Every once in a while, there is a book that I just cannot finish - it's not worth my time.
This month, it's a fiction book (murder and general mystery book) titled "Liquid Fear."
Even with the plot already laid out, I don't get it.
well, I do get it, but I'm not enjoying it. Others might, it's just not my deal.
For me, Book Fail
I am starting on a task: to memorize the book of Philippians. So far, I have chapter 1, verses 1-7 (7 is shaky)
Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus,
To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
I thank my God in all my remembrance of you,
always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy,
because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now.
And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.
It struck me again, the "why" - it's the Gospel.
Why does Paul thank God for the Philippians? Because of their partnership in the Gospel.
What is the good work? the partnership in the Gospel.
Why does Paul hold them in his heart? they are partakers with him of grace (the Gospel)
I am puzzling over verse 7.
NIV renders it
whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God’s grace with me.
vs the ESV
or you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.
It seems a little thing, in the NIV Paul comes first, in the ESV, the Philippians come first.
But it is a big thing:
In the NIV Paul puts himself first, and (given the lack of punctuation in the translation, is taking the credit for himself.
whether I am in chains or [whether I am] defending or confirming the Gospel, all of you share in God's grace with me.
The two acts are as one - in chains or defending and confirming
In the ESV, Paul puts other first:
YOU are all partakers with me, BOTH in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the Gospel
the "both" specifically makes them two different acts.
The Philippians shared grace with Paul while he was imprisoned and they shared grace when they defended and confirmed the Gospel.
To me, that becomes important in knowing the character of Paul.
I have heard it said (correctly) that the early Christians faced a moral world that in either the same depravity, or worse than what we see now.
Well, farther back than that.
If the Hebrew people had not lived surrounded by idolators and other evils, they would not have fallen in WITH them. So the evidence is that their world saw evil, as ours does.
The Jews just before Christ had forcibly dispersed, and some had returned; and the evil that they saw was as evil as today.
I think (purely subjective) that today seems more difficult for us because it appears so new to us. And (objectively) we do see things that we have NEVER seen before.
Was immorality rampant in 1st Century Rome? Absolutely. Was it worse than today? I don't know. Some say yes, others say no.
I think that we feel it more because Western Christians have long enjoyed "majority rule," thus staying safely wrapped in the insulation of tunnel vision.
The phrase "total depravity" best describes the world, and always has. We expect it.
We grieve - yes, for that depravity, but we grieve having to stand by, seemingly helpless, watching the DECLINE of our country and culture, at a breakneck speed.
Homosexuality is the best example.
Only a couple of decades ago, we (collectively) viewed same-sex-sex as abnormal. We knew gay people, we loved them as friends and family, but we loved them, not their chosen lifestyle.
Gay people sometimes (perhaps often) faced bullies and that should never have happened. People should never see bullying as acceptable.
In (culturally speaking) a very short amount of time, we see a decline.
- Traditional family unit (dad, mom, kids) and the gay community as outliers.
- A move away from the traditional family unit with the introduction of "consequence free sex" and "no-fault-divorce" (note: we do find good and Biblical reasons for divorce, and I don't find "nobody's fault" on the list.)
- With the traditional family unit undermined, open acceptance of the homosexual becomes tolerated by the culture
- As single motherhood becomes more acceptable, homosexuality becomes not only tolerated, but acceptable as a viable option.
- Demand of recognition of gay relationships becomes more popular, as does public spending for single motherhood.
- Demand of recognition of gay relationships becomes the demand that the culture view those relationships as identical to heterosexual relationships.
- The demand to see homosexual relationships as identical becomes the demand for culture (via "we the people") to sanction these relationships.
- the demand for sanction becomes the demand for approval
- the demand for approval becomes the demand for celebration by all people.
- the demand for celebration becomes the demand for participation, regardless of sincerely held religious convictions.
As Christians today look around and see our spiritual siblings SUED and FORCED to provide services to ceremonies found morally offensive, I find myself able to identify with Christians in other times and places, who steep in total depravity through no fault of their own.
We, who enjoyed cultural insulation for centuries, may find this a difficult transition. No, we WILL find this a difficult transition. From power to weakness, from majority to minority, from peace to persecution.
Is the "remnant" ready? I want to be part of the remnant - and I know I'm not ready. If the "steps of grieving" can be applied to this - I'm still in the "denial stage" but we need to get ready.
We need to be in the world, but not of the word. Persecution awaits, Jesus promised. Whether we will be found worthy of the persecution that HE endured, is yet to be seen.
(In preparation for the upcoming election cycle - with an eye toward "where faith and politics intersect."
when I discuss the "contraception mandate" or the "gay agenda", I specifically use the term "leftist" instead of "liberal."
I've heard the question asked again and again, "why can't we reach a compromise?"
I believe the answer lies in the "rise of the wings" - classic liberalism and classic conservatism had much in common. When the "wings" - right wing and left wing - move further and further apart, compromise becomes more difficult.
Classic conservatism and classic liberalism had, more or less, the same goals. Left wing politics and right wing politics do not.
One problem is that modern politics don't use Biblical meanings. Christianity stresses personal responsibility, while the following thoughts on political conservatism stress societal responsibility. Liberal politics stress individual rights, but not responsibility.
A couple of basic definitions:
Conservative: A traditional conservative will support any social institution (public or private) that promotes and maintains social order and public good. A traditional conservative will emphasize the social/societal (both social responsibility and social benefit) over the isolated individual. (link)
Liberal: When the term “liberalism” (from the Latin word liberalis, meaning “pertaining to a free man”) first emerged in the early 1800s, it was founded on an unwavering belief in individual rights, the rule of law, limited government, private property, and laissez faire economics. These would remain the defining characteristics of liberalism throughout the liberal epoch, generally identified as the period from 1815-1914.
I'm looking for a simple comparison between "conservative" and "right wing" - which will be useful. But for time being, here is a short comparison between "liberal" and "leftist:"
Similarly, a liberal believes in and defends our Western heritage, while desiring to make it more egalitarian. A leftist is instinctively hostile to the Western heritage, regarding it as fundamentally unequal and therefore bad, and only redeemable through radical change. link
we are seeing it more and more, most publicly in both the "gay marriage" debate (you WILL celebrate the gay, or be sued) and the Hobby Lobby decision (Leftists are getting ever more open about wanting to eradicate religious liberty.)
And so it begins.