11 May 2015

Selfishness as a Declaration of Autonomy



In continuing to examine my own heart, I find that not only is laziness rooted in selfishness, but selfishness seems deeply rooted in the vice nourishing soil of autonomy. The word Autonomy comes from two Greek words: autos meaning, self; and nomos meaning, law. The autonomous person is a person whose will and  independence are not governed by any particular outside body or force. Autonomy then is the characteristic of being self-governed, or being a law unto ones self. When a person declares autonomy, they are declaring independence from any recognized authority. If we narrow the viewing lens and zoom in a bit, we can see that in many everyday ways, we can, in fact, be quite autonomous. I have no outside authority restricting my choice of restaurant for lunch, or whether I drink coffee or tea on my way to work. However, I do have an authority that says I can't drive 80 mph on the expressway during my commute. I am under the obligation to recognize the authority of the United States government and its officials with regard to the laws that Federal and State governments pass. However, at least in my state of Kentucky, I have no restrictions on the size of my soda container. So with regard to soda sizes, I am still autonomous.
    When we declare autonomy from God, either explicitly as the professing atheist would, or implicitly, lazily, unthinkingly as many Christians do, myself included, we are seeking, or acting as if we had, emancipation from God. Both neglect and outright contempt for the commands and precepts of God are rebellion against him. My selfishness must be seen in connection to its autonomous roots. The prophet Samuel said to Saul, “For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king.” God will remove the arrogant king who rebels against him, and he will cast you down as well. The king of Assyria boasted in his slaughter of Israelites and other nations who were under the judgment of God. 

The Assyrian king was merely a tool in the hands of God (Isa. 10:5-6). But the king in his arrogance declared himself autonomous; he said, “By the strength of my hand have I done it, and by my wisdom, for I have understanding” (Isa. 10:13a).  The Assyrian King boasted himself as the sole arbiter of wrath, motivated merely by his own lust for blood and power. God pronounces a curse upon him and declares, “When the Lord has finished all his work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, he will punish the speech of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the boastful look in his eyes. See, God will continue his rule over you whether you recognize it or not, and he will bring punishment to bear for arrogance and autonomy. Crucial to the very definition of a Christian is the fact that we have turned from our rebellion against God, and have run to him as the rightful King, and only hope for our salvation from his just wrath on rebellion.

06 May 2015

The Morning

The secret blue that paints the sky.
The human heart cannot ask why
The crisp wind blows, or what birds sing.
Who knows the promise sunlight brings?
The Lord.
Hallelujah,

Hallelujah for the morning.

03 May 2015

Thoughts on Laziness





Proverbs 24:30-34

I passed by the field of a sluggard,
by the vineyard of a man lacking sense,
and behold, it was all overgrown with thorns;
the ground was covered with nettles,
and its stone wall was broken down.
Then I saw and considered it;
I looked and received instruction.
A little sleep, a little slumber,
a little folding of the hands to rest,
and poverty will come upon you like a robber,
and want like an armed man.

Proverbs 6:6-11
Go to the ant, O sluggard;
consider her ways, and be wise.
Without having any chief,
officer, or ruler,
she prepares her bread pin summer
and gathers her food in harvest.
How long will you lie there, O sluggard?
When will you arise from your sleep?
A little sleep, a little slumber,
a little folding of the hands to rest,
and poverty will come upon you like a robber,
and want like an armed man.

It is so easy to utter those words to my self, “Just a little rest.” “I’ll only sit for a minute, then I’ll get to work.” What a Lie. History has shown me that it is a lie. Rest is rarely for a few minutes unless there is a supervisor telling you that your break is over. Yet look at the ant. There is no one with a collared shirt, no one with a badge or a clipboard coming to tell her that her break is over. 

