Prejudice

Straight AheadDo you really believe that you are without prejudice? If you truly believe that, you are sadly mistaken. Everyone has prejudice. What's more, it's probably inevitable; and if we didn't have some prejudices, we wouldn't be able to function very well in our daily lives. Are you shocked that I would make such a statement? Are you perhaps even wondering how a Christian minister could say such things? Well, I've been saying such things for many years. If you think about it with me for a minute, you may come away with some surprising conclusions! What is prejudice? It is a prejudgment, or a preconceived notion about something or somebody, perhaps some group of people or ideas. A prejudice can be either good or bad, either for or against its object. Some people are prejudiced against certain racial, national, or ethnic groups. Most of us would agree that such prejudices are unwarranted, and worse. But people have prejudices against all kinds of things. You may have a prejudice against certain vocations or occupations. Some people are prejudiced against the rich. Some people are prejudiced against the poor. People have prejudices against the blind, the deaf, the Southerners, the Northerners, the evangelical Christians, the Catholics, the Jews; but people also can have a favorable bias toward their family, their friends, their lovers, their spouses, their school, their sports teams, their make of car--and on and on it goes. Many of these prejudices, whether for or against their object, may be relatively harmless; but many are quite unreasonable and can turn dangerous. You may not even be aware of your prejudices. They may be very subtle, even sub-conscious, responses to the world around you; but they are still influencing the decisions you make. A person may have a prejudice against a certain group. Let's say you are prejudiced against blind people. I suppose I would be unhappy about that. But you may have only met three or four blind people in your life. Perhaps the blind people you met were rude, obnoxious, stumgling, incompetent, or otherwise unpleasant. If all the blind people you met were like that, and you only met a few blind people, wouldn't it be reasonable for you to assume that most blind people acted like the ones you had met? At the very least, if you had to make a decision about something to do with a blind person, you would be likely to rely on your past experiences--limited though they might be--in making that decision. Would that be fair? Perhaps not. But would it be reasonable. It quite possibly would be. If I were ever on a committee judging candidates for a position and was confronted by a blind candidate, I would very likely be harder on the blind person than the sighted people on the committee. Of course, many prejudices are not based so much on any kind of personal experience, but on fear or mistrust of something or someone who is different. While this kind of prejudice is certainly less reasonable, it can be exploited by opportunists and made to appear reasonable to certain types of people within a community. These are the kinds of prejudices that may not have initially been malicious, but were used by politicians or others to achieve power and dominance over a particular group in society. Segregationists in the South used this tactic to whip up a frenzy against blacks for 80 years. The tactic is still used today by opportunistic politicians and others to encourage prejudice and fear by new sets of victims. People think nothing of prejudices against politicians, doctors, businessmen, lawyers, car dealers, or whatever occupation, vocation, or class of people doesn't appeal to them; but those kinds of prejudices are taken in stride and assumed by many to be quite understandable and even normal. I always say that if you took a survey of all the occupations and vocations in the world, you'd find about the same percentage of good and bad, honest and dishonest, in all of them--including ministers. Some religions even teach that God has a bias in favor of the poor; and biblical texts are often dragged out of context in support of this notion which I admit to finding rather strange. The fact of the matter is that we all have preconceived notions or prejudgments about something or other--and we use those prejudgments every day to make decisions because we can't possibly have enough information about everything we need to know in order to make all the decisions, large and small, that face us during our lives. We will either respond favorably or unfavorably in certain situations toward certain individuals or groups; but to argue that our responses and actions are always based on rational and logical grounds is folly. We all have our own set of criteria which will determine those groups or individuals toward whom we will respond favorably and those to whom we will respond negatively; and your criteria may be very different from mine; but in any case, we all have our own set of positive and negative prejudices. The key is that we must not allow these prejudices to drive us to violent or hateful behavior. We must be willing to give up those prejudices which prove truly destructive or totally unfair and wrong. We must not allow our displeasure over the actions of one person to color our attitude toward an entire group; and we must allow for the possibility that even that one person can be forgiven and may change their conduct. We must also realize that our perceptions of certain actions may have been incorrect and be prepared to change our opinions when we see our own mistake in judgment. We can deplore the actions of a person without condemning that person. This is the way of Christianity. Even Christianity, however, does not demand that we disavow all prejudgments or preconceived notions. It simply demands that we be open to the truth, no matter where the truth may lead us; and that we allow love to conquer our fears and prejudices. Nobody is completely without prejudice, nor indeed can be!

