Taking a second look at evil

The "axis of evil"
He or she is "pure evil"
the battle of "good vs evil"
and so on

The idea of evil is quickly and easily applied to people and situations that seem horrific to us or society as a whole. At first glance, I guess we assume evil just means bad. Or maybe it means really, really bad. I'm not sure most people have much of an understanding of "evil" beyond some notion of , "it's just bad."


Maybe its worth some pondering to take a second look at "evil". Our expert "go to" resource, Wikipedia, says "evil" in general refers to something that is the opposite of good. A more specific context is often associating "evil" with profound immorality. Certainly the Bible speaks about "evil" quite often. Yet, the Bible is not about morality, but about a Kingdom and a King. There must be more to "evil" than meets the eye. So, what does the Bible add to the idea of "evil" that Wiki seems to miss? I thought it was worth a second look, what about you?

The word for "evil" in the Bible literally means "rotten to the core." This implies that when something or someone is "evil", the very inner or intrinsic quality is inexhaustibly BAD. The "evilness" is not determined by the outcomes associated with the person or thing, but the qualities that determine the person or thing in its very essence. Regardless of how good something looks on the outside, if the heart or essence is rotten, it is "evil". There is nothing that can be done to change it because the "evil" in endemic to the object. That's what "to the core" means.

The idea of "rotten" or bad seems to only have clarity when we compare it with the idea of "good". This may seem routine, but the idea of "good" is not so simple. There are two ways something or someone can be "good." First, there is the extrinsic way to view "good." That is, something or someone is "good" if the outcome from it (them) is beneficial or useful. You say "that is a good idea" when the idea is helpful in the quest for accomplishing something. You say, "that food is good" when something you eat is favorable to your taste buds or healthy. Positive impact on circumstances is the extrinsic way something or someone is considered "good." Since morality is a code of conduct that is considered right vs wrong, this meaning for "good" would include an extrinsic conformity to moral code.

But, the word most often used in the Bible for "good" is not extrinsically or situationally contingent. The word for God uses to describe creation, the word for "good" Paul uses when referring to our works, and even the word for "good" in Romans 8 that gives us the hope that everything will work out for "good" is not about circumstances. This word for "good" is an intrinsically oriented notion of quality. It means that something or someone is "good" in its very essence of being. In the Bible something is "good" when it possess the qualities of God, who is the source of goodness. Creation, the works of believers, and our ultimate well being is "good" because it is "of God." This is why Jesus points the rich young ruler to the "one that is good."

Hence, if "evil" is rotten to the core, then "evil" is anything or anyone that in its (their) very essence is not of God. "Evil" is enmity with God intrinsically or in one's inner qualities. For a person to be "good" and therefore not "evil", he/she must possess in the very core of their thinking, the mind of Christ. For an action (works) to be "good" and not "evil", the source of motivation must flow from the mind of Christ. To see "evil" as God wants us to see "evil", we must orient ourselves to the intrinsic qualities of people and their actions and not the circumstantial consequences that we witness. Assumptions about and insights into what God is doing in His Sovereign will must be our determinant of what is "evil" and "good".

You may never get an unbelieving world to see "evil" any way other than extrinsically. After all, Wiki has more credibility than God's word. However, if you are a Christian, seeing "evil" and "good" as God does requires a second look.

It is just one more way we ponder what it means "to walk by faith and not by sight" .... 

This is one of many topics young believers can explore in our course on Biblical Psychology available at http://b4worldview.com/homeschool/

"that the guilty may go free"

Every Sunday Christians sing about their guilt and bondage. BUT, does this message resonate deeply in the soul or is it a narrative that is just a theologically correct way to think? After all, western evangelical Christians focus more on fixing a world that is fraught with the evil of meaningless murder, terror, fraud and corruption. Christians fight for religious freedom and cultural purity - send money, presence and prayers to places of poverty and slavery. Christians in the Western civilized world seem to view themselves as "the fixers", not the transgressors, in jail and in need.

