Back in the Saddle

Is there any more romanticized image than that of a Canadian Mounted on horseback? All dressed in their resplendent red uniform?

I am back from the Canadian wilds, now safely ensconsed in my home office, listening to the sound of a power lawn mower in the next yard. It's 8:30 in the morning, but I do not mind the sound ... it brings back quite fond memories for me. It took me a bit to determine what was making the sound ... I didn't expect to hear the sound of a lawn mower in the Arizona desert. But my next door neighbor has grass in his back yard.

My trip to the north country was, as I mentioned to you, less than enjoyable due to the sudden cold snap that hit the area (daily highs only in the low 40's F) and a rather nagging illness that came upon me. My illness started out as flu-like symptoms: aches, chills, fever; it then morphed to fever, headache and a severe sore throat; then to a more classic head/chest cold. Today, some 10 days after the first onset of symptoms, I'm still suffering from the residual effect.

Ah, but this too shall pass.

My lovely bride is this day off with her mother in the heart of West Virginia. She reports it is a deep, lush green there.

* * *
The trouble with knowing whether to follow a commandment is determining if it truly is "from God." If we knew for certain that it was -- think Moses and the burning bush; think Isaiah in 6:1-7; think John in Revelation -- then I think there'd be little question as to our obedience. Of course we would, for if we really had a direct experience like that the overwhelming power of the presence of God would compel us. But what about when we're not absolutely certain? That's when Scripture tells us to "test" the vision against Scripture. And that, good friend, is anything but a precise, deterministic thing.

Note: The press has said much about George W. Bush saying he was "directed by God" to invade Iraq. That's not true; he never said that. What he said was that he sought God's guidance in all his decisions. That's something different than saying he asked God to "tell him" what to do. It's a subtle difference, one lost on secular journalists, but a difference nonetheless.

There's a good deal of depth and complexity to the topic of whether God's nature permits him to command others to die, and whether we today are ever called to be his agents in the death of others. I think it would be difficult to support on a personal level -- that is, "God told me to kill my neighbor." It is less difficult to support in the realm of governments going to war, for Scripture clearly says that all authorities on this earth are instituted by God -- good or bad authorities, I would gather, which then takes us into the deep waters of the distinction between "causing" and "ordaining."

One perspective I try to maintain is this: we exist at all only by the Grace of God. We have no inherent right to live or exist outside God's will that we do. Our not being completely destroyed is not an example of his justice but his mercy. Therefore, to think that God might command a death does not run counter to the very nature of God. But of course the idea that we are enemies of God outside the saving works of Christ is a foreign concept in this secular world.

There is within the Christian faith a very complex tension between the perfect love of God and his perfect wrath. We have tended to overlook the fact that God possesses devine wrath. It's not "gone" in the New Testament ... it's just that Jesus took the full brunt on the cross.

Note: and here's the controversial part, at least in this day and age: not everyone benefits from Jesus' saving works, but only those who truly trust that only Christ's work can save them. Those who reject Jesus will face God's wrath one day. The good news -- the Gospel -- is that all may come to Jesus. (Let's set aside the notion of predestination and the elect, okay?)

There are such "tensions". I usually get funny looks from people in Bible studies when I bring them up. I suspect some think I mean "contradiction" or "paradox" when I use the word "tension." I don't, but better words fail me.

* * *
In Bible study last Sunday I tried to express a false dichotomy that's often set up -- that one must believe the Bible to be "literal" or one must believe the Bible to be untrustworthy. Look at any secular article on the debate over "Intelligent Design" and you'll see this: they argue that to believe in ID, one must believe in the literal account of creation found in Genesis.

That the Bible must be taken as literal is one of the trickeries of the devil. Some of the Bible is literal, to be sure. Some is not. The point has never been that the Bible is literal, but that it is truthful.

The real offense of "The Da Vinci Code" is not that it suggests Jesus was married or had a child; the real offense is that it undermines the authority and sufficiency of the Bible.

And believing the Bible to be authoritative and sufficient is, ultimately, an act of faith. One chooses to believe it ... based, ideally, on something more than wishful thinking ... but ultimately the Bible as the "Word of God" is not a provable thing.

It is, as I'm fond of saying, a "foundational premise."

I heard R.C. Sproul say that the other day ... therefore it must be true. :-)