Righteousness: in secret or before others?

An issue that has concerned me a few times lately is when it is appropriate to show one's good deeds before others. If someone accuses me of selfishness, should I share what I have done for the poor? If someone hints that I do not love my wife, should I tell how I have loved her lately? These issues can be treacherous with a sin nature like ours.

There are two key passages regarding the practice of righteousness before others, and they seem to contradict each other!

The first is Matthew 5:16, In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

The second is Matthew 6:1-18, particularly verse 1, Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven..

Taken at face value, these statements of Jesus are in direct opposition to each other. Should we let others "see [our] good works" or does that displease God and forfeit our heavenly reward? To answer that question, let's look at the essential meanings of the two passages.

In Matthew 5:13-16, Jesus speaks of the disciples' role in the world as "salt" and "light." What is the meaning of these two metaphors? Salt is a preservative: disciples are to slow the corruption of the world. Light, on the other hand, represents God's exposition of sin and call to moral purity (1 John). Thus, when you let others see your light, or your works, it is to show them to moral purity of God ("give glory to your Father"). The Apostle Peter clarifies this purpose in 1 Peter 2:12, Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.

In Matthew 6:1-18, on the other hand, Jesus explores three topics—giving to the needy, prayer, and fasting—that were apparently issues in His day. From His words we see that the "hypocrites" did these things in the sight of others and "received [their] reward" this way. The reward was the approval of other Jews who saw these hypocrites as super-holy.

Jesus here warns that our reward comes from God, who sees "in secret," that is, He sees not only our public front but our private lives as well. Jesus therefore calls us to pay less attention to the good we do in public and more that that which we do in private. What a sad life it would be to pray only in public and never enjoy personal times of prayer with God.

Taking the two key passages together, the issue is ultimately—like so much in Scripture—a matter of the heart. The attitude of the heart in the first passage is to show God's righteousness; that attitude in the second is to show your own. Therefore, whenever we think of doing a righteous act before others, we must examine ourselves to see whose glory we are seeking: ours or God's. What are some ways we can do this?

One test I hear in church a while ago regarded thanks. The pastor said that in true humility one should be willing to serve without a chance of being told, "thank you." This will show that you are seeking no reward from man.

Another similar test I can think of is who you are talking to. If you are about to tell someone of a righteous act you committed, what will his response be? If the response would be some congratulations to you, then your intentions are most likely selfish. If the resopnse would be more praise (or, in some cases, less enmity) towards God, then go for it! That is exactly what Jesus would want you to do.

Well, this post has been straightforward, but I hope it will be useful to you all. May God give you good discernment and pure intentions in your public righteousness! Praise God for our redemption.

What is wrong with America? Part II

Another answer comes from a hymn we sang this morning in church:

If My people's hearts are humbled,
If they pray and seek My face;
If they turn away from evil,
I will not withhold My grace.

I will hear their prayers from heaven;
I will pardon every sin.
If My people's hearts are humbled,
I will surely heal their land.

Then My eyes will see their sorrow,
Then My ears will hear their plea,
If My people's hearts are humbled,
I will set their nation free.

If My people's hearts are humbled,
If they pray and seek my face;
If they turn away from evil,
I will not withhold My grace.

Paul Krugman and the Moralists

No, Paul Krugman hasn't formed a new band. Unfortunately.

What I'm actually writing about is his column, Mugged by the Debt Moralists. Not only is it conspicuous in its lack of inconvenient truths (such as why vast government spending evokes fears of socialism), but Krugman also argues against a group he calls "the moralists."

O Nobel Laureate, what exactly is the definition of a moralist? Is it, "one who has morals?" No, let's be fair, it's probably "one who values morals over all else, including economics."

If that is indeed your definition, Mr Krugman, I will wear that title as an honor. And I would caution you of the dangers of having morals take a second seat in the "conscience of a liberal."

I am reminded of Romans 1:21-23 warning us about rejecting God's moral principles in favor of our own "wisdom",

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

And with that I shall end.

What is wrong with America?

Or, why should we let the Bush tax cuts expire?