What exactly are reformed, evangelical Christians guilty of? What bondage are they freed from? Do they REALLY know it?

Consider what we have learned from psychology. sociology and philosophy about the human condition. Psychologists have found that social exchange is the dominant obsession of human nature. Balanced exchange is the basis for justice. Exchange is defined by transactions of cause and effect. What is right is what is deserved or fair. Sociologists point us to how humans conform to their world around them. How behavior is structured and conditioned by one's environment. Philosophers find that either the physical world is real and the invisible is an illusion or vice versa. Truth is determined by what we can reason from what we can observe. Rational inquiry is for generating our own ideas, NOT processing revelation of ideas we receive through the invisible realm.

Can it be that our guilt is that we identify with our human nature. Our bondage is a futility derived from a psychological debt of poverty, fraud, deception, perversion, greed, and so on. We depend on what we see to determine what is true. For instance, we observe issues with our sex and sexuality and conclude God's revealed design for men and women is not true. As long as things are fair, then they are "right." I've heard it said "we take God's good gifts, pervert them and then blame Him." We are in bondage to a culture that values tolerance above all else and thus must make all people equal. At the same time we witness the guilt of shaming others that don't agree instead of rejoicing in the differences. These are the psychological repercussions of the Fall.

It is proper and appropriate for Christians to address the poverty in the world, sex trade, children sold into slavery to work in rock quarries, random acts of murder, and many other social injustices. The question is how we view this mission? Is it an exchange (transaction) where we achieve great things for God in the physical world so He sees us in a favorable light OR are these atrocities in the physical world a picture of our own fallen nature separated from God? Do we see the mess in the physical world as a picture of ourselves as the ones guilty and in need of God's grace as the fix? Is the response to the evils in this world motivated by a thanksgiving sourced in the sense of one's own guilt?

Freedom granted by the Cross comes from a new identity. Being a redeemed child of God is a soul whose self-concept aligns with God's Kingdom, not a physical being in the cosmos. This transforms the soul from one that seeks rights, rewards, and religion as a creature to a soul that rests in the privileges, provisions and promises of the Creator. Trusting the unseen evidence of the Cross (faith) fundamentally changes a soul from identifying with "the outcome of things" (circumstances) to one that identifies with "the Source of things" (Sovereignty).

Identity crisis occurs when our head (Biblical learning) tells us we are redeemed, but our heart (inherited assumptions of our human nature) actually influence how we think, feel and act. This disharmony in beliefs is called dissonance. Dissonance distresses the soul. Exploring the ways assumptions of our human nature affect us mitigates the risk of dissonance.

The word "soul" is referenced over 100 times in the New Testament. Maybe the Bible is serious about psychology. When Christians recognize that trusting the human identity is the guilt and trusting their Spiritual identity is freedom, then the promise of an abundant and virtuous life becomes more of their experience. Dissonance diminishes. Identity crisis is relieved. The risks of abandoning the faith or living the joyless Christian life are reduced.

This is the heartbeat of the team that developed b4worldview, an online course available to anyone, but especially targeted to Christian teenagers who face a challenging world at work, in college and in relationships that are forming their future.

When young people declare "that the guilty may go free", we desire that this not only be a theology in their head, but a song in their heart.

Its worth pondering and maybe even giving it a try @ http://b4worldview.com/homeschool/

source of identity crisis

There is so much being said and written about "identity" in both our culture and our churches. We have "identity politics" and we have "identity in Christ." Of course, the use of identity is used by different people for different emphases, but the fact that IDENTITY is so important in various aspects of society is not unimportant.

The two uses of identity are really not unrelated when we think about it. IDENTITY is one's basic core self concept. All of our core assumptions that frame what we believe and therefore how we think, feel and act flow from who we believe we are. Psychology and sociology have a lot to say about how people perceive their identity. Generally, there are 3 facets of IDENTITY - social formed by our sense of belonging, personal formed by our innate unique characteristics and natural formed by whether we see ourselves as mainly physical or mainly spiritual beings.

