Dan Olinger

"If the Bible is true, then none of our fears are legitimate, none of our frustrations are permanent, and none of our opposition is significant."

Dan Olinger

 

Retired Bible Professor,

Bob Jones University

home / about / archive 

Subscribe via Email

On Protest, Part 2: The Landscape 

July 17, 2025 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

Part 1: First Things 

As broken people—like everybody else—in a broken world, we will face disagreements and conflicts. To ameliorate and mediate these conflicts, God has established authority structures under which we all live and function. 

Before I delineate those, I’d like to note that much of modern culture rejects the whole idea of authority structures. Anarchists, such as Antifa, reject all governmental authority. Non-religious people reject church authority structures, of course, and a majority of contemporary Western culture rejects familial authority structures, most obviously the authority of husbands over their wives and the authority of parents over their children—the latter seeming particularly unpopular with many teachers in public education. 

Now, such people are of course free to believe whatever they want, but as is the case anytime humans reject the divine order, they run pretty quickly into a workability problem. Whether you’re doing away with government or other authority structures, you’re going to end up with chaos, with everyone doing what’s right in his own eyes. That’s been tried before (Jdg 21.25)—more than once—and it has never turned out well. Feel free to think of examples beyond the two I’ve mentioned; the pattern holds. 

Arguments against authority typically simply cite examples of abuses of governmental or ecclesiastical or familial authority, and there are many. But the fact that something is done wrong is no argument that it cannot be done right, or that it is so inherently evil that it shouldn’t be done at all. Is Florence Foster-Jenkins proof that nobody should sing? Given the brokenness of the world and its inhabitants, there will always be abuses. When they occur, we ought to correct them, but we will never construct a system in which such abuses don’t happen. 

How about  

“Come on, people, now, smile on your brother; 
Everybody get together, try to love one another right now”? 

I heard Jesse Colin Young sing that live on Boston Common more than fifty years ago. Didn’t work then; doesn’t work now. 

So I would suggest that it’s worth our time to recognize the authority structures under which God has placed us and to seek to live orderly, sensible, and realistic lives instead of insisting on the “freedom” of making things up as we go, all the way to utter chaos. 

I’ve already identified those authority structures above (contextually, as formal debaters say), but let me list them formally here, in the order in which God created them. 

The Home / Family 

The first people God created he intended to be a unit, an organism. Specifically, they were to be husband and wife (Ge 2.18, 21-25), and, as the language indicates, they were to have children (Ge 2.24, “one flesh”; cf Ge 9.1, 7). Later Scripture speaks repeatedly of the authority of parents over their children (e.g. Ep 6.1-4). 

The State / Government 

There is obviously no need for a state until the human population grows beyond a single family, but that apparently came very early in history, given the extended lifespans in that time (Adam, for example, lived to be more than 800 years old [Ge 5.4]). Adam’s son, Cain, established “a city” (Ge 4.17), probably several centuries after creation. We’re not told what sort of government it had, but some organization must have been involved. 

As Noah left the ark after the flood, God bestowed on humans the authority of capital punishment (Ge 9.6), which I think can serve as a clear indication of human government. 

And if the state can kill you for violating its law against murder, then clearly it has authority and can command obedience. 

It’s worth noting that pretty much all government in those days—indeed, all the way through the Medieval period—was autocratic. Of course the ancient Greeks experimented with democracy in Athens and Sparta, but that was short-lived and not influential. The current broad menu of governmental systems is a recent and unusual development. But the authority has always been there. 

The Church 

This third authority structure is a relative latecomer, having been instituted after the earthly ministry of Christ, at Pentecost (Ac 2.47 is the first biblical mention of the church as existing). It is never said to have authority over nonbelievers (hence the poor record of theocratic systems in the centuries since), but believers are often told to recognize and obey ecclesiastical authorities (e.g.2Th 3.7; He 13.7). 

Now. 