Is there a problem?

Yes, this blog has a provocative title. But is there anything to it?

Obviously America has problems. What first comes to mind is the poor state of the economy. But we also have dysfunctional families, extreme partisanship, voter discontent, and more. Am I going to explain all of these mailaises with one Grand Unifying Theory? No. Today I want to concentrate on one, mind-bogglingly large symptom: the national debt. I don't care whether you are Republican, Democrat, or Independent, a national debt that is approximately equal to our Gross Domestic Product is not an uplifting reality.

Where there is a symptom, there is a problem.

What is the problem?

Why do we have such a huge debt? Why is our debt going to double in the next ten years? Why will it be growing at $2,000,000,000,000 per year in 2035?

Well, what is debt? It is, by definition, the state of spending more money than you have. In other words, it is wanting (and obtaining) what one cannot afford. This is an epidemic at a personal level (Shania Twain's Ka-Ching is really a great song) and a national level (as one YouTube user stated, Ka-Ching should be our national anthem). And it's what drives our national debt. What else could?

Is debt really a problem? Am I fair to call it an "epidemic"? Yes. Even the champion of public debt, John Maynard Keynes, who argued that the government should go into debt during a bust, also urged nations to get it back during a boom, something we have not done since the Great Depression.

Our debt is a mediocre short-term boon and a terrifying long-term liability, and our unrestrained greed is driving it. Greed is the pathology causing this symptom and it has two forms.

One form, which I'll call "entitlement greed", is feeling like we deserve this or that whether we care to work for it or not. It is closely tied with any kind of welfare (or, more technically, means-tested aid) the government provides for us. It is food stamps, housing, health care, education, and more. I previously talked about how we should care for the poor, but that's not what I'm talking about here. Here I'm discussing the attitude behind this, and the abundance of these programs and the number of people on them shows how prevalent this attitude is. It is scary because the more people believe that they deserve food, shelter, and clothing no matter what, the less motivation people will have to work. But all this money to feed, shelter, and clothe has to come from somewhere, and therein lies this attitude's contribution to our national debt.

The other form I'll call "happy-middle-class-life greed". It is related to entitlement greed, but moves beyond basic necessities to luxury. It is basically the attitude, "America is rich. I live in America. I shouldn't ever have to suffer." For example, folks who made a bad economic decision and refuse to pay the consequences for it. This attitude is likewise scary because it means we as a nation depserately avoid short-term pain even though short-term pain is often necessary to avoid long-term ruin. Why is America free today? Because our ancestors went through the horrors of war to earn it. Why is my baby daughter sleeping right now? Because my wife and I went through the pain of getting her on a schedule so that she could have extended periods of sleep. This attitude contributes to the debt by a reluctance during booms to pay back what we've borrowed turning into a panicky fear of paying it back during a bust (see response to Bush tax cut expiration and Britain's austerity package). No matter the time or season, tax hikes and spending cuts are a politician's path to a forced retirement.

What is the solution?

Just as there are two classes of greed, we as a nation must attack the greed problem in two ways: we must eliminate perverse incentives and we must be realistic about the future pain we are creating.

The Bible offers a clear-cut solution to the perverse incentives of welfare. In II Thesselonians 3:6-10 Paul asserts, "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." Yes, this is coming from the same guy who sacrificed everything he had in service of God and others, and the same God who judged nations for their oppression of the poor (Isaiah 10:1-4). Thus, if our government is wise, it must work to eliminate incentives which discourage work and teach our people once again the value of self-sufficiency. We don't need to eradicate all welfare in one swoop, but we have got to seriously consider its secondary effects when establishing policy.

To be realistic about the future pain we are creating is a much tougher task. The issue is that by default "I'm suffering right now" outweighs "our nation will be broke in a century or less." Americans of late have shown again and again that they are short-sighted. Thus, the only way to be realistic about future suffering is the transfer some of it now: either cut spending or raise taxes now. Cutting spending would probably be of no benefit right now, it would just make us angrier. Tax increases done carefully, however, could serve to teach us, "this is where the money comes from. If you want government benefits, this is the cost."

