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 Fun, Part 3: Loving Your Neighbor

by Leave a Comment

Part 1: It’s Good | Part 2: On Purpose

Jesus told us that the greatest commandment is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mk 12.30; Lk 10.27). As we saw in the previous post, we can and should do that in the fun times as well as in the serious ones.

But Jesus, unbidden, identified the second greatest commandment as well: love your neighbor as yourself (Mk 12.31; Lk 10.27). Is it possible for us to do that when we’re “just having fun”?

I think the question pretty much answers itself. If God’s goal for me is being like Christ, then that’s his goal for everybody I know as well. And if I can make my rest and pleasure purposeful for myself, then I can make it purposeful for my friends and associates too.

I can think of a couple of ways to do that.

First, Paul tell us to be sure that we “edify” our brothers and sisters in Christ—that is, we build them up, make them stronger. We can spend some time thinking about how we strengthen their spiritual walk through our shared entertainment experiences. For example, what are your friend’s strengths or gifts, and how can your shared leisure experiences reinforce those gifts? Is he a “people person”? Then how about doing things that bring you across the paths of others, where he can instruct, encourage, enjoy? Can he teach friends how to build a campfire, cook on it, set up a tent? I believe there’s an obvious activity that could serve that purpose. What if he’s more solitary, bookish? How about reading a book together? Visiting a historical site? Playing Ticket to Ride or Settlers of Catan?

Now, I know that many readers of this post will think this sounds unbearably dull. Of course. I’m intentionally trying to give examples for the hard cases. You and your friends can certainly come up with options that fit your personalities and interests more specifically. My point is that you should give it all some thought, rather than just “hanging out” unimaginatively.

I said I had a couple of ways. Here’s the flip side. The opposite of building up is tearing down. We also need to be sure that we don’t cause spiritual damage to our friends by the choices we make in having fun. What are the things your friend struggles with spiritually? (You don’t know? Then it’s time to add some substance to your friendship by talking about your spiritual strengths and weaknesses, victories and struggles.) If he has a problem in an environment dominated by bikinis, then you probably shouldn’t be going to the beach. If he’s tempted to isolate himself from others, thereby avoiding the need to love his neighbor, then maybe video games aren’t the wisest choice.

In a similar vein, we need to respect the consciences of our friends. I’ve touched on that before; let me say here that there is no legitimate place for us to encourage friends to do things that they don’t think they should do—even if we’re convinced that they’re mistaken, and their consciences are being unnecessarily strict with them. When you violate your conscience—in effect, tell it to shut up—you’re weakening it for the next time. Do that enough times, and eventually it won’t speak up at all anymore—and that, my friend, is not a place you want to be. And so it’s not a place you want your friends to be either.

So you engage in activities that you can all enjoy, that will increase your effectiveness as followers of Jesus, that will provide you all with the kind of pleasure and relaxation that God wants you to have.

There’s another general consideration I’d like to address, and then some more specific questions we can ask ourselves as we make our choices.

Next time.

Photo by MI PHAM on Unsplash

Part 4: Down with Slavery | Part 5: Question Everything

On Fun, Part 2: On Purpose

by Leave a Comment

Part 1: It’s Good

We’ve established that fun—which I’ve defined as comprising pleasure and rest—is good, in that God engages in such activities and commends them for his people. But Scripture also indicates that humans have a remarkable propensity for turning good things into bad things, and we can all think of ways that people have entertained themselves that are clearly unacceptable.

So it’s worth trying to derive some simple principles, based in Scripture, to help us evaluate the ways we choose our pleasures and our ways to relax.

Really? Do we have to be that obsessive about how we choose to have fun?

Well, I wouldn’t call it obsessive—that word implies that there’s something mentally unhealthy about it. I’d prefer to call it being thoughtful, in the sense of thinking carefully about how we steward our lives, our bodies, and our time.

The Scripture famously says,

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

That says, among other things, that

  • We ought to have a purpose for everything in our lives; nothing is purposeless, mindless, or “just entertainment”;
  • That purpose is outside, or beyond, ourselves; we have other things to consider besides just what we want to do.

So yes, we ought to give thought to how we have fun. I don’t apologize for saying that.