Since the world and everyone in it is broken, these authority structures are broken as well. There are mistakes and errors in judgment and execution, and often there are abuses. 

Now what? 

Next time. 

Photo by Koshu Kunii on Unsplash

Filed Under: Culture, Politics

On Protest, Part 1: First Things 

July 14, 2025 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

We live in a culture of protest, and one that didn’t just recently arrive on the scene. Nearly a century ago Mahatma Gandhi advocated non-violent protest against the British Empire’s claim of sovereignty over Indian affairs. Martin Luther King Jr. borrowed significantly from Gandhi in his leadership of protests against Jim Crow practices during the height of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. Pro-life protesters have been active outside abortion clinics for decades. Beginning in 2009, Tea Party activists protested publicly. And more recently various Occupy and Antifa factions have engaged in protests, most famously in Seattle and Portland.  

I’ve chosen to name these specific examples for their diversity—not just on the political spectrum, but the degree to which they advocate civil disobedience or violence. There are clearly different ways to protest. 

Protest is an effective way, especially with political issues, to get a cause onto the political agenda. It’s even implied in the US Constitution. It’s a common tool for dealing with authorities with whom we disagree. 

A context of protest provides a good opportunity for us to evaluate the biblical data on authority and to give some thought to how we can best respond when one of our authorities acts in a way we think is wrong. 

So let’s begin, as we always should, by laying out some biblical principles that can help determine our philosophy of protest and then guide our application of that philosophy. 

The Glory of God 

The Prime Directive is the glory of God. Our thoughts, words, and actions must reflect positively on him; they must attribute weightiness to him, giving others legitimate reason to think well of him—whether they end up doing so or not. We cannot control the decisions others make about their view of God, but we must not give them legitimate reason to think poorly of him. 

Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God (1Co 10.31). 

Only He is worth all of our love, all of our loyalty, and all of our devotion. God is the only person we can follow blindly—and He doesn’t ask us to; he has left millennia of historical record of his goodness, greatness, and faithfulness. 

This is a weighty task, one with eternal consequences. It must not be merely in the back of our minds as we lay out our plan of action. 

Thus it’s worth stating here at the outset that the cause for which we protest is always—always—secondary to our primary purpose of glorifying God and carrying out his commission to take his gospel to the ends of the earth. 

The Brokenness of Our World 

Our world, and everything in it, is broken. In God’s good plan, sin has damaged his creation. It has rendered us broken as people, and it has broken our environment and our circumstances (Ge 3.1-19). I’ll get to some implications of that later in the series. 

So we must not be surprised by evil, including injustice; but on the other hand, we must not be apathetic about it either, waving it off as “just the way things are,” with a flippant “if it doesn’t affect me, then what do I care?” As part of bringing glory to God, we are called to battle the world’s evil and bring healing and relief, to the degree that we can, where evil reveals itself. 

God Reigns 

God is not stymied or frustrated by evil; he is so much bigger than evil that he can use it to accomplish his own purposes (Ge 50.20). God is directing the course of each life for his glory (Ps 37.23). And for now, he has called all of us to walk as broken people in a broken world. Sometimes this means that we will experience evil and injustice (Job 1). 

But in the end, his will—his good will—is always accomplished. He directs and sustains us through evil things purposefully, in order to accomplish His goal in us: to conform us to the image of His dear Son (2Co 3.18). 

Next time, we’ll look more closely at the systems he uses to accomplish this. 

Photo by Koshu Kunii on Unsplash

Filed Under: Culture, Politics Tagged With: church and state

On Silence During Chaos, Part 3: Panic

May 5, 2025 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

Part 1: Personal | Part 2: Political 

You didn’t really think we were going to get through the sociopolitical situation in one post, did you? 

At the end of the previous post, I noted the almost constant pressure to see the current sociopolitical situation as apocalyptic: if we don’t do something now, everything will be ruined! 

A few thoughts about that. 

