refused to listen to Him, time and time again. But by keeping his promises, he crowned them with unmerited favor.

This is the faithfulness of God. It defies all human instincts. Most people would run away from an adulterous relationship. Many walk away from that kind of betrayal feeling resentful and scarred. The depth of human love simply cannot comprehend the depth of pain and sorrow God was willing to embrace on behalf of his chosen, beloved people. In love, He willingly chose to stay bonded with Israel. It is impossible for human love to contemplate that kind of unwavering devotion. It doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t sound safe. Why would someone be that faithful to someone undeserved?

While there are some individuals who willingly stay in abusive relationships, they usually do so at great cost to themselves. They are battered, bruised, both physically and psychologically. They’ve been scarred deeply. They may suffer from a myriad of psychological disorders: anxiety, depression, battered wife syndrome, low self-worth, PTSD, alcoholism, substance abuse, etc. God is the only One capable of putting up with abuse and stand unhindered. God certainly grieves over sin, and even punishes us in anger and wrath, but our behavior never affects His character. His character and integrity never changes based on what we do. He never takes back His promises just because we’ve disappointed Him. He never becomes anxious, frustrated, bitter, or resentful over our own “bad behavior”. He never worries and frets over us. He’s never depressed. Never afraid. The magnitude of God’s patient love and tender sorrow for us is so great, that these emotions end up overriding everything else, and only the divine mind of God can supernaturally endure it unscathed.

Our reaction to God’s unmerited faithfulness to us should humble us. It should touch us deeply. There is no other love like this. It reveals to us how precious we are in His eyes. And because we are precious to Him, He is dependable. We can trust Him always.

Will you put your trust in Him today?