Now, to implement this kind of thinking, we need to begin by defining a key term: what does it means to “do all to the glory of God”? What brings him glory?

I would suggest that honoring him should involve caring about his goals, his purposes. And he tells us what his goal for us as his people is:

Them who are the called according to his purpose, … he did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son (Ro 8.28-29).

Without getting distracted by the arguments about predestination, we can safely conclude that God’s purpose or goal for us is that we be like his Son. Our lives should be a process of becoming increasingly like Jesus.

That’s the Prime Directive.

Everything we do should be purposely chosen for that end.

As a simple illustration, if a sitcom makes me laugh at sin, I can’t think to myself, “Oh, lighten up; it’s just a joke!”

In a life patterned after 1 Corinthians 10.31, nothing is ever “just a joke.”

I’m not suggesting that we should be somber and joyless; but I am arguing that our laughter, which should be abundant, should also be purposeful, should be about things that the Son would enjoy sharing with us.

Recently I had dinner with a group gathered in a midwestern city for a conference of Christian educators. There were 11 of us seated around a large table, and over good food we told stories of teaching and other ministry experiences, and we laughed until our sides hurt. Some of us were closer friends than others, but by the end of the evening we all were united by the simple delight of the experience. No observer would have thought that anyone at the table was a stick in the mud.

What a joy such an experience is. What memories it cements in our minds.

What fun.

Now eating and telling tales and laughing is not the only way to have fun. As beings in the image of God, we are creative, and over the centuries people have come up with all sorts of ways to entertain themselves. And in the future there will be many, many more. Delight in such things is a gift from God.

Let’s think for a few posts about how to experience such delights in ways that move us toward being like the Son.

Photo by MI PHAM on Unsplash

Part 3: Loving Your Neighbor | Part 4: Down with Slavery | Part 5: Question Everything

On Fun, Part 1: It’s Good

by 1 Comment

For a radical change of pace, I’d like to spend a few posts thinking about having fun—and specifically, how to have fun and do it right.

I’ll note that my colleague Dr. Brian Hand has written a brief book on the subject, cleverly titled Upright Downtime, which I highly recommend. This series isn’t a summary of that book, but of course our thoughts will overlap in places.

I think the best place to begin is with morals. I’m happy to start with a firm and resolute statement:

Fun is good.

We know that it’s good, because God both practices it himself and endorses it for us.

I’d suggest that what we call “fun” consists of both pleasure, or enjoyment, and rest, or relaxation. God engages in both.

  • God takes pleasure throughout Scripture, in all kinds of things:
    • Uprightness (1Ch 29.17)
    • The prosperity of his servant (Ps 35.27)
    • Those that fear him (Ps 147.11)
    • His Temple (Hag 1.8)
    • Giving his people the kingdom (Lk 12.32)

In just this short list I note that God takes pleasure in not only the service of his servants (uprightness, fear, the Temple) but also in their pleasure (prosperity, the kingdom). More on that in a few sentences.

  • God also rests.
    • He rested from creation on Day 7 (Ge 2.2). Now, I know that God didn’t rest because he was tired; the passage simply means that he stopped his creative work, because it was finished. But he did stop. The biblical picture of God is not of one who is working feverishly—even though he is working constantly, most noticeably in his providential work. But he is not stressed, and he is never feeling the pressure of getting it all done.
    • Jesus, incarnate, rested from his exhausting labors by withdrawing into the wilderness (Lk 5.16). Sometimes he does that to pray, as this verse specifies (see also Mt 14.23); sometimes no specific reason is given (Mt 14.13). If you had three years to save the world, would you be taking days off? Jesus did.

Beyond that, God clearly encourages—even commands—us to take pleasure and rest as well.