Three Perspectives on Blindness

Straight AheadI was reading an article in a magazine this week that made me consider various perspectives on blindness. It was a magazine published by an organization for the blind. The article was actually a reprint of a newspaper item about a man who is totally blind. His perspective on blindness was a bit odd to me; but it reflects the view of this particular organization--the National Federation of the Blind. He said that blindness "is neither good nor bad; it just is." This organization also has the habit of saying things like, "It's respectable to be blind." These kinds of comments make no sense to me. Certainly, I don't think that blind people are, by definition, inferior to other people just because they're blind. (I could hardly take that stance, since I myself am totally blind and am seeking to live and work daily among sighted people." To say however that it's "respectable to be blind," or, even worse, that "blindness is neither good nor bad," seems illogical. Blindness, looking purely from the physical and natural perspective, is a limitation. It is a handicap. Surely, we are not to assume that it isn't preferable to be sighted! If this man had the opportunity to have 20/20 vision tomorrow morning, would he not jump at the opportunity? To say, as this organization does, that blindness is no more important than the color of one's hair or one's body build is hardly a realistic way to look at such a physical limitation. It's hard to take people or organizations seriously when they seem to think that blindness is just a neutral characteristic in a person's life! Of course, another way to look at blindness would be to say that it's a total tragedy, that it takes away all hope of happiness or productive and meaningful activity. Of course, that isn't true, either. Many families are overly protective of their blind children or other blind friends or family members, not wanting them to be hurt and fearing that they will inevitably fail in the competitive environment of the sighted world. And of course, when we expect to fail, or when we expect others to fail, and do nothing to prepare for any other outcome, failure wil usually be the result. But the failure will probably not be because of the blindness. It will be because of the other factors that went into the whole life story. Blindness requires that we find other ways of doing things, creative and resourceful strategies to work around the problems blindness poses. The visual limitation does not, however, prevent us from taking part in most normal activities of daily life; and it need not prevent us from being successful in most work or home environments. There is a third perspective from which to consider blindness. That of course is the Christian perspective. From this perspective, and only from this perspective, we can view blindness as a positive good, as actually being a gift from God. My blindness was given to me by God in order to glorify His name and accomplish His particular purposes for my life and, through my life, to be a blessing to others. This viewpoint takes seriously the biblical doctrine of the sovereignty of God and allows us to realize that God assumes the ultimate responsibility for the outcome of His plans. To say that blindness is neither good nor bad as a physical characteristic is truly bizarre and incomprehensible to me; but to say that blindness is an unmitigated disaster, extinguishing all hope and joy is unnecessary and a denial of the good purposes of God for one who is a Christian. The only acceptable way to think about my blindness as a Christian, difficult though this often is, can only be an affirmation and thanksgiving that God has given me this blindness as a gift and then has called me into the ministry to share this gift with the worshippers whom I serve as pastor, teacher and preacher. I am very thankful to a very dear friend who is an ordained minister of the Episcopal Church for helping me to see this third perspective in the past few months. In the natural world, I don't know whether it's respectable to be blind. I'm not even sure what that would mean. As a Christian, however, it is my delight to seek to do the will of my heavenly Father. If that includes being blind, it's more than respectable!

Total Depravity

Straight AheadTotal depravity is a key doctrine of reformed theology. Unfortunately, many Christians, even many who call themselves reformed, are not very clear on what it means or very sure they want to claim it as their own. Currently, I am showing a video series to our Wednesday night study group by R. C. Sproul which deals with the key doctrines of reformed theology. Last night, we began a two-part presentation concerning the doctrine of total depravity. As I reflected upon Sproul's comments and my own understanding, I realized that some gleanings on this concept would be a worthy entry for this blog. So what is total depravity? It is the belief that by man's first sin, every aspect of our being became infected with sin. We sin, therefore, because we are, by nature, sinners. It is not the individual sin itself that makes us sinners. We sin because we already are sinners. We do not have the moral capacity to choose spiritual good because we have experienced what Sproul calls a "radical corruption" of our very nature. Without the regenerating power of God's Holy Spirit, we cannot possibly do anything that is spiritually or morally virtuous. Most people, even among professing Christians or evangelicals, seem to believe that mankind is basically good. It may come as a shock therefore to some who read this blog that the exact opposite is true. The Bible makes it clear that man is basically evil to his very core. This is what the doctrine of original sin explains. Original sin does not just refer to the first sin, but to its results, to the condition into which each of us are born. Once a person grasps these truths, the rest of the system of reformed theology that is propounded in the historical documents of the Reformation becomes much clearer and much less intimidating. It is these doctrines of the Reformation, from the historic creeds and confessions of the sixteenth and seventeenth century, to which the church must return if it is ever to regain its vitality and its biblically transformational power in our own day.