No Overseer or Ruler
I remember working for UPS while I was in college. We worked 3rd shift, so from about 10:30 pm or so until 3:00am; though from night to night the start and end times changed slightly as we were reliant on the arrival of trucks and planes to do our jobs. We worked typically 3-5 hours when not in the peak holiday times. But sometimes those 4 hours felt rough, especially mid way through the semester when your exhaustion from going to class during the mid day hours, and then going to work when your body wants to be sleeping begins to catch up with you. So, you can imagine how welcome a break was when you got one. Now, these were mandatory breaks to comply with union labor laws, but boy we wanted them. The break, however was for only ten minutes, long enough to refill your water, use the bathroom or, in the case of many, fall stone dead asleep. I know I can't speak for every unioned package handler in UPS, but for myself and those I knew, if we had been allowed to, we would have definitely rested for far longer. It was the presence of a supervisor, calling us back with the grating reminder that we still had many trucks or airplane containers to unload, that recalled us from our reprise. Left alone, we might just have stayed and slept, or purchased another bag of chips from the vending machine.
The ant though, has no supervisor; she has no overseer or ruler. Yet, they scurry about and get their work done. I’ve never spoken to an ant, but I don’t imagine that ants take breaks like we do. If they do, I’m sure they are prompt and tidy breaks, with not a second of lingering. All kidding aside, the ant is not concerned with its self; it is not worried about what it gets out of the deal.
Paul explains in 1 Corinthians, “Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.” Can I underline that? I am not to seek my own good! Yet my own good is my underlying concern. Furthermore I am to positively seek the good of my neighbors! I am commanded by Scripture to shut my mind to my own concerns for personal good, like tiredness and frustration and then to shed my torchlight and gaze upon the good of my neighbors. Furthermore, as a husband, this absolutely, singularly and totally must begin with my wife. She is the chief of all my earthly delights, and the primary instrument of God's mercy to me. I’m to be fueled by her good, growth, prosperity and protection as an underlying assumption for my actions, not my own. Disgustingly, such an idea is utterly backwards from what I am by nature, and furthermore, what our culture tells us that we should be. Praise God for the Justification and sanctification found in union with Christ! May I seek it earnestly!

We are to do good by ourselves first, right? Wrong wrong wrong! It is wrong to believe that I am to seek my good first, then the good of others. But I believe it is even more wrong to believe the Scriptures and do opposite. At least the unbeliever is being consistent. I have more light, I know what I should do, and I believe the Bible to be true and wholly without error when it tells me what I should do. Yet, I do not do it. James 2: 20 says, “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.” What a shameful thing when those who know the truth do not walk in it. 

Go to the ant sluggard, consider her ways and be wise.

10 March 2015

Thoughts on Fasting.


Donald S. Whitney says in his now classic, at least in my mind, work ‘Spiritual Disciplines For The Christian Life’ that fasting is “the most feared and misunderstood of the spiritual disciplines.” When I read that, I take in a breath - and think, “hmm, he’s totally right.” I don’t understand it, neither have I been exposed to regular admonition to practice fasting as a discipline. I don’t fear it exactly, but I don’t fully understand it, and it is often the case that we seem to fear what we don’t understand. It is fearful like timidity is fearful, like that uncertain, hesitating first step onto the bridge we think may collapse. Uncertainty and unfamiliarity amid the cacophony around lead to inaction in any area. We think, ‘eh, maybe next time;’ or, ‘let me think a while about it first.’ On and on until weeks pass and nothing has been done. Perhaps this is a thought about some larger problem in the postlapsarian human condition, certainly at least as I see it manifest in myself. Either way, my intention is by God’s grace to prayerfully search out and implement this lost discipline.

The following article will be the first in what I plan to be a series, undetermined in length, in which I put down my developing thought. I mean to keep a catalogue of sorts, which is beginning in my mind as statements about what I know fasting is not and cannot be. After setting boundaries, it will be easier to make positive statements. As I read and pray and practice, I hope to be pressed into the mold of God’s thinking so that my behavior will be pleasing to him. let the reader note that I write as to a mirror, addressing my own soul, perhaps in God's providence you too are edified. I certainly pray that is so, and if what I say is biblical and true, then it will be edifying to us both. On then to the first thought.

Fasting can and will never be the foundation of God’s graciousness or favor toward you.

            I am mindful of the all too human tendency to attempt to earn God’s grace. I am mindful of this error in my own heart. Grace however cannot be earned. If an object is earned, then by definition the object was owed, not given graciously. Consider that if I make $10.00 per hour, and work for one hour, then I am owed $10.00; it is my wage. My employer was not being gracious by paying me $10.00 he was merely adhering to a stipulation. If, however, he gave me $10.00 and a candy bar, then the candy bar was a gracious addition to my wage. Making sense? The demand to pay for something that was given freely is actually arrogant and dismissive of the individual who did the giving, even if the attempt is well intentioned. Paul explains to the Galatians that,

“I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.”(2:21)

Will Paul attempt to add personal righteousness through adherence to the law to his criteria for salvation? Certainly not. Isn’t this exactly what the Judaizers were seeking to do? They said that the Gentiles must be circumcised according to the law of Moses. Paul calls this hypocrisy (Gal 2:13) and not in accord with the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2:14).