  • He makes Eden’s trees “pleasant to the sight, and good for food” (Ge 2.9). Multisensory pleasure! And we know that Adam was encouraged to eat of every tree that was good for food, with the exception of just one (Ge 2.17).
  • David notes that “at [God’s] right hand there are pleasures forevermore” (Ps 16.11); and again, “[The children of men] shall be abundantly satisfied with the fatness of thy house; And thou shalt make them drink of the river of thy pleasures” (Ps 36.8). This metaphor speaks of an abundance of pleasure, of multiple kinds of pleasure, of swimming in it.
  • All through the Song of Solomon, the kings delights in specifically sexual pleasure. Many commentators have tried to lessen the erotic tone of the book by turning it into a metaphor of God’s love for his church; but I don’t see any evidence in the text that it should be read that way. It was God, after all, who designed sex to be pleasurable.

And rest?

  • The same Jesus who withdraws into the wilderness for rest takes his disciples with him on at least one occasion (Mk 6.31).
  • And then there’s the Sabbath, a central feature of the Law of Moses, where God requires his people to rest every seventh day—on penalty of death (Nu 15.32-36).

Rest is serious business; it’s a basic need for those in the image of God.

But I need to temper the title of this post.

The Scripture is clear that not all fun is good. There is pleasure that is evil, and there is rest that is evil. The God who takes pleasure in many things also reveals that he does not take pleasure in certain other things.

So how do we decide how to have fun?—or more precisely, what kinds of fun to have?

We’ll start on that in the next post.

Photo by MI PHAM on Unsplash

Part 2: On Purpose | Part 3: Loving Your Neighbor | Part 4: Down with Slavery | Part 5: Question Everything

A Little Interaction with ChatGPT: Can Teachers Spot Fake Student Work? Part 2

by Leave a Comment

Part 1

In the previous post I presented two questions that I asked ChatGPT, a writing tool based on artificial intelligence, and I included the tool’s response to each question. My interest in trying this was to see if I could spot any evidence that the responses were not written by a student; as a teacher, I want to have some defense against the possibility that a student might use the tool to get out of writing a paper himself.

The first question was “write an essay evaluating Paul’s use of intertextuality in Romans 3.” The second was “evaluate the previous essay for evidence of origination by ChatGPT.”

Here’s my thinking as I read the responses.

The first thing I noticed was how well written it was. The spelling, grammar, and syntax were all nicely polished. The sentences were all grammatically complete. There was no indication that this writer had ever written a text or posted on Twitter (lol). The paragraphs were all coherent. In particular, there were no words that were misspelled but actually spelled other words (e.g. their / there)—that’s evidence of the overwhelmingly common student practice of running the spell checker but not actually proofreading the paper.

Now, I have students who write that well, but they’re in the minority. If my students were to submit something like this, particularly after I’d graded a previous writing assignment, most of them would get caught.

Well, that was easy.

But there are other things to notice as well.

In the first place—and other analysts have noticed this too—the writer doesn’t actually know anything about the topic. The teacher brings expertise to the question and is thus in a position to notice that the tool is just spouting (very nicely) things that he’s imitating from lots of sources; he doesn’t really know what he’s talking about.

As one example, the essay notes correctly that a section of Romans 3 cites passages in the Psalms. But it doesn’t mention that near the end of that section, between two citations from the Psalms, is a string of three citations from Isaiah 59. A human would see that and think, “That’s odd. I wonder why he pops out to Isaiah like that. It’s not like he needs more evidence; this is at the end of a long string of perfectly sufficient evidence from the Psalms.” And, as the standardized process of evaluating intertextuality would prescribe, he would examine the contexts of all those citations to see what’s with the intrusion of Isaiah. And he’d find that all the Psalms passages are addressed to “the wicked” or some synonym, while the Isaiah passage is full of pronouns (they, etc.) that don’t identify specifically who’s (not “whose”) being addressed; and the human would need to trace those pronouns all the way back to the very beginning of chapter 58, where we find that the prophet is describing the depravity of “the house of Jacob.”

Aha! Back in Romans 2, Paul is arguing that both Jews and Gentiles are in need of justification, and he begins chapter 3 comparing the two groups. As he lists passages from the Psalms demonstrating the corruption of “the wicked,” he realizes that he needs to document the pious followers of Moses as well—and he goes to Isaiah, to a passage describing not the idolatrous Northern Kingdom of Israel, but the Southern Kingdom of Judah, the Davidic line.