First, one of the basic rules of detecting and preventing fraud is to resist salespeople who are pressuring you to Act Now!, to get this special deal that won’t be available later. This technique happens in sales flyers for grocery stores; it happens at Wal-Mart; it happens at car lots; it happens when people are trying to lure you into a timeshare, or an investment in gold, or some hot stock, or some dark horse at the track. 

And it’s bogus. People who listen to those salespeople are going to lose their money, or at least they’re going to get less than they paid for. Fear makes for lousy decisions. 

Now, politicians and pundits are salespeople too. And they know, from long experience, that pressure tactics work. As one former advisor to President Obama famously said, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.” (That was Rahm Emanuel, in 2008.) Sometimes it’s a war; sometimes it’s an economic issue such as inflation or recession. Sometimes it’s an environmental catastrophe, or even just an apparent one, that serves as an opportunity to goose the level of governmental control. But it’s always something. 

So Trump is “a danger to democracy.” Biden’s immigration policy—or lack of one—will eventuate in “the last election of our lifetime.” Gotta do something. And the something you gotta do is vote for our guy, or support our policy. 

And thus has it ever been. Goldwater was going to bring nuclear death to that little girl picking daisies. Johnson was a warmonger, and Humphrey would bring us back to peace. Then Nixon was the warmonger, and McGovern would bring peace. Then Carter was going to destroy the economy. Then Reagan—oh, boy, did they unload on Reagan. “We begin bombing in five minutes!” Clinton. Bush 43 and the “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq. Obamacare. Trump the First. Biden and the immigration invasion. And now Trump the Second. 

One of the benefits of living for a while is that you realize that the news never changes. 

And in a day when everybody has a publishing platform, the simplest thing for individual citizens to do is to cooperate by spreading the story or the meme that confirms your bias, that makes the side you want to be on look right and righteous and rigorous. 

And here’s the thing. Most of the people who are doing this have no idea what they’re talking about. They think they’re fighting the good fight, but they can’t possibly be sure, at least not in an informed way. And some of them even post—after having done their “research,” which consists of reading an outlet that they have chosen to trust specifically because it tells them what they have already decided to believe—that their friends should “educate themselves.” 

So given the likelihood that any given political crisis is being overhyped—perhaps by both sides—I would conclude that waiting for a bit and seeing how things go is the better part of wisdom. Most of the predicted catastrophes never happen. 

I have an acquaintance, a Facebook friend, who’s professionally in a position to interact with influential people, including some people whose names you would likely recognize if you follow the news. He’s no fan of Trump. And the other day he posted that the likelihood is that things are going to turn out all right. 

But what if it’s a real crisis? What if we really do need to act immediately? In the previous post I noted the importance of being informed, and cool-headed, in a crisis. That means that even if the current situation is in fact a crisis, and not just a manufactured one, those who are acting out of fear or ignorance—that’s most of them—are unlikely to be of any real help, and in fact are likely to do harm. 

I don’t want to be one of those people. 

If I’m not an expert on tariffs or immigration or law enforcement or military readiness—as, apparently, everyone else on Facebook is—then I’m going to get out of the way and let the people who know what they’re doing take care of the situation. I’m not going to add to the chaos on-scene by shouting uninformed opinions at the people who are actually trying to accomplish something. 

Now, if they need help with Koine Greek, or biblical exegesis, or Christian theology, or online teaching, or experiential learning, or poaching an egg, or roasting a Thanksgiving turkey, I’ll be glad to help. But in the meantime I’ll stay in my corner. 

Next time: about that Christian theology … 

Part 4: Peace 1 | Part 5: Peace 2

Photo by Jonathan Harrison on Unsplash

Filed Under: Culture, Personal, Politics

On Silence During Chaos, Part 2: Political 

May 1, 2025 by Dan Olinger 1 Comment

Part 1: Personal 

Another factor in my political reticence is the current sociopolitical situation. 