Your core assumption about reality and truth specifically flows from your identity. You either assume that the visible physical world (cosmos) is what is real and embodies what is true or the unseen realm in which a supernatural being rules is what is real. Based on which assumption about reality, you will assume truth is either determined by what we observe in the cosmos or by what is revealed to us by the supernatural. It is not too much of a stretch that if you believe what is real is what you can observe by your physical senses, then your identity is essentially found in your human nature and your circumstances. Otherwise, reality for you is that which is eternal, true all the time everywhere, and exists in the invisible realm.

One very common identity crisis occurs when Christians' theology (head knowledge) informs them that their identity is in Christ, but their "heart" or embedded assumptions operates from an identity associated with their human nature OR an identity that is based in a reality found in the physical world and an orientation that truth is determined by physical evidence we can collect and analyze.

Historically some try to resolve this by going to the other extreme and assume the physical world is either evil or an illusion. This flies in the face of the Incarnate Christ and cannot be the answer to the Christian's question - "if the physical world is not REAL (eternal truth and then not worthy of our allegiance), then what is the purpose of it?" That is a good question. Let's see what God says though His mouthpiece Paul:

"For the invisible things of Him since the creation of the world (cosmos - ordered system of the physical universe) are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even His everlasting power and divinity."

So what has happened? From Adam mankind inherits a fallen human nature biased to assume the cosmos is "reality", not God's invisible Kingdom. It is hard wired into each of us at birth. Martin Luther, as part of the Reformation, said that investigative inquiry to know truth is put in every human. Yes, but the human nature biases this inquiry to see truth as that which can be determined by observation. When we repent (think completely differently) and believe (trust our identity in Christ), we see that truth is determined by inquiry associated with revelation, not observation of the physical world. Although God says He displays His glory in the cosmos (physical world), it's trusting the unseen evidence (faith) of the invisible reality of His kingdom that regenerates and transforms our identity.

Paul says this another way when he reminds us that "we have this treasure in an earthly vessel, that the exceeding greatness of the power may be of God, and not from ourselves." Thinking our identity is established by the cross, but actually assuming otherwise, is THE IDENTITY CRISIS with only one solution. We must renew our mind such that our implicit assumption of a Spiritual identity (not physical or circumstantially oriented) supports our explicit knowledge of identity evidenced in Scripture.

Ponder this ......
Human nature assumes the mind is a generator of ideas - that truth is what the mind concludes it is based on what we can reason from what we can see VERSUS the mind of Christ which assumes the mind is a receiver - that truth is disclosed to us reasoned by evidence we cannot see (faith), only to be represented in or modeled by what we can see (purpose of the cosmos).

You might ask, "I know I need to read my Bible more but is there something that can help me also with these human nature core assumptions that hijack my joy, freedom, hope, purpose, and sense of esteem and belonging without me even being aware that this is what is happening?"  

Glad you asked - I have poured the past few years of my life in helping to develop a course that can assist the transformation of core assumptions associated with the two identities. Its found at

http://www.b4worldview.com/ 

What in the "world" is the problem?

Powerful men are falling all around us while millions of women are saying,"me too."The biggest mass shooting in history is a mystery. Marriage is whatever we want it to be. Laws don't seem to matter, unless we want them to. Pastors, theologians, writers and worldview thought leaders like the Colson Center and Barna claim our culture is broken and needs fixing. If we could just go back a few generations when the culture was better, things would be all right.

I DON'T THINK SO!!

Let's ponder this a bit. I am going to make my point and then explain it (I usually do it in reverse but I'd likely lose most people that way.) My point

Social exchange explains why someone does what they do and culture is the criterion that society uses to determine if the exchange is right or wrong. However, social exchange, regardless of  culture, is an obsession of human nature that keeps us from the privileges and provisions of God's Kingdom.