All that is human thinking. Machines can’t do that. And the teacher who reads his students’ work carefully and thoughtfully, and who knows the ins and outs of the topic that he’s assigned, is in a position to spot that kind of major omission.

I also thought the evaluation (the answer to my second question) was off. Obviously, it missed the whole point I’ve laid out above, as I would expect. But it also criticized the essay for not including personal stories, which would be inappropriate in this academic exercise. And its two uses of the conjunction “however” are illogical; the expected word in each case should be “further,” given that following statements are extending the current point, not contrasting with it.

In short, everything it said was true, but it would raise a teacher’s eyebrows at multiple points. This little sample isn’t sufficient basis for a firm conclusion, but as a teacher I’m encouraged by the experiment.

One more thing: this experiment took place in the context of a conversation with several friends on Facebook, which had some entertaining moments. The complete thread is here, dated 2/4/2023. And a well-deserved word of thanks to my longtime friend Joel Lindstrom, who made it possible—and to Scott Buchanan, who added some enlightening content.

Photo by Andy Kelly on Unsplash

A Little Interaction with ChatGPT: Can Teachers Spot Fake Student Work? Part 1

by Leave a Comment

OK, the subtitle overpromises. I’ve had “a little interaction,” and that doesn’t answer the question with any real certainty. But for what it’s worth, I’ll share what happened.

ChatGPT is an online tool that answers questions, even complex ones, using artificial intelligence (AI). Lots of teachers are concerned that this will hamper their ability to assign writing and maintain academic integrity. Early evaluations are mixed.

Here’s what I did.

I asked the tool to “write an essay evaluating Paul’s use of intertextuality in Romans 3.” I tried to word it to heighten the chance that the essential stupidity of computers would work against the bot. (Yes, they’re wicked fast, which can give the illusion of smarts, but at root they have no intelligence whatsoever, except the artificial kind.) I asked for an essay, and for evaluation; I didn’t call Paul a “saint”; I didn’t mention the Bible, and I didn’t say what “3” meant.

Here’s what it produced:

Intertextuality, the concept of drawing on other texts and literary sources in one’s writing, is a prevalent feature in the New Testament, particularly in the letters of Paul. The apostle’s use of intertextuality can be seen in many of his letters, including Romans 3.

In this chapter, Paul draws on a number of Old Testament texts to make his point about the sinfulness of humanity and the need for righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. One of the most notable examples of intertextuality in this chapter can be seen in verses 10-18, where Paul quotes from the book of Psalms to emphasize the universality of sin and the need for salvation through faith. By using these Old Testament references, Paul is able to connect his message to the Jewish tradition and to make a clear connection between the Old Testament and the gospel message.

Another way in which Paul uses intertextuality in Romans 3 is through his allusions to other parts of the Old Testament. For example, in verses 21-22, Paul refers to the Old Testament concept of righteousness being given through faith, an idea that is prominent in the book of Habakkuk. By alluding to these other texts, Paul is able to reinforce his message and make a deeper connection with his audience.

In addition to drawing on Old Testament texts, Paul also uses intertextuality to connect his message to the larger narrative of the gospel. For example, in verse 24, Paul refers to the idea of redemption through the blood of Christ, a concept that is central to the gospel message. By referencing this central idea, Paul is able to connect his message in Romans 3 to the larger narrative of salvation through faith in Jesus.

In conclusion, Paul’s use of intertextuality in Romans 3 is both effective and sophisticated. By drawing on Old Testament texts and alluding to other parts of the gospel narrative, Paul is able to reinforce his message and make a deeper connection with his audience. Through his use of intertextuality, Paul shows that his message is rooted in the Jewish tradition and the larger gospel narrative, and that it is intended to bring salvation to all people.

I then made another request: “Evaluate the previous essay for evidence of origination by ChatGPT.” Here’s what it gave me:

The essay demonstrates characteristics consistent with an AI model’s writing. For example, the language is formal and academic, with a clear structure and well-defined arguments. The use of terms such as “intertextuality” and “allusions” shows a familiarity with literary terminology, which is also consistent with an AI model’s training.

However, the essay also lacks a personal touch or a unique perspective that would be expected from a human writer. The language and arguments are polished and well-constructed, but they lack the depth and nuance that can only come from a personal understanding and connection with the topic.