The nature of grace is that it is un-earned, to attempt to earn grace is to misunderstand grace completely, and to stand in front of God with arrogance rather than humility. The foundation of God’s grace is in his own sovereign desire to dispense it and the foundation of God’s favor is the obedience of Christ. In your union with Christ, you receive the benefits of his obedience, death and resurrection. Jesus is the Son of God in whom the Father is well pleased. So when he looks at you he sees your older brother, his beloved son, and because of your relationship to the Son, the Father is able and willing to show you favor. Furthermore, this is already done. Hebrews explains,

“But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” (10:12-14)

It is finished. You cannot increase your standing one step more than where Christ has placed you. You cannot add to the righteousness that is yours in Christ, to attempt such is rather to tarnish you, not cleanse you. Isn’t this an application of Isaiah 64:6?

“We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.”

And you ought not to live as though God at times forgets that he loves you, and must be reminded. Do not think that your fasting jogs his mind so that he says, “Well well, there’s that Benoit fellow I made, good thing he reminded me of my purposes toward him, ‘cause I totally forgot…pheew.”
No, Philippians 1:6 makes it clear that it is God himself totally apart from you who finishes his work in you.
“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.”

The covenant he made is one that he took on the stipulations for. It is his promise and he will fulfill it. Do not think that you who are so feeble and small could reach out into eternity and grapple with the mind of the living God.  David prayed in Psalm 119:49-50,

“Remember your word to your servant, in which you have made me hope. This is my comfort in my affliction, that your promise gives me life.”

I do not think David is attempting to remind God; rather, he is praising God for the surety of his promise, a promise that God has marked. Be sure my soul of this, the Lord is not slack concerning his promises (2. Pet 3:9), and your standing before God is by grace alone, through faith alone, by the merits of Christ alone, to the glory of God alone. Let me fast; careful not to fall into thinking that I am holy or that it will earn God’s favor. Such is sin. 