I’ll start with the fact that we have the biggest and most powerful government in the history of the world. That’s a lot of power. And when there’s that much power, a lot of people are going to want a piece of that action. And typically, those people are not potential statesmen; they’re in it for themselves, and they’ll do whatever is necessary to get it. 

Some of them go the route of political office. They run for something achievable—say, city council—and they manage their image carefully, working up through the ranks until they get the Big Prize: US Senate. (I’d suggest that that’s usually more desirable than the Presidency, because it’s more likely to be achievable, and because it has lower visibility; once you’re the President, everybody’s after your job—even the people who say they’re on your side. The Senate consists of 100 people who think they ought to be President instead of the current guy.) 

Some go the route of journalism. They go to journalism school (which, by the way, no longer teaches accuracy in reporting; it teaches advocacy, taking a side and “reporting” in such a way that you influence the public to your position—which is a virtue, because of course you’re right), then work their way up from the local newspaper (if it even exists anymore) or TV newsroom to one in a larger city and then, if possible, to the network. Again, you’re not likely to get the anchor chair—though a home-town girl from Wade Hampton High in Greenville did a few years ago—but you can be the White House correspondent, or national security correspondent, or some other reporter who’s likely to make the national newscast multiple times per week. 

Some go the route of influencers—maybe because they’re rich (we’ve seen a lot of that lately) or because they have expertise in foreign affairs or monetary policy or political campaigns, and they can thereby get the President’s ear. 

The situation is complicated by the fact that in a complex political or policy environment, truth is damaged not only by what the outlet says; it’s damaged too, sometimes even more, by what it doesn’t say. If a network refuses to carry a story because they think it would help the “other side,” they’re leaving the public with a skewed view of reality. I’ve seen the New York Times do that, and I’ve seen Fox News do it; and for those for whom Fox News is too far left, I’ve seen the fervently pro-MAGA outlets do it as well. 

But all of this is about the power. Big government attracts the power-hungry. Those who have the power will do anything to keep it, and those who don’t will do anything to get it. 

In that environment, what will the news, and the news releases, be like? They’ll be telling one side of every story, the side most likely to get the government office, or the corporation, or the journalist, more power. And even those who speak most ostentatiously about putting out “no spin” are spinning. That’s a power grab too. 

Now. In that environment, what’s a consumer to do? 

Well, the standard advice is to hear both sides. But if both sides are skewing, who’s to say that Side 1 + Side 2 = The Truth? I’m reminded of the engineer who, upon hearing a friend say that she used a cheap tire pressure gauge but took the average of three readings, said, “Why do you think the average of three unreliable readings will be more reliable?” 

In practice, then, our short-term sense of the situation is simply not going to be reliable; it’s going to take some time for the truth to come out. 

To use a current example, President Trump says he’s going to use tariffs to negotiate deals with other countries, likely eventuating in what is effectively free trade. His opponents say it won’t work, and that in any case he’s inflating the number of countries who want to negotiate. Now, the only way to know who’s right is to wait and see whether his claim is verified. 

But that raises another problem. 

There’s no time for that! 

This will be the end of the world! 

We need to act now! 

We’ll talk about that next time. 

Part 3: Panic | Part 4: Peace 1 | Part 5: Peace 2

Photo by Jonathan Harrison on Unsplash

Filed Under: Culture, Politics

On Silence During Chaos, Part 1: Personal

April 28, 2025 by Dan Olinger 1 Comment

We live in a noisy time. The combination of national polarization, political controversy, and social media—the fact that literally everyone has a public platform now—encourages everyone to have a stake, an opinion, and to express it vociferously, even apocalyptically. 

I don’t say much about politics, at least not publicly. I’ve been asked, by people on both sides of the proverbial aisle, why I don’t say more—why I don’t “take a stand” for MAGA, or against it, or on some other hot-button issue. 