Let's take Harvey W. for example. In his mind if he exchanged with a young woman what he deemed she wanted to get what he wanted, this is a fair exchange and therefore acceptable behavior. That is why he first couldn't understand the uproar and why his defense is, "this is the way it was when I was coming up and the sex was consensual." His claim - it was fair and culture deemed the exchange OK. However, society today says that when the one with power forces another to do something they don't want to, then the exchange is not fair and therefore unacceptable. Exchange explains the behavior, culture rules whether the exchange is right or wrong based on a view of justice.

Take the  Las Vegas shooter. No one can find his motive. The only answer is that he was evil. Consider this possibility. He assumed that certain people deserved to be killed for what they believed so it was necessary for him to act on behalf of those who believed like he did. In his mind this was a "fair exchange." Their death balances out with their belief and enacting justice is his responsibility. However, society says that it is not OK to use power against someone who didn't agree that the exchange was fair. In other words, the actor (shooter) saw a fair exchange but culture did not agree. The actions of the shooter were wrong only because culture finds the exchange is not fair.

So what is going on from God's perspective. "God so loved the world that He gave His only Son." Yet, God tells us, "love not the world, nor anything that is in the world." The word for "world" is Kosmos, which means 'an ordered system', specifically relating to the physical universe. This ordered system is controlled by equilibrium, reciprocity, cause and effect, justice. Right or wrong is determined by whether the exchange is fair or not. Culture makes that distinction. Therefore, anything that is in balance is fair and considered OK. BUT, this ordered system is futile and needed redemption.

God sent his son out of His love to provide an alternative, or a solution to this order in the physical world. Nature is subjected to the subjectivity of culture and the futility of equilibrium. Even hurricanes are explained by nature trying to restore equilibrium. So, God tells us to not make this ordered system of exchange our priority. In doing so we miss His solution, a Kingdom we can dwell in that is governed by Grace, unmerited favor, not subject to equilibrium, not based on cause/effect relationships.

Its the ordered system of this world, one based on equilibrium, reciprocity and justice, that is the problem - NOT culture. Culture is merely the referee for which a system of exchange is deemed OK by society. When Paul says, "do not conform to this world. but be transformed," he is now talking about not fashioning our life around (attaching ourselves to) the forces of this age (word for world in this verse), a time in which the natural order is equilibrium. BUT, rather become new by having a mind that sees him/herself as a part of another order, a spiritual Kingdom, the one in which a Sovereign father chooses Grace, unmerited favor, a system of disequilibrium.

So, when you are tempted to believe that the problem is around us (culture), think deeply that the problem may be within us (an attachment to this world). People do things to get or maintain equilibrium with the world around them - culture decides whether the exchange is acceptable (fair) or not.

At least its worth a little pondering ...

Lessons from Lexie

We like to believe that "out of the mouths of babes" comes great wisdom. Babies and small children have yet to condition their thinking to what others want to hear or that fits some politically correct way of thinking. Babies have an unfettered look right into the face of truth. What then can we learn from baby Lexie?



Lexie is a 3 month old baby who lives in foster care. Yes, traumatic situations can occur to people before they even take their first breath. Lexie's mom is a druggie. Who knows who the father is? When Lexie's great grand parents heard of her birth, they were moved to take her in, to give her the best chance at a life that from the "get go" has dealt her a bad hand.

There are at least two points I take from Lexie. One is, what does her young life tell us about "free will"? Second, what does her young life tell us about how our needs get met?

"Free will" - unconstrained choices available to us. What choices have Lexie made about her own life? ZERO. She didn't choose to be born, certainly born to the parents she has. She didn't choose to be born into a life of futility. She didn't choose who would take her in and care for her. She doesn't choose her food or who provides it for her. Soon she will be adopted. That is not her choice.
If "free will" is a fundamental truth about life, someone needs to convince Lexie that she should be doing more choosing. Oh wait, the world will convince her of that soon enough.