26 August 2014

The King James Bible: Historical and Political Catalyst for the English Language




As the English language has developed from a fledgling mixture of German dialects into a language of its own, capable of representing a nation and entering into the intellectual discourse of the global community, it has encountered many challenges and changes. Given the challenges that have stood up against it, it is surprising to say the least that English has become one of the worlds present foremost languages, if not the foremost language, of our day. It cannot be said however, that there is anything superior or inherent in the structure of English itself that has made it this way (Svartvik 9). Rather, English in its historical forms encountered through history and providence sundry political and social achievements that progressively changed its structure, standing, and influence. The story of English is the story of political and social catalysts enveloped by a string of perfectly timed cultural achievements. Alister McGrath says that, “The two greatest influences on the shaping of the English language are the works of William Shakespeare and the English translation of the Bible that appeared in 1611” (1). The goal of this essay will be to echo and prove the claim that of the great products, the 1611 King James Bible and its publication were unequivocally pivotal to the structure and political success of modern English. Without its production, I can easily say with McGrath that, “the English speaking world would have been immeasurably impoverished” (2). Not this only, but due to the great political effect of its production, the very language itself could have easily been quite different.
            In order to evaluate these claims and appreciate the story, it is important to examine the political and national standing of the British Isles in the 16th century. Until the end of the Hundred Years War, French had been the prevalent language among the elite due to the Norman invasion and conquest in 1066. While commoners and plowmen spoke the Old English of their German ancestors, those in power spoke French, and business[1] was conducted in the same. The English language of the people was considered vulgar and incapable of signifying the particular essences necessary for beautiful and effective communication (McGrath 27). As the French language took a more firm political hold and English passed into its Middle stage due to the massive influence of its new French speaking kings, it was still not a contender for a position of importance amid the influence of other more firmly rooted languages. The populace spoke Middle English, the state spoke French, and the church and schools spoke Latin; there was little cultural or political unity, and it is easy to feel the separation within the Isles.
           The advent of the Hundred Years war changed the face of England like never before. England and France went to war in 1337, and continued warring until 1453, and while the long sequence of wars and power struggles came to an end with French Victory, King Henry V of England had succeeded in pushing the French out of England and well into their own country where English armies were eventually defeated after the succession of Henry VI. This war was crucial to the development of the English language, because it made the French the political and social enemies of the English, and caused the nation to reject the French language and rally around its own native tongue.  Svartvik and Leech say that, “by the fifteenth century, [French] was no longer current as a spoken language in England, and anyone who needed to speak French had to learn it as a foreign language” (37). Furthermore, these events were absolutely necessary for the production of an authorized English Bible because it made English important to those in power.
In the midst of this mounting political pressure to unify England, there was also a growing social pressure for a legal English Bible due to theological progression brought about by the Protestant Reformation, its predecessors, and the vernacular Bibles produced by John Wycliffe, Martin Luther and William Tyndale. One of the principle tenants of the Reformation was the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries states that, “Sola Scriptura speaks to the Scripture's role as the sole infallible rule of faith for the church” (White). Another important doctrine of the Reformation is what is called, ‘the priesthood of all believers’. Initially set out in Martin Luther’s 1520 To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, the doctrine taught that all baptized believers were ministers and priests of God, and so there were not two categories of Christians, called “spiritual” and “temporal,” but one body of believers who had Christ at their head. Luther said, “For baptism, the gospel, and faith only make Christians priests. The Pope’s anointing, the tonsure, ordaining and consecrating, may make hypocrites and noodles, but can never make a man a Christian or Spiritual. For by baptism, we are all consecrated priests” (Geltzer 119). A logical deduction from this teaching is that all believers have the right and mandate to interpret Scripture for themselves, and are not in need of the Roman priesthood, who held the place of an intermediary between God and the layman. Heinrich Geltzer says that, “with this idea, the emancipation of the coming times was pronounced; the torch was lighted which was to guide a new period, and which, in its turn, has preserved the blessed right to freedom of conscious” (119). So, progressive disenchantment with the church and its liturgy, due largely to the effect of the Reformation, and a growing nationalism caused English-speaking people to yearn for a Bible they could read for themselves. It had been at various times, illegal to own or possess an English translation. Primarily, the Catholic Church feared the theological corruption that might occur if untrained laypeople were allowed to interpret the Scriptures themselves, and in attempts to cling to their power, fought ardently against vernacular Bibles. Also, English was not seen as capable of, “expressing the deep nuanced truths of the Bible,” (McGrath 33) or, expressing and carrying the divine nature of the words of God. However, the advances in and attention to English due to its new political centrality and the works of influential writers like Geoffrey Chaucer, were steadily changing this latter perception.
When James VI of Scotland ascended to the English throne as James I, after the death of Elizabeth I, a new and precarious time was beginning to dawn for religion and English in England. While James was in some ways sympathetic toward Protestantism, he was also conservative in his views regarding the government of the church and the rise of Puritanism. McGrath notes that, “he much preferred the Anglican system… seeing the episcopacy as a safeguard to the monarchy” (140). This conservatism and relative ambiguity mixed with the tumultuous political state of England and Scotland at the time makes the analysis of King James quite sticky. James greatly disliked the Geneva Bible, which was very popular among Protestants during the reign of Elizabeth I as well as Puritans and Presbyterians in Scotland, primarily because it contained annotations that were particularly Calvinistic in character and taught that a king should be disobeyed if his command was in conflict with the words of God, a fact that James, “cordially detested” (McGrath 141). The decision to make a new translation came after a proposal was made by a Puritan named John Reynolds. James saw and seized on an opportunity to quell religious controversy in England. McGrath says that, “Here was a major concession he could make without causing any pressing difficulties to anyone” (161). James declared at the conference that heard Reynolds proposal that he had yet to see “a Bible well translated into English” (McGrath 162). It was in fact this new translation that would not only be considered good, even if slightly archaic, English, but would be instrumental in shaping the future of English and English speaking people.