What am I afraid of? Rejection? Losing my job? (That’s funny, since I’m retiring in 2 weeks. But just for the record, I’ve never been afraid of losing my job. I have confronted people up the chain of command—all the way to the top—when I thought that was called for, and I still have my job. :-) ) 

So why don’t I speak up more? That’s a good question, and the answer is multi-faceted, touching on personal history, political philosophy, and theology. I think it would be worthwhile, as an exercise in integrating these and other disciplines, to work through an answer. 

That means that I’m going to be talking about myself for a few posts. I don’t normally do that, either; I’d much rather lay the Word out there and trust the Holy Spirit’s work in believers, and unbelievers, to make it profitable, even in ways I’m not necessarily intending. 

But for better or worse, here goes. 

First, personal history. 

  1. All my life I’ve had a problem with my mouth. My late parents and my older sisters could bear abundant testimony to that, as could any number of teachers, fellow students, former students, and colleagues. I haven’t typically been driven by malice; usually it’s just an attempt to be funny. But I have had enough of shooting off my mouth and then seeing the hurt on the face of someone I cared about. And I see my friends, on the left and on the right, posting hurtful things, often with actual malice aforethought, and I just don’t want any part of it. 

Grace. Mercy. Peace. That’s what I’d like my words to sow. 

  1. Shortly after our two daughters were born, I decided to get certified as an EMT, so I’d know what to do in an emergency. A key part of that training was the importance of surveying the scene: you don’t just rush into a situation (hurry! lives are at stake!!!!) without taking some time to see whether there’s ongoing danger, and if so, where it is. If you don’t do that, you’ll likely become just another person who needs medical attention, another person some other responder is going to have to expend the effort to rescue. Just jumping into an emergency situation isn’t helping anybody. 
  1. A few years later I got certified as a security guard by the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) so that I would be more reliable as a concealed carrier of a firearm. With that certification I was then approved to carry on school and church property. (South Carolina doesn’t allow carrying there without board approval.) Again, a key part of that training is the importance of staying calm in a chaotic situation; if there’s a shooter in a church sanctuary, and everybody’s running in all directions, and there’s loud noise and the smell of gunpowder in the air, you don’t want to be firing wildly in random directions; you want to observe, determine the threat, determine whether you’re in a position to neutralize the threat (from your angle, is there an innocent person in the line of fire? even beyond the target?), and only then take action. You’re responsible for the final location of every bullet that leaves your weapon, and everything it touches along the way.

We’re responsible, too, for every word we speak. Words can do great damage, often even greater damage than bullets can. We will give account to the one who knows all things (Mt 12.36): Jesus himself said that. 

In the current culture, everyone’s encouraged to shoot his mouth off in public forums. Here’s the outrage of the day; what side do you have to be on, based on your vote in the last election? Well, then, assume that position; shoot first, ask questions later. Could the situation be more complicated than it appears at first glance? Who cares? Fire away! 

I see that kind of behavior every day—and yes, on both sides.* 

I’m not gonna have it. 

Next time, we’ll begin looking at the socio-political environment. 

* And no, I’m not engaging in “both-sidesism.” That’s saying, “The other side does this bad thing, so my side can do it too.” That’s not what I’m saying; I’m rejecting them both and refusing to do the bad thing. 

Part 2: Political | Part 3: Panic | Part 4: Peace 1 | Part 5: Peace 2

Photo by Jonathan Harrison on Unsplash

Filed Under: Culture, Personal, Politics, Theology

On Political Panic, Part 1 

February 27, 2025 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

I don’t very often post political things on social media or on this blog. There’s plenty of noise out there already, and I’m no more qualified to speak on political issues than the next guy. I also find that in the current polarized environment, taking a public political position results in half the country refusing to listen to anything you say for the next forever, and my effectiveness at carrying out the Great Commission, and at ministering to hurting people in other ways, is infinitely more important to me than my preferred candidate’s winning in this or that election. 