Additionally, the essay relies heavily on facts and terminology, but lacks personal anecdotes or examples to illustrate the points being made. This lack of personalization and emphasis on facts is also consistent with an AI model’s writing style.

In conclusion, the essay shows strong evidence of being generated by an AI model such as ChatGPT. The formal language, well-defined structure, and reliance on facts are all consistent with the writing of an AI model. However, the essay lacks the personal touch and unique perspective that would be expected from a human writer.

These products are impressive, but I think I would spot the fakery if a student submitted them to me. I’ll talk about that in the next post.

Part 2

Photo by Andy Kelly on Unsplash

On What You Put into Your Head, Part 3: Toto, We’re Not in Eden Anymore

by 1 Comment

Part 1: Strategic Exposure | Part 2: All the Trees of the Garden

While there’s great joy in romping through fields of wildflowers, we know that the pastoral scenes in novels and movies aren’t really accurate. There are ants at the picnic and snakes in the woods. The world is a broken place; it’s really not a good idea to follow my recommendation in the previous post—“learn all you can about everything you can”—without putting some sensible limitations in place.

We’re not in Eden anymore.

How do we decide which trees in the garden to sample?

Many Christians like to use the guidance in Philippians 4.8—

“Finally, brothers,

  • whatever is true,
  • whatever is honorable,
  • whatever is just,
  • whatever is pure,
  • whatever is lovely,
  • whatever is commendable,
  • if there is any excellence,
  • if there is anything worthy of praise,

think about these things.”

I don’t doubt that anyone who focuses his mental faculties on these things will be better for it.

But I note a few things about this list. First, it’s not presented as exhaustive; there’s no command to think only about things on this list. Second, there are times when the Bible itself tells us to think about manifestly negative, even sinful things—to consider the way of the fool, for example. Sometimes it tells us stories that are anything but lovely. And third, I would suggest that because everyone’s different, there are probably even some good things that I shouldn’t dwell on—and you’ll have a similar list, though it’ll probably be different from mine in the particulars.

Why do I say that?

Because the Scripture tells us that we need to make individual adjustments to our mental explorations based on our strengths and weaknesses and our personal characteristics, such as our consciences. Let me give some examples.

Paul says, “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient” (1Co 6.12). In fact, he says it twice (1Co 10.23). What does that mean? It means that some things that others can do freely will not get me toward my goal, will not help me fulfill my purposes. I need to stay focused, give primary attention and time to the things that God has called me to do. For example, I’m called to be a teacher. But I’m fluent only in English. When I teach overseas, I often teach through an interpreter, which means I get in only half the content in the same amount of time. Every time I meet a new language, I’m really tempted to learn it so I don’t have to use an interpreter and can cover more material. But the time it would take for me to learn Kiswahili, or Bemba, or Afrikaans, or Xhosa (and those clicks!), or Mandarin, or Chamorro, or even Spanish, would severely limit the time I can spend on my primary calling, which is studying the material and thinking about the most effective ways to present it. It’s not a profitable use of my time, given the time required to gain fluency. It’s not expedient. It’s better to let someone else do that.

In the first verse in the previous paragraph, Paul also says, “All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” We’re all prone to give in to the allure of some activity or other—playing video games, watching TV, eating butterscotch sundaes. Most people can handle those activities in a balanced way, but for some it just becomes addictive. I’ve written about my decision to go cold turkey on caffeine. We need to make the firm decision to stay away from otherwise good things that pull us off balance.

In the second verse above, Paul says, “All things are lawful for me, but not all things edify.” Sometimes we have to decide whether something we’re free to do might get in the way of our spiritual growth—or someone else’s. We need to keep our eyes on the prize and set aside weights that keep us from running our best race (He 12.1).

So as we enjoy God’s good gifts, we do so thoughtfully and purposefully, and that means carefully and cautiously.

Be curious! But be careful.

There’s great freedom in that.