"Satisfaction" - the supply for what we need. Does Lexie do anything to get her needs met? I don't think so. She receives the provision and privilege afforded her because her great grand parents have chosen to love her. There is no reason except that she belongs to them. Lexie is satisfied soley by unmerited favor. What she needs is bestowed on her by someone who has the resources and the will to bless her completely.

What are the lessons from Lexie? The life we see in this world provides a picture of what is real in the invisible, spiritual realm. We have lessons, such as those from Lexie, not so we will believe, but to strengthen the evidence (faith) of what God has revealed to us supernaturally - His Spirit to our spirit. 

Lexie is so cute and fun to cuddle with. But more importantly, Lexie, and for that fact, each of us live a life that points us to what is real.

What better to ponder ??????

Questions for the head and the heart

The head and the heart - not always in sync. The head thinks one thing but the heart assumes another. It is a common struggle we all face. Leaders that have integrity have less conflict between their head and heart. Leaders that create followers with integrity must help them resolve conflicts between what they say they believe and what actually influences how they think, feel, and act. Transformation occurs when the heart's messages to the soul matches up with what the head has learned is right.

Psychologists would call the conflict between the head and heart cognitive dissonance. There are significant consequences of dissonance not resolved appropriately, such as abandoning head knowledge or contaminating it to fit what's actually believed in the heart. For Christians this is a particular risk. Often proper doctrine and theology is learned only to be contradicted by human nature inherited from Adam. RC Sproul reminds us "the entire human person, including all of our faculties, was ravaged by the corruption of human nature."

Unless a spotlight is shed on the implicit assumptions of human nature that "war against" what we learn from God's Word, Christians struggle to have "the mind of Christ" inform their thoughts, feelings and actions.

It seems this is what Paul tells us in Romans 7, the iconic cognitive dissonance passage, and Romans 12, "be transformed by renewing the mind."

Sean McDowell recently blogged about the types of questions that lead to transformation. Effective questions for transformation are those that are not quickly answered, are somewhat unexpected and lead us into new territories of thought. Here are just a few specific questions leaders can ask young Christians who are seeking to discover a heart that matches what they have learned from parents, teachers, and church during their formative years.

1.  How can you depend on evidence you cannot see (faith) in a world that values only science to determine what is true?

2.  Does something seem right to you as long as it is fair?

3.  Why are you concerned about rewards and punishment when you have been given unmerited favor?

4.  Why do you protect the status quo when God has invited you to change?

5.  Can you explain how sovereignty actually works?

6.  How can you be humble and get your feelings hurt at the same time?

7.  What makes anything "good"?
  
Laying beneath each of these questions are subtle influences of human nature that cause us to feel differently than we think. "Walking in the flesh" vs "walking in the Spirit" is not a question of salvation, but one of quality of life and testimony for a Christian. Its the difference between a life where the heart matches the head or not. Its light or darkness. Its about pondering questions that lead to transformation.

Blessed is the power of plowing ground with the Spirit by asking the right questions .....

squaring God's election with "all men are created equal"

Have you ever wondered how the doctrine of election and the Declaration that "all men are created equal" can both be true? Now that is a question I have never heard discussed. It's probably in the "too hard" pile. A question we can wait to ask on the other side of eternity. But, if you are a serious ponderer, you must give it go :-)

Let's see what we can do with this.

God's election, clearly found in Scripture but not embraced by all Christians, speaks to God's Sovereign will. He does what He chooses independent of cause and effect. This is a concept outside the realm of our natural thinking. Even a non-Christian perspective is that humans have difficulty accepting randomness, an unexplainable occurrence. Randomness is what Sovereignty looks like. 

Equality is a dominant theme of human nature. Equality somewhat flows from the human obsession with justice. While people see equality as a virtue, there is no universal way equality is understood. People are not equal in obvious ways. Some are taller, smarter, more attractive, faster, etc. Given these differences do not produce the same results, we agree equality is not "sameness". Everyone is not created the same. Thus, the common debate is generally "equality of opportunity" vs "the equality of outcomes." Primarily society grapples with "all men are created equal" as economic policies that affect the distribution of goods and services are developed and enacted. 