Some years ago I began a political-sounding post on Facebook with this statement: 

This is not a political post. It’s a discipleship post. 

The rest of today’s post is offered in that spirit. 

We all know that the US appears to be polarized, angry, and intolerant, across the political spectrum, and that this polarization is particularly evident on social media. Pretty much every post that takes a political position is soon followed with a string of comments filled with anger, name-calling, and invective, rehashing the same ideas that are in all the strings of comments on other posts. Some people seem to thrive on that, even to live for it. Eventually many others try to avoid it, either by unfriending or blocking certain people or just staying off Facebook or Twitter/X entirely. 

I’d like to offer a few observations on the situation, for what they’re worth. 

First, I try not to see comment threads as statistically significant. (That’s what my first post on this blog was about.) I have a lot of FB friends, plenty enough, and across the political spectrum, to be a statistically reliable database. And I note that my friends—and I do count them friends—who are making the most noise are relatively few; for a certain subset of my friends—and I do count them friends—I know what position they’re going to take, and how emotionally laden they’re going to be, before I read what they say. And I note, importantly, that not everyone making the most noise out there is an empty barrel. (Here’s looking at you, Paul. And Bob. :-) ) But most people stay out of the fray, I assume because they’re spending their time on efforts they view as more valuable for them. I conclude that the polarization and rage are not as pervasive as they appear. 

I’d also suggest some biblical insights that could help all of us find a higher degree of peace. 

Everybody’s a combination of two deeply powerful and effectual characteristics. First, everybody is in the image of God. Everybody. Including all the people you and I disagree with on social media. That means that everybody should be heard and respected. Taunting is a violation of this principle. So is posting something just to irk somebody else, to “stick it to the” whoevers. 

Respect. 

Secondly, everybody is an imperfect incarnation of God’s original design for humans. More commonly we say that everyone is fallen, is broken, is a sinner. We call that “original sin.” That includes me, and it includes you—and if the truth be told, we are the ones mostly likely to know how deeply that brokenness goes in us. We need to tell the truth to and about ourselves. 

Now, that means that every political candidate is a mixture of great good and great evil. Sometimes he (or she) is right, and sometimes he (or she) is wrong. Everybody’s like that. 

The tendency of political fans is to denounce everything “the other guy” says or does, and to affirm (or excuse, if you have to) everything “our guy” says or does. That’s unbiblical, and because it’s unbiblical, it’s foolish and doomed to make one look foolish in the long run, if not immediately. 

Next time, one further thought on the apocalypticism of it all. 

Photo by Usman Yousaf on Unsplash

Filed Under: Culture Tagged With: fear, politics

On a New Year

January 2, 2025 by Dan Olinger 1 Comment

Another new year. My 70th. After a while they all sort of blend together, don’t they? 

Since I started this blog back in July 2017, this is my seventh New Year’s post. (I know the math doesn’t work; I didn’t post about New Year’s Day in 2018, because apparently I took a break between 12/18/17 and 1/8/18. I was young and relatively inexperienced in those days.) 

Seven being the number of completeness, maybe I should quit after this one. But I don’t expect to. 

It’s usually fun to reach a turning point like this—a new year, a new baby, a new job, a new house—and to anticipate the ways that it will change what lies ahead. I’m one of those optimists you hear about, and I tend to over-expect what good things might happen. That puts a spring in your step, but it also sets you up for disappointment. 

Others, perhaps less optimistic, or just under realistic threat of coming or continuing hardship, have expectations that are less sanguine. If the optimist’s weak spot is disappointment, the pessimist’s is fear. 

The Scripture speaks to both of those. 

To the disappointed it speaks of God’s sovereign goodness, the rightness and propriety of the expected thing’s not happening. The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord (Ps 37.23). Further, it speaks of the importance of not finding our ultimate satisfaction in what happens to us here (Ec 1.2-3). 