Thus why we should let the Bush tax cuts expire. After all, this tax increase can be enacted by doing nothing--far less reprehensible than actively raising taxes. Yes, I have heard the Republican mantra, "don't raise taxes in a bad economy," but I am looking a little bit further than the next two years here, and I suggest we all do the same. Furthermore, the CBO has found that extending the Bush tax cuts would be the worst of 11 possible options to encourage economic growth, so we could even save money and mitigate the economic harm by putting a portion of the money saved into some of the CBO's other options such as infrastructure or cutting payroll taxes.

But really, how?

One problem with all this hypothesizing is that we the people do not make policy in this country. Instead we must use the power of representative democracy. So, please, elect politicians on Tuesday that discuss serious options for reducing the deficit. Elect courageous folks who are willing to sacrifice a bit of popularity for long-term benefit. Elect (and re-elect!) realists who don't try to delude us with utopian promises. Do your duty to the nation!

Widows

Continuing our series from I Timothy, we will now discuss a shorter, possibly less offensive, and possibly more offensive topic.

The passage is too long to be worth reproducing here, but in I Timothy 5:3-16, Paul gives the following instructions regarding caring for widows:

1. The church should care for widows.
2. The church should only care for "true widows," that are in desperate need (5) and don't have children or grandchildren—that is, someone in their family to provide for them. Providing for other, less needy widows encourages their laziness (13) and is a burden on the church (16).
   
3. It benefits these children and grandchildren to provide for the widow, as they "learn to show godliness to their own household," which is "pleasing in the sight of God" (4).
   
4. Relatives who do not provide for the needy in their own families have "denied the faith and [are] worse than an unbeliever" (8).

How can we apply this today? Since widows are no longer as disadvantaged and families no longer as tightly-knit as they were in New Testament times, it seems to me the closest parallel is the generally needy, such as those who would be on welfare, and particularly those also in the family of God. So, let's rewrite those points above:

1. The church should care for the needy, particularly fellow believers.
2. The church should only care for the "truly needy," that are in desperate need (5) and don't have someone to provide for them. Providing for other, less needy people encourages their laziness (13) and is a burden on the church (16).
   
3. It benefits well-off to provide for the needy , as they "learn to show godliness to their" fellow man, which is "pleasing in the sight of God" (4).
   
4. Those who do not provide for the truly needy (in the family of God) have "denied the faith and [are] worse than an unbeliever" (8).

Ouch. The church doesn't do nearly a good enough job of caring for the needy around us. In fact, if the church did its job and provided for those who are truly needed, government welfare wouldn't have to exist! Not only would that be better for us as the church, but it would be better for the needy since 1) those who are truly needy would receive more personal care instead of a bureaucratic handout, and 2) those who are not truly needy would not continue to receive and handout but would learn to care for themselves.

So, next time we right-wing Christians are tempted to complain about welfare and how much it costs us in taxes and doesn't help the recipients, let's give a bit more to our church or favorite charities to fix the problem instead of just blowing hot air around.

The Roman Catholic Church

I was reading I Timothy 4 the other morning and, after having read a couple articles the day before on the celibacy of Roman Catholic priests, the first paragraph caught my eye:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith [...] through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

I've read this paragraph decades of times and have surprisingly never considered the implication to the Catholic Church. I wondered, does this mean that the Church as an organization has departed from the faith? That they are liars? I surely don't believe that every self-declared Roman Catholic is an unregenerate liar, indeed a certain Catholic friend of mine has been a dear brother in Christ to me.

So what does this mean? Throughout my college life I think I never fully decided my stance on the Roman Catholic Church. With my Catholic friends I found the common ground and praised them for it; with my Protestant friends I would raise my criticisms of it... without ever coming to a conclusion. I should end the duplicity and decide my stance on the issue—in pursuit of the glory of God and not my own pride.

So, here goes.

After considering I Timothy 4:1-5, my issue with the Church is its emphasis on human tradition over Divine revelation. In short, my criticism is of ex cathedra, the belief that the Pope can speak on the same level of authority as Scripture, which, in practice, ends up being on a higher level of authority than Scripture.