Photo by jesse orrico on Unsplash

On What You Put into Your Head, Part 2: All the Trees of the Garden

by Leave a Comment

Part 1: Strategic Exposure

I noted last time that God gave Adam and Eve free access to all the many trees in the garden, except for just one. God is lavish with his gifts, including his gifts for our thoughtful consideration and even our entertainment. There’s evidence for that all through his Word, and all around us as well.

  • There’s much that glorifies God in the world around us—and beyond it. David, perhaps while watching sheep under a night sky, sang, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork” (Ps 19.1). Just as we learn a lot about a creative person, an artist, by studying his art, so we learn about God by studying his creation—its immensity, its precision, its design, its beauty, its reliability. That means that we ought to study science, at whatever depth we’re equipped to do so.
  • Perhaps you’ve never thought about the fact that the universe has a design language. Its dimensions and proportions and relationships constitute what we call math (or maths, if you’re across the pond). I know a lot of people who don’t like math and didn’t do well in it in school. OK, it’s not for everybody. But math has beauty and order and precision just like the visible universe that it describes, and it declares the glory of God just as certainly.
  • The Bible also tells us that God directs the affairs of peoples and nations, and that the heart of the king is in his hand (Pr 21.1). That means that the outworking of history tells us something about God’s mind—and the better we see how God’s mind works, the better we know him. Providence—history—is well worth thinking about as we seek to glorify God.
  • At the end of the creation week we learn that the last creatures God made—Adam and Eve—he made in his image (Ge 1.26-27). Whatever that means specifically—and there’s a fair amount of debate about that—it means that we resemble God in some significant way or ways. And that means that we can learn about God by studying humans—
    • Their languages
    • Their literature
    • Their art
    • Their music
    • Their speech
    • Their dramatic productions

So the humanities and the arts are places we ought to settle down in and think about.

It’s pretty obvious that I’m talking about the elements of a liberal arts education. No surprise there; I teach at a liberal arts university, where I’ve spent my entire adult life.

I have friends who think college is a waste of money. Learn a trade, they say, and you’ll make more money while avoiding debt.

I think that’s reductionistic. College is just right for some people, and not for others. The trades are honorable employments, and we need people in our society who are good at them. But I shiver at logic that makes earning power the sole criterion for a career decision. And I think we’d all do well to remember that glorifying God calls for a wide variety of people, skills, and knowledge sets. The world is a better place because I’m not an electrician just as certainly as it’s a better place because good electricians exist.

So what’s the big idea?

Romp in as many fields as you like; smell the wildflowers, hear the birdsong, bask in the light and warmth of the sun. Eat from all the trees of the garden to which God has graciously given us access. Delight in what they tell you about his power, his wisdom, his grace. Get to know him better. Seek to become more like his attributes that you see in what you study. Gain knowledge and skills that will make you a better servant in his great plan.

Learn everything you can about everything you can.

Relish the abundant freedom he gives.

Part 3: Toto, We’re Not in Eden Anymore

Photo by jesse orrico on Unsplash

On What You Put into Your Head, Part 1: Strategic Exposure

by Leave a Comment

I get a sense that our culture doesn’t think much about what it consumes mentally. We scroll through social media posts, slowing down for something that suits our fancy. We scroll through the menus of streaming services, looking for something to watch: something we like, something that looks interesting, something with a cool thumbnail graphic.

Whatever.

But we all know better.

We’ve all had the experience of seeing or hearing something that we wish we could forget; the woods is full of people who desperately want to get old pornographic images out of their minds and just can’t. For all the talk about being unable to remember things, we find that our brains often remember things far better than we’d like. If we had any sense, we’d be a lot more careful about what we put in there.

We’d be purposeful, strategic about it.

Let me share some thoughts about that, something I shared in chapel at Bob Jones University way back on November 6, 2006.

Since what we put into our heads is going to be there forever, and potentially available for recall, we ought to direct our thinking, and even our entertainment, to things that are going to help us become what we want to become and accomplish what we want to accomplish.

I decided a long time ago that the wisest goal for my life was to heed the biblical admonition to “do all to the glory of God” (1Co 10.31). I had discovered that I didn’t have enough mass to be the center of the universe, and what I had experienced of God led me to believe that he would make a wiser investment of my life than anyone or anything else.

And what things would most effectively glorify him?