To the fearful it speaks abundantly; the expression “fear not” or something similar appears 75 times in the Scripture, and while many of those are referring to specific situations, the general application is clear. We fear God (Ec 12.13) but don’t fear anything else. 

But it has more to say to both groups than that. Three interrelated thoughts. 

First, this year, this life, this entire history of life on earth, are all temporary. Old coots are more sensitive to that than young ones (and yes, there can be young coots; look it up). The difficult things won’t last, and neither will the good things. While it’s impossible to be completely passive—stoic or Buddhist—about the trials and joys of life, we do find comfort in the knowledge that the trials will end, and we find warning in the knowledge that the earthly things we find joy in will not be permanent either. 

Second, as I’ve noted, life is providential; there is a wise and loving God directing our path through, and including, the trials and joys. They make sense—though not always to us at the time—and they serve a good and profitable purpose. Paul tells us that 

we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; 4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope: 5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us (Ro 5.3-5). 

The hard things—as well as the enjoyable things, I would add—give us the opportunity to endure, which makes us stronger, which enables us to overcome, which gives us confidence the next time. In our joys and in our sorrows, we’re getting useful things done, and we’re becoming the improved version of ourselves that will live forever. Life is temporary, but it’s an important investment. 

And that leads to the third thought: there’s more and better coming, and it will not be broken, and it will not be temporary. And no, this is not pie in the sky (though, given that the tree of life bears fruit every month [Re 22.2]), maybe there will be pie; who knows?). This is the promise of God: 

3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: 4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. 5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever (Re 22.3-5). 

In this New Year, live with the end in mind. 

Happy New Year. 

Photo by Jeremy Perkins on Unsplash

Filed Under: Culture, Theology Tagged With: holidays, New Year, providence

After Christmas 

December 26, 2024 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

They say that it’s not the fall that kills you; it’s the sudden stop at the end. 

Christmas is a loooooong season, and then a sudden stop. 

It’s a long season, of course, because that’s when the retailers make pretty much all their money for the year, so the hype is insistent, intrusive, and extended. 

Everybody knows that. 

And then comes the 25th, when there’s an explosion of gift-opening, a feast, and then maybe a football game or two while the children play with the boxes that their toys came in. 

And then. 

It’s over. 

The Sudden Stop. 

If you buy into the commercialism and consumerism and Clausism, then that can be a pretty depressing time. 

But it shouldn’t be. 

It shouldn’t be, you see, because you shouldn’t buy into the 3 C’s—because as we know, Christmas is not about the 3 C’s. And it isn’t even about the stuff that TV movies have in mind when they talk about “the true meaning of Christmas”—by which they mean family, and giving, and snow. 

Which kinda leaves out the Southern Hemisphere, doesn’t it? 

Seems like “the true meaning of Christmas” should include everybody. 

I’d suggest that the most important element of “the true meaning of Christmas” is that it’s not an end, but a beginning. 

It was an end to Mary’s pregnancy, of course, and that was undoubtedly a great relief to her. But all mothers, and most dads, know that a birth is a beginning to a far greater commitment to the raising of the child and preparation for his life mission. 

And in the case of this child, the Son of God, the life mission is the most important one in all of history. 

I’ve meditated before on the many mysteries surrounding the development of this unique child, the God-man. The questions are beyond our understanding, and speculation doesn’t really get us anywhere except to increase our wonder and awe at this person. We are mystified by our Elder Brother (Ro 8.29). 

We assume Mary and Joseph pursued his education in pretty much the normal way, but at least by age 12 he was aware that he had a mission far beyond that of his brothers or his parent(s). As an adult, even in the middle of the greatest crisis of his earthly life, he commented, 

Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour (Jn 12.27). 

That “cause,” or mission, as we know, was to die, and to die no ordinary death, but one that embraces the wrath of God upon all sinners for all the sins of all time. 

And more than that—if “more” is the right word—to live in perfect obedience to the Law, thereby accomplishing the righteousness that will be available as a gift to all who come to him in faith and repentance. 