            This new work of the King, while put together by a massive team of translators consulting closely with copies of the Greek and Hebrew texts, in an attempt for a very direct translation, was not a freestanding entity, rather it stood, as John Salisbury said, ‘like dwarves on the shoulders of Giants.’ McGrath notes that “The ‘Englishing’ of the Bible was thus understood to be a corporate effort, in which the achievements of earlier generations could be valued and used by their successors” (177). Earlier English translations had a great role in the form of the Authorized Version, and it is through the widespread use of the King James translation, that special idioms from the earlier works came flavor the English Language. Of the translations that were consulted and used, William Tyndale’s translation, being the earliest and affecting all others thus far, had greatest influence on the translation committee. Gordon Campbell notes that, “William Tyndale is rightly known as ‘the father of the English Bible’” (Campbell 10). For this reason, many of the phrases we associate with the King James Bible were originally translations of Tyndale’s.[2] As the preface to the King James notes, the goal of the committee was not to make a bad translation a good one, but to make from many good translations, a principal good one. As Miles Smith indicates in his contestation with the Catholic belief that the Latin Vulgate was, “the bedrock of western Christian life” (McGrath 191), it is immensely spiritually and theologically important that the English, like the Latin speaking Romans before them, should have the words of God in their own language. While certainly true in this writer’s opinion, the presence of an authorized Bible was also immensely important for the establishment of the English language politically.  This Bible would work to unify and distinguish the English language as viable and lasting. It meant that English-speaking people were, and the language itself was, worthy of possessing the words of God.
            The 1611 translation has had a great and lasting influence on English. It is this Bible and its English that has been carried by Christians not only inside England, but outside it and into the world. It was aboard ships coming to America, and has historically been a part of English language instruction. Its influence has gone far and wide, and has been influential in shaping the political and linguistic influence of English on the world. One of the ways in which The King James Bible shaped the English of its time, was that the translators avoided what McGrath says seemed to them, “a wooden and dogmatic approach to translation, which dictated that precisely the same words should regularly be used to translate Greek or Hebrew words. The preface [to the translation] sets out clearly the view that the translators saw themselves as free to use a variety of English words.” (McGrath 194) This enhanced the beauty and variety of the text, highlighting the ability of English to accommodate a range of expression. Miles Smith says in the preface, “For is the kingdom of God to become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?” (McGrath 194). Aside from making the text eloquent, it helped to fix, that is secure, the standard orthography of the day, an orthography that has influenced and is in many ways, similar to the orthographical standards of our modern English. It is not that the King James Bible instituted those standards, but it was a primary and invaluable facilitator to their prominence in modern English. It should be noted that, the KJB achieved literary excellence, by trying to avoid it. McGrath says, “There is no evidence that the translators of the King James Bible had any great interest in matters of literature or linguistic development” (254). Rather, “their concern was primarily to provide an accurate translation of the Bible” (McGrath 254). In this endeavor, they seem to have achieved eloquence, “by accident, rather than design” (McGrath 254).
            Many “accidents,” or unintended effects seem to litter the history of the King James Bible, much like many of the other perfectly timed and unforeseeable things that have occurred in the history of the English language. Certainly, the King James Bible has been one of the great path-shaping forces of English, and has furthermore had a lasting effect on the world of languages that English interacts with. In an article by BBC News, Stephen Tomkins says, “No other book, or indeed any piece of culture, seems to have influenced the English language as much as the King James Bible. Its turns of phrase have permeated the everyday language of English speakers, whether or not they've ever opened a copy” (Tomkins). David Crystal counts two hundred and fifty-seven of those phrases (260), a small handful of which are represented in the following: Turned the world upside down (Acts 17:6), God forbid (Romans 3:4), The powers that be (Romans 13:1), No peace for the wicked (Isaiah 57: 21), The blind leading the blind (Matthew 15:13). Albert Cook stated that, “No other book has so penetrated and permeated the hearts and speech of the English Race as has the Bible. (McGrath 253) Whether or not one believes its contents, the story of that Bible echoes Mr. Cook’s statement, and sets it apart as an unquestionably important part of our history and future.





Campbell, Gordon. BIBLE, the Story of the King James Version 1611-2011. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print

Crystal, David. Begat : the King James Bible and the English Language. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print

Geltzer, Heinrich . The life of Martin Luther, the German Reformer. London: Nathanial Cook, 1855. Google. Web. April 16, 2012

Mcgrath, Alister. In the Beginning. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Print

Svartvik, Jan, and Geoffrey Leech. English One Tongue, Many Voices. Houndmills, UK. Palgrave Macmillian, 2006. Print

Tomkins, Stephen. “King James Bible: How it changed the way we speak.” www.bbc.co.uk, 17 January, 2011. Web 16 April, 2012. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12205084>

White, James. “T4G, Sole Authority, and Church Tradition.” www.aomin.org, 12 April 2012. Web. 16 April, 2012. <http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=5055>




[1] Primarily law, but also in general administration, some religious use and education, military, arts and fashion. (Svatrvik 36-38)
[2] Campbell notes such phrases as, “Ask and it shall be given you; seek and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you.” (11)