Transfiguration Lectionary Epistle Reading for Year C, 2 Corinthians 3:12-4:2:

Straight AheadLet me at least make a few brief comments about this epistle reading. The veil that kept the Jew from seeing the true identity of Christ and the glorious possibilities of grace should have been lifted for all time when the veil of the tabernacle was rent in twain. The liberty or freedom of the Spirit, however, was resisted and is still being resisted to this day by some--within and without the church. First, some still believe that in keeping of laws and rules, there is great reward leading to eternal salvation. Clearly, this could not possibly be true. If it were true, then the entire life and ministry of Christ would be to no purpose. There are also, however, those who still persist in practicing rituals and ceremonies in the belief that such [practices will make them worthy to gain eternal life. These things were but a shadow of the reality. They no longer profit. The Transfiguration was to give evidence of the present reality of Christ and His all-surpassing glory. It was to indicate the sense in which Christ superseded the law of Moses--not making that law of none effect, but freeing the believer from the hopelessness and the burdensome rituals of pre-Christian religion. We are now under grace, not condemned by the letter of the law. For where the Spirit is, there is liberty. This is also a very Trinitarian passage, linking the persons of the Trinity inextricably together frequently. This passage certainly does not free us from the moral law of God, but only points us to the Saviour, by whose grace we are freed to live as a holy people. It does, however, free us from the rigors of man's traditions. These are only preliminary observations. Clearly, however, we can see that Paul considered those as blind, with a veil over their eyes, who could not understand the significance of the new situation in the world, since the coming of Christ. God, for His own glory and purposes, has blinded their eyes. This is a very important conviction of the apostle which we would do well to remember. The work we cannot complete in ourselves has been completed by One who hung on the cross at Calvary. How glorious it is to be given a new heart, and see with new spiritual eyes!

1 Corinthians 15:35-50, February 18-24, Year C:

I realize that many of you will be using the text  this week for Transfiguration Sunday preceding Lent; but I'm preaching on the Old Testament text for this date in Year C; so I'll go ahead and give you this lesson now and then perhaps the Transfiguration epistle lesson later this week.

 

For those of you who may be new readers of my blog or who may have missed this explanation earlier, these lectionary epistle notes are included here because I also have a group on a faith-based discussion service, Ecunet, where I submit my notes on each week's lectionary epistle readings.  It was suggested some time ago that I also put the notes on my blog as a way to get people from that group to encourage others to read, and link to,  my blog.  So herewith are notes for the reading which some will use this week.

 

Christ's resurrection body was most probably in a very different form than His physical body while on earth during his natural life.  (This would explain why He was not readily recognized by the women in the garden on the morning He arose.)  The whole point of this passage seems to be that the spiritual is far more important than the physical; but that the physical is also quite real.  Again, we are brought back to the principle of dying to live.  A seed dies, and much fruit is produced.  In some ways, our future body will be like our present body; but we do not understand the process or the nature of that body.  It isn't important to understand it, but to teach and affirm the bodily resurrection of Christ for Christians in every age.

 

 

One German theologian has said that 90% of people who come to church on Easter are simply coming to see if it's really true.  They're not looking for some new or fresh way to say it, but simply to be convinced that it's real.  This could be true.  George Barna has said that his polling data suggest that even 20% of people who call themselves "born-again" Christians deny the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ!  

 

We must constantly affirm our belief in the resurrection of Christ and make clear to people--especially other Christians--that it does make a difference!  The history of the church and the faith,  consistency, and testimony of the martyrs all give ample evidence that the resurrection was understood as a real event in the apostolic era.  As the song says, That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!" We have no sound intellectual reason to do otherwise.

 

The resurrection of Christ was the ultimate challenge to the kingdom of Satan.  The resurrection is how Christ overcame sin and death; but ultimately, and even more important, sets the course for the restoration of creation.  The physical reality of the resurrection is what makes its spiritual aspects real and powerful!  It also makes our own resurrection and transformation for all eternity a definite reality.

 

We shall all be changed!  Our future body, whatever form it takes, will be complete, perfect, without disease, blemish, or limitations of disability or disfigurement.  We shall be made like Christ in order that we may reign with Christ.

 

Deny the resurrection therefore and you make the hope of eternity a hoax.  Fortunately, intellectual integrity neither requires nor encourages such a dismissive attitude.  Faith is alive!  Christ is real!  The empty tomb means just what those early disciples understood it to mean!  He is risen!

 

   

Straight ahead!  See my blog at:   www.noblindbluff.blogspot.com

Ask Jesus to do What?