And even more than that. 

He came to save us, yes (Mt 20.28). But even that salvation comes in stages. Justification, conversion, is just the beginning of a lifelong path of sanctification and eventual glorification. 

And even more. 

As we noted in a recent series, the final goal—the real goal, if I can put it that way—is union and fellowship. This baby, this Immanuel, is God becoming one of us, to be united with the human race forever, to be our spouse in an eternal, intimate marriage. 

And so yesterday we celebrated the birth of this unique infant, but today is the first day of All the Rest of It. 

Lots to treasure now, and lots to look forward to. 

Note: I wrote this post before I read this.

Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash

Filed Under: Culture Tagged With: Christmas, holidays

On Christmas

December 23, 2024 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

This is my last blog post before Christmas. Feels like I should write about that. I suppose I could consider my just-concluded series on “Immanuel” an extended Christmas post, especially considering the photo I chose for it, but I feel like writing more directly about the holiday. So here goes. 

Aging changes your perspective on things, and Christmas is no exception. 

When I was a kid, Christmas was all about the anticipation: What am I gonna get for Christmas? In those days my family was relatively poor. That’s not quite the right word; we had a place to live, and food to eat, and clothes to wear. But we didn’t have what you might call high liquidity, so not much discretionary income. At Christmas each of us kids would get one present. (I remember one Christmas—I guess I was about 8—when I got a football and a helmet, and I could scarcely contain myself.) 

Eventually I realized that I should give gifts as well as receive them. I picked a book off our bookshelf and wrapped it up for my Mom. She was highly amused, especially since it was a book she had owned since the 1940s. 

And yes, eventually I decided to buy gifts rather than just scrounge them from around the house. 

But now I think differently, in ways that most people my age do. 

When loved ones ask me what I want for Christmas, I usually can’t think of anything. I have all I need, and a lot of things I don’t need. These days I’m trying to get rid of stuff. I’ve even tried offering my books to my students, and I find that hardly anybody uses books anymore; they use electronic, and so do I. (I love the fact that when I teach overseas, I can take my entire electronic library—thousands of titles—on my laptop, which fits comfortably under the seat in front of me. And I also love the fact that I can make the type bigger. And that I can search my ebooks electronically. And I like lots of other stuff about them.) 

Anybody want some books? I’m serious. 

Um, back to Christmas gifts. 

If something I have breaks—most recently, my espresso maker—I can just get a new one; no need to wait for Christmas. And just for the record, I don’t wear ties anymore, so don’t even. 

I find it’s not about the presents anymore, and it hasn’t been for a long time. 

What is it for me? 

It’s family. All of us together, enjoying the experience. Feasting together. Telling stories. Reminiscing. Opening presents, sure, but the joy I get is more from watching them open theirs.  

Recently I’ve noticed that I’m also enjoying the season more. Christmas music—the sacred kind—is meaning more to me than it used to. I find the secular stuff mostly just irritating; I have no desire to rock around the Christmas tree, and I wouldn’t recognize Mariah Carey’s voice if I heard it. Though, come to think of it, I can still dream about a white Christmas, though of course it’ll never happen here in the upstate of South Carolina. And the occasional silver bell is okay too. 

Another nice feature of the season is the lights and decorations. The neighborhoods look good, and I especially like the decorations along the main street in the small southern towns—you know, with the single row of brick storefronts and the railroad tracks just across the street. Banners from the light posts and strings of lights crisscrossing the street, just high enough for the trucks to get under. 

Calm. Contentment. Joy. Peace. 

Merry Christmas. 

Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash

Filed Under: Culture, Personal Tagged With: Christmas, holidays

On Thanksgiving

November 29, 2024 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

Here’s my annual Thanksgiving post.

Photo credit: Wikimedia

Filed Under: Culture, Personal, Worship Tagged With: gratitude, holidays, Thanksgiving

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 17
  • Next Page »