Is this what the Founding Fathers meant? Were they proposing an economic system? There is an argument for claiming the Declaration was aimed more at dismissing the class systems that used birth position to determine the worth and destiny of individuals. Birth established privilege for much of history. Maybe they were declaring that there are no divine authorities among humans. There are no Lords and no Ladies. No Gents. Maybe "all men are created equal" was a break from historical views that some people are advantaged simply by birth,

For those that believe the Founding Fathers were taking "all men are created equal" from the Bible, what do we do with the doctrine of election? When Jesus says, "for God so loved the world", is  He not referencing an equality of all individuals? The word "world" here means nations and tribes of the world. Jesus is moving from the Old Covenant with Israel to a covenant that is not dependent on a specific people group. Jesus is declaring the Gospel is not restricted to Jews. Similar to the Founding Fathers, Jesus is claiming one's birth into a given situation is not God's view of that person's value and destiny. 

Jesus also says in His final prayer before the cross, “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me." This referred to the disciples. But Jesus goes on to pray, "Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me." In many places in scripture, it is clear that God chooses, He calls whom He wills. He knocked Paul off his horse on his way to persecute Christians. Like the parable of the landowner, He rewards as He chooses. There is no cause and effect. Not even the effects of "all men are created equal". HE IS SOVEREIGN.

In the final analysis each of us must decide if God should be defined by what man thinks or if man should be defined by what God thinks. Which view takes primacy in our understanding? We can never know why God chooses as He does. We just know it is for His glory and not ours. That is what makes Him Sovereign. To force our rationale about the equality of persons denies His Sovereignty. What makes Him worthy of our worship is that even in His sovereignty, He has chosen to favor us. This favor is not based on "equality" of our birth, His favor is not based on anything about us. The only real statement of "equality" in Scripture is that "we all" have fallen short of deserving His favor.

In that way "all men are created equal" is a scary proposition, not one in which we should boast.

That is the way I ponder this question ......  through the lens of Grace

"scientific truth" - an oxymoron

A recent article made headline news when it reported the findings of scientists on climate change. The thrust of the article was that now there is "scientific truth" of man induced climate change, what will a Trump administration do about it?

Now let it be clear, this blog is not about climate change. If truth be known, I am a strong advocate that man should be a good steward of God's creation. The article interested me because it claimed "scientific truth." I would dare say a large percentage of those reading the article would never question that phrase. They would knock each other out debating the conclusions of the article and maybe its purpose, but rarely its assumption that science produces truth.

No reputable scientist would claim science produces truth. I have advanced degrees in both physical and social sciences, well published in academic journals. Science finds statistical evidence that A is likely to cause B given C. Science is limited in many ways. First, it is only probabilistic, or showing a statistical inference. Second, all scientific inquiry is bounded. That is, the findings are limited to certain conditions included in the study.

Third, going in assumptions and methods are always biased. I once heard, "the problem with science is the scientist." For example, in this article the conclusion by the scientists was climate change must be man made because they could find no evidence for any other explanation.


This is VERY FAULTY SCIENCE.

Therefore, I do several things with scientific studies. I take the findings with a grain of salt until I view the assumptions and methods. I do not take it as evidence of truth, but statistical probabilities that two things relate together in a certain way, possibly. Finally, I seek to understand the purpose of the study.

While many people wish to conduct themselves in ways that do not create problems for our environment, many of these same people do not want "climate change" to be used by government as a hammer to control and interfere in their lives. Constitutionalists would claim "inalienable rights". That is, they want to pursue their life outside of government intrusion. There is a concern that science, similar to that presented in this article, is simply a tool to grow government. That's where the disagreement generally is and that is where the public discourse should go. Those that are cynics of climate change science should not challenge science with science. That is ingenious and futile. But rather argue for the way in which society should incorporate the myriad of studies that suggest cause and effect of actions we take on the environment.