Straight AheadWhile making a hospital call in Mobile today, we saw this sign in front of the Spring Hill Baptist Church: Ask Jesus to be your valentine and He will say yes! My first thought was: "Ask Jesus to do what?" I've seen nativity scenes made up as chocolate candy--not to mention crosses and figures of the Last Supper! And now, we see a sign that suggests we ask Jesus to be our valentine! I would say that this takes Christianity to a whole new level--but unfortunately, it's a level lower, not higher. Of course, there are always the well-meaning children's directors and others in ministry who celebrate Christmas with "Happy Birthday, Jesus," which to my mind is almost as unfortunate as these other misusages of the Christ. All of these seem to cheapen Christianity and trivialize the great message of the Gospel. I also hear people sometimes say things like, "I'm falling in love with Jesus," which again seems to sensualize and trivialize a relationship that is very sacred and profound. I often wonder whether, in an attempt to get people's attention, Christians may just as often make God and His church look ridiculous--for all the wrong reasons. The world doesn't need another valentine! It needs a Saviour!

Called to Preach

It was in the summer of 1970.  My life was at a crossroads.  I had finished my first two years of college and knew that I wanted to transfer. Every time I tried to convince myself that things were really going well, I was reminded that such was not the case.  

 

During that summer, I had been reading my Bible.  In fact, I probably read my Bible more in the first half of that summer than I read it in the past two or three years!  I was being drawn back to the Lord in my search for direction in life.  I had also attended several of the services held by the Billy Graham organization in Knoxville that spring, in the football stadium used by the University of Tennessee.  I cannot deny or dismiss the influence these services of the Billy Graham Crusade had in my life at this particular time.

 

One day that summer, I took a ride with the husband of a cousin.  They were visiting us; and he was driving down to Murfreesboro for a job interview at a law office.   He would be getting out of the Army JAG Corps and was preparing to settle down and start a family.  I liked being with John; so when he offered me the chance to ride along, I was delighted.  I knew the job interview would take some time; so I took my Bible along.

 

While he was having his job interview inside, I had a very different kind of encounter while sitting in the car.

 

I had been reading in the Book of Psalms.  On that particular day, I came to Psalm 19:7-9:  The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul:  the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.  The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart:  the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.  The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever:  the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.  

 

At this point in my life, I was very interested in many things.  (In fact, I still am.)  It seemed, however, that my two greatest interests were theology on the one hand and law and politics on the other.  As I read this psalm, I knew that no law of man was perfect; no judgments of any court are true and righteous altogether.  I knew I would stake my life on God's law, and not the laws of men.

 

Two years before, while attending a summer preparatory course for blind students who were going to college, I had told one of the trainers that I thought it might be possible that God was calling me to the ministry.  He was very skeptical and proceeded to enumerate all the problems I would face as a blind minister.  I commented to him that he was probably quite correct, and that I would surely encounter many problems.  I concluded, however, by saying, "If it is true that God calls me to the ministry, He and I can work out the problems."  And God and I have been doing that now for almost 32 years.

 

I may have given part of this account elsewhere in this blog; but I give it now in the context of a call to ministry.  From that memorable day to this, I have seen my ministry primarily as a call to preach--or, more broadly speaking, a call to proclamation--whether preaching, teaching, training, or even counseling in certain instances.  I spend at least one sermon in every church of which I am pastor to tell the story of my call to ministry because I believe my congregations have a right to know that their minister was truly called, and didn't just take up the ministry as an interesting idea or, even worse, an after-thought.

 

When candidates come under care of a presbytery, such as we had here in our presbytery on Thursday, I believe they ought to be expected to speak  clearly about their sense of call to the ministry.  When a minister is received from another presbytery or church body, I believe that minister should expect to make a statement concerning the call to the ministry.  Too often, we are left with the impression that the ministers of our day are simply taking up the ministry as a way to help people or advocate on behalf of the poor, rather than as a call to preach or to bring people to a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

 

I do not mean that the only legitimate form of Christian ministry is preaching; but certainly, if a minister does not have a true sense of call, then whatever that person does can hardly be expected to have much of an impact for the cause of Christ.

 

I hear ministers say that they only wanted to accept calls in certain states, or within so many miles of their home.  When I hear things like this, I wonder what kind of call to ministry they think they have.  How can we say that we are called to the ministry, and then put limits on where God might send us?  Is a minister a servant of God, or a servant of other people?  Are we going to serve God, or are we going to serve friends, family, and ourselves?  

 

The call to ministry is a call to serve God, to follow Christ--first, last, and always.  Our own preferences can be stated; but they must not be determinative, if we are truly following Christ.  And in a sense, I'd say that this is true for any Christian who truly desires to do God's will.  We are not our own.  We truly were bought with a price.

 

The call to preach, to minister full-time in Christian service, is an unconditional call--subject only to the leading of God's Spirit and the command of the heavenly Father.  It may lead us to be a pastor, a missionary, a Christian educator, or to any of hundreds of fields of ministry; but it must not be half-hearted, and it cannot be conditional.  It must be all or nothing, in obedient response to a gracious God.

 

Unfortunately, I don't hear enough of this kind of thing in our churches and church meetings today.