My first example comes from the Timothy passage, which I will now reproduce in its entirety:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer. (I Tim. 4:1-5)

This passage has pretty harsh words for those who forbid marriage. Surely the Catholic church has some good arguments for the celibacy of the clergy, including Matthew 19's recommendation of it, but to enforce it is violating the explicit command in God's word—for the sake of human argument!

My other example of black-and-white contradiction with the Bible comes from Matthew 23:9, "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven." Here Jesus obviously does not condemn applying the title to your biological father, or even a spiritual father as in John's relationship with the recipients of his first epistle. What He condemns instead is the tradition of applying elevated titles to men in the Jewish culture of His day, a tradition that has since recurred in the Catholic church in calling every priest, "Father."

No, I don't think that Catholic priests are damned for practicing their celibacy, nor for their title of "Father," but these two examples are just a selection from the unfortunately diverse practice of ignoring Scriptural commands for the sake of Church tradition. I can only see this withdrawal from God's Word as a withdrawal from God's authority, the very nature of Pride.

What is my stance on the Roman Catholic Church, then? Due to this value of man's word over God's and the effects it has throughout the Church's religion, I regrettably believe that the saints in the Church are saved in spite of it, not through it. Don't stop reading here. Before I alienate all of my Catholic friends, I can say the same about the majority of Protestant churches. We live in a fallen world, and divorce from God's principles lies in many churches.

I obviously am not content with this situation, so I ask my Catholic friends to please prayerfully consider this, viewing God's Word as the highest authority. We cannot accept the teachings of man over the teachings of God, and any reasonable soul will admit the disastrous consequences of this seen in pre-Reformation times. If you, as I hope, become convinced that the Catholic Church has not given God's revelation the respect it is due, please bring this up to your friends, and even your priests. Or, if you find an obvious flaw in my opinion, please bring this up to me. My goal here is for Christians to live in greater fellowship and, through this unity, to be more powerful in spreading the Kingdom of God in this present age.

Amen.

Edit: While dwelling on this in bed last night and hoping I wouldn't lose any friends, I realized that I didn't explain my "judgment" very well. I think I seemed to judge the Church too harshly for the points I made. So, let me clarify. I am absolutely not trying to judge any individual people here: everyone will have to stand before God individually—Catholic, Protestant, or whatever. And I'm not even trying to judge any body of Catholics, a single church: I'm sure some good Catholic churches exist, led by good priests. What I am trying to say is that the official doctrines and practices of the Church serve to draw people away from the essence of our faith, and not towards it. They "have indeed an appearance of wisdom [...] but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh" (Colossians 2:23).

Is television an idol?

In modern Christianity, we define an idol as "anything we worship other than God." For example, money, television, power, and ourselves are commonly called idols today. When you go back to Bible times—both Old Testament and New—, though, idols were obviously real, carved images. You have the Golden Calf in the Exodus story, various Baals throughout the rest of the OT, and Greek gods in the NT.

So when and why did the definition of idol change? Well, our society changed. In Western society we no longer need gods to explain weather or fertility or the sun because we have scientific understanding of these things. (Of course, we still believe our God put these things into place, but we don't believe that the sun is a god.) We know that the Bible was written to instruct us, though, so we don't want to just toss out all of the passages relating to idolatry. Thus the change in definition, and it's certainly plausible.

But after a Bible Study on Deuteronomy 4 the other night, I'm thinking our new definition might be a little off. After all, the first and second of the Ten Commandments are different: one forbids worship of another god and the second forbids creation of an idol, including of God Himself. Surely television or ourselves, for example, fall under the first commandment; they are gods we worship before the true God. Furthermore, people back in Biblical times also worshiped themselves or power before God. We don't need to mold the second commandment to fit these things—that just makes it redundant with the first.

Let's look at what the Bible says about idols.