Its not that we should avoid or constrain public discourse on issues like climate change, it's that we should be more informed about the methods and tools we use to debate. Science does not determine truth. Let's at least quit bullying others with that claim.

If truth is not determined through observation, how then is it determined?

I'll leave that with you for now as something to ponder ......      

Inalienable rights

 

In declaring their independence, our founding fathers made the statement, "that they (all men) are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that are among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This statement attempts to answer the question, "who grants rights?" For if someone has a right, someone had to give it to them. But whom?

This act of men and women at this point in history established the best form of government in the history of the world. The establishment of a government that was ruled by the people as a rule over the people was an enormous departure from what had existed in Western Civilization, although the Greeks created the notion of democracy or "people rule" a thousand years earlier. The notion that "all men are created equal" was to reject that kings and queens were no different than the peasant absent their circumstances. 

"Inalienable rights" has commonly and without question been considered a Biblical concept since God is invoked as the grantor. BUT is it? Is He? Can it be a spiritual head fake? Now questioning whether "inalienable rights" is actually God's view of truth about His Kingdom does not challenge or diminish the amazing experiment in government of our founding fathers. However, Christians, and especially American Christians, should reconcile "inalienable rights" with what Scripture, especially the New Testament, actually claims about God's Kingdom and rights in this world.

First, the declaration says "these truths are self evident". How so and if so, do we find God's truths often "self evident"? What is wise to men is foolishness to God. What seems to be the emphasis for this worldview is the Aristotelian notion that there are natural laws or rights that informs and exist beyond government's laws, therefore not subject to any government's control. Basically, the founding fathers were debunking the prevailing idea of "the divine right of Kings." The source and motivation for this declaration is more about rejecting government as the ultimate authority and source of "rights granting." In a way, this declaration is placing the Sovereignty of God above the institution of government, which is a reasonable conclusion.

But, in doing so, are they declaring "truth" as God has revealed in His word?

I have found nowhere in the New Testament that God has bestowed on us "rights" to anything in this world. In fact, Jesus says the really fortunate are those who are destitute in self-reliance and rejected by this world because of their allegiance to Him. He contrasts the Kingdom of heaven with this world by pointing us to His unmerited provision for us, not our rights we can demand for our benefit. In fact, if we seek everything this world has to offer, our soul loses, not wins. We are told we are pilgrims and sojourners in this world and must "hate" this world's system. This doesn't seem like He is reminding us of our rights. We hear that we are not immune from affliction, but actually we are called to have our deepest emotions align with how Jesus felt as he journeyed to the cross. 

Before you want to "tar and feather" me for patriotic heresy, let me say I love the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. I do believe society works better when government belongs to the people, not vice versa. BUT, if we confuse this with God's truths, we operate well beneath His best for us. When we claim our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we miss all of God's wishes for us in His Kingdom. His plan for us is not rights and rewards in this world, but provisions and privileges in the Heavenlies. 

I am afraid "self evident" is a human nature core assumption that truth is determined by what we conclude through observing our situations. It probably is evident from what people witnessed that human kings were not Sovereign. But, if we assume truth is revealed to us by the Creator (the witness of the Holy Spirit) not our observations, we would not assume we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is nothing revealed in His word other than life, liberty and joy is all given to us by Him consistent with his Sovereign will.

Core assumptions are powerful forces in how we think, feel, and act. This is why the b4worldview team developed a transformational learning experience to better understand the core assumptions of Jesus.

Give it a try ..... www.b4worldview.com 

Economics and Christianity: Strange Bedfellows?

One of the most common discussions in training Christian youth is how capitalism associates with the Christian worldview of economics. Generally, this focus on economics is how capitalism is a "better" economic system than socialism or communism. Capitalism is more aligned with the Judeo/Christian work ethic.


The notion "better" uses both principles of economics and experience to demonstrate that free market societies are more materially prosperous than these other economic approaches. Inherent in capitalism is greater personal liberties. Therefore, capitalistic countries have a higher GDP, are freer and thus, considered "better off."