  • Knowing him: “This is life eternal, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3).
  • Being like him: “We all … are changed into the same image [of the glory of the Lord]” (2 Cor. 3:18); “whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son” (Ro 8.29).
  • Serving him: “That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2Ti 3:17).

So what things can we devote our thinking to that will further these goals?

The Scripture answers this question, as it does many others, with both freedom and caution. On the one hand, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it” (Ps 24.1). God pointed Adam and Eve to a garden full of all different kinds of trees and encouraged them to eat all different kinds of fruit.

Freedom!

But on the other hand, the world is broken and dangerous. There was one tree in the garden that was forbidden to them, and when they violated that prohibition, the whole garden became off limits. There are many things in the world today that we restrict our children from, and if we have any sense, there are things that we restrict ourselves from as well.

Caution.

In the next post I plan to share some observations about thinking with freedom, romping in broad fields of mental wildflowers; in the third post, I’ll have some thoughts about how and when to be cautious.

Part 2: All the Trees of the Garden | Part 3: Toto, We’re Not in Eden Anymore

Photo by jesse orrico on Unsplash

On Valentine’s Day

by 1 Comment

This a time for romance. For love. For commitment. For loyalty.

Interestingly, God describes his relationship with his people in those terms.

We know that “God is love” (1Jn 4.8, 16)—that he has always been in relationship among the persons of the Godhead; he has never been alone. Love is natural for him; it’s part of who he is.

We know that “we love him because he first loved us” (1Jn 4.19)—that he initiated the relationship with us, even though we had wronged him (Ro 3.23). In fact, he lovingly anticipated that relationship before we even existed—before the earth itself existed (Ep 1.4).

We know that his most oft-repeated description of himself includes “lovingkindness” (Heb hesed), a far-reaching word not captured by any single English word, but including loving loyalty to a covenant relationship. It’s the attribute that keeps 60-year marriages together in spite of everything.

That’s the kind of relationship God wants with us.

We can imagine, then, how our sin must grieve his heart. In fact, he describes the sin of his people as adultery, violation of the marriage relationship.

I’ve been a believer for more than 60 years. Every day of those 60 years, I have fallen short of the glory of God. I’ve been unfaithful to the relationship.

That’s over 22,000 days of adultery.

How many would it take for you to give up on your spouse?

Yet God continues to welcome us back, to forgive our unfaithfulness, to restore the relationship.

Hesed.

God illustrates his love for us in a couple of stories he tells his people. One is in the book of Hosea, where he tells the prophet to marry a woman who will be unfaithful to him—as Israel has been unfaithful to their God.

It’s heartbreaking.

There’s another story, a less-well-known one, in Ezekiel 16.

Ezekiel is writing long after Hosea—so long, in fact, that Judah has now gone into captivity in Babylon, and Ezekiel is prophesying to them in the Jewish community there. He speaks God’s words to the community—

  • One day God found an abandoned baby by the side of the road, newborn, unwashed, unwanted. He took her home and cleaned her up, and then he began to provide for her needs: food, clothing, shelter. For years he raised her—lavishly—as his own daughter.
  • When she became an adult, a beautiful woman, his love for her led him to take her as his wife.
  • But she was unfaithful. She went after other lovers, not merely being seduced by them but seducing them, and aggressively. She pressured them; she even paid them. She made Sodom seem mild by comparison. She broke his heart.

What a horrifying account.

But it doesn’t end in divorce, or retaliation, or expulsion, or murder, or any of the things we would expect from a human relationship of this sort.

It ends in restoration, reunification, love.

And not because the unfaithful wife pleads for forgiveness.

Because the maltreated Husband remembers and is faithful to the marriage covenant, to the permanence of the relationship:

60 Nevertheless, I will remember My covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you. 61 … . 62 Thus I will establish My covenant with you, and you shall know that I am the Lord (Ezk 16.60, 62).

O wondrous love that will not let me go,
I cling to You with all my strength and soul;
Yet if my hold should ever fail
This wondrous love will never let me go!
(Steve and Vikki Cook)

Happy Valentine’s Day.

Photo by Nick Fewings on Unsplash