The original commandment, in Exodus 20:4-6 says,

"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Here we see the Lord talking about a physical idol, a "carved image." Indeed aspects of this commandment are redundant with the first: God already prohibited worship of other gods, now He prohibits worship of images of other gods. But that's not all He is prohibiting, as we see in Deuteronomy 4:15-18:

"Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth."

Here Moses emphasizes that because the Israelites had no visual image of God, they would be tempted to make one up and worship that. So we see the second commandment has two dimensions: one prohibits making an image of a false god, and one prohibits making up an image of the Invisible God.

In the New Testament, most references to idolatry are talking about worshiping physical images, but Ephesians 5:5 stands out as an exception, "For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolator), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." Colossians 3:5 has a very similar exhortation. These two references tend towards our modern-day, loose definition of idolatry, but note that these two Biblical exceptions are specifically talking about sexual sin.

How is sexual sin idolatry? God gave us sex in marriage partly to represent in the husband and wife the closeness we, the church, will have with Christ in the new earth. (See Revelation 19:6-8.) Sexual sin is thus creating a deficient image of a gift God has given us, just like idolatry creates a deficient image of the True God. (Anyone who has thought about pornography or the like knows that it is all about creating an image that is far from the truth, but that's a topic for another day.)

Now I don't want this to be just a "quarrel about words" (I Timothy 6:4), so how does this apply to us today? I think we should be more aware of the idolatry that occurs in our daily lives, and more aware of the true definition of an idol—some image of God severely lacking when compared to the real thing. A true modern-day idol can be sex, as above; an image of the Virgin Mary given too much sanctity; or even our ceiling, as described by the demon Screwtape in The Screwtape Letters,

The humans do not start from that direct perception of Him which we, unhappily, cannot avoid. They have never known that ghastly luminosity, that stabbing and searing glare which makes the background of permanent pain to our lives. If you look into your patient's mind when he is praying, you will not find that. If you examine the object to which he is attending, you will find that it is a composite object containing many quite ridiculous ingredients. [...] I have known cases where what the patient called his "God" was actually located—up and to the left at the corner of his bedroom ceiling, or inside his own head, or in a crucifix on the wall. But whatever the nature of the composite object, you must keep him praying to it—to the thing that he has made, not to the Person who has made him.

And with that wisdom from C. S. Lewis I shall end. Hope it's been more than just tickling your ears!

Why Dan Brown is a Loser

I'm reading Angels & Demons by Dan Brown right now. Just like in The Da Vinci Code, he's mixing truth with fiction to create believable lies, and therefore appealing to everyone's conspiracy theory attraction. What a formula for a best-selling book!

The instance that prompted me to write this was when Robert Langdon was explaining the Illuminati Symbolism on a US $1 bill. For background, the Illuminati is an historical secret society which Angels & Demons claims is the anti-Church "inner circle" of the Freemasons.

Robert Landon explains that the reverse of the Great Seal of the US printed in the back of the bill (the pyramid side) is actually an Illuminati symbol. He continues to explain the meaning of the latin.

Vittoria seemed startled. She glanced down at the bill again. "The writing under the pyramid says Novus... Ordo..."

"Novus Ordo Seclorum," Langdon said. It means New Secular Order."

"Secular as in nonreligious?"

"Nonreligious. The phrase not only clearly states the Illuminati objective, but also blatantly contradicts the phrase beside it. In God We Trust."

Langdon then explains (truthfully) that the symbol was put there by FDR, a known freemason.

Sounds convincing, right? Unfortunately, the Latin phrase means "New Order for the Ages" and FDR just copied the Great Seal of the United States that has existed since 1782, 14 years before Freemasons started using the symbol. See Official 1782 Explanation of the Great Seal for more information.

Now, of course Dan Brown writes these books as lightweight fiction to appeal to the masses so such truth-twisting is tolerable. What bugs me, though, is the combination of the unavoidably-sympathetic, brilliant Harvard professor who tells us these lies and Brown's never-ending digs at the Christian Church found both in The Da Vinci Code and in Angels & Demons. It seems to me that he is exploiting his engaging writing style for more nefarious purposes than producing a best-selling book.

But maybe I'm just a conspiracy theorist.