If the results of an economic system is a higher standard of living and more people are lifted out of poverty, then we can arguably say that is a "good" thing. It may even be considered a more moral system because of the overall impact on people's living conditions and liberties. BUT, is capitalism consistent with the basic precepts of God's Kingdom as established by the Cross? If not, what is the Christian worldview of economics? Is it socialism because of the "greed factor" in capitalism and a "perceived fairness" in socialism?
OR
  is the Kingdom economy very different than socialism?
  does the Kingdom economy produce a "better" outcome than capitalism?   
Let's start with a clarity on what an economy is. The Webster's 1828 dictionary, the first dictionary in America, defines an economy in terms of how a family orders itself, especially how it distributes its resources. The word economics does not appear. Economics has evolved in the last 100 years as a study of the transfer of wealth through systems of producing and distributing goods and services within society as a whole. A recent movement of thought, called behavioral economics, seeks to understand behavioral influences associated with how humans are motivated and naturally view risks and rewards.

For example, economies use influences of power to govern the amount and movement of products and services. So, understanding forms of power and the associated incentive systems for people's behavior can be a helpful way to evaluate performance of an economic system and what you might expect its outcomes to be.

Let's look at three different systems of power and the kinds of economies each would produce. In doing so, we can look at the motivation factors associated with each to understand its potential outcomes.

First, there is the power/greed model. In this case the one with power uses an economy that maximizes their own outcomes on the backs of those without power. However, the ones with power must satisfy the ones without power sufficiently for them to continue work at all for them. Motivation is only the effort needed to relieve fear in the workers and therefore total output is limited.

Second, power can be distributed to the people and everyone is free to produce goods and services as they choose. They are only limited by how others respond to their production. The power is placed in pricing mechanisms relative to the value the good or service brings to the purchaser. Supply and demand equilibrium, known as justice or reciprocity, governs the system. Rewards are contingent on what people do. People are less constrained than in the first example but they are still somewhat limited in their motivation to what they believe others will buy. This creates some concern for the welfare of those who cannot generate resources on their own to obtain what they need. The system must decide how to produce some goods and services that do not return economic value to the producer in order to support this greater need for goods and services. This is a taxation on the economy and reduces the potential return of the system to producers.

The third view of power is actually the Biblical view. Here all power is in a Sovereign will of one who both owns everything and chooses to share it with His subjects out of love. This is an unmerited favor where the distribution decisions belong to the one in power and the subjects participate solely out of thanksgiving. Subjects are willing to produce, innovate, and share from a heart sold out to the one with power. In generosity there is no coercion, no incentives, no quid pro quo, nothing that constrains the subjects' motivation to produce and share with each other.

When we teach our young people about economics, must we neglect the economic model of the Kingdom? Can we equip them to understand that Grace is not socialism, communism, or capitalism?
Can we trust that Grace is God's way and the best way?

About 50% of Christian students view their family's economic system as a power/greed or fair exchange system. The other half seem to believe their parents establish a grace based economy by how they handle allowances and other sources for their personal use.

In economics, must we settle for beings agents of justice when we can be agents of grace?

Certainly worth pondering ......

What difference does it make what you THINK?

Most everyone would "think" that "thinking" is a good thing, a helpful activity for us. But in my experience, people don't really like to "think" much. Often I hear, "that's too deep." I "think" to myself, "but if it changes your life, isn't thinking differently something you should want to do?"

Part of the problem is that there are two kinds of "thinking." Most of the time we "think" about cliches or conclusions others have already reached. We "think" about beliefs like doctrine and accept the arguments others make for us. We really don't "think" about the arguments too much, that takes effort. We mainly "think" about the person who espouses the conclusion and accept what is said based on how we feel about that person. Further, because of confirmation bias, we restrict where we get our "thinking" to sources we already accept and admire. Even more, we don't often "think" about the source of the message but accept it as credible because others we want acceptance from accept that source.

There are so many ways we actually say with our actions - "what difference does it make what I think?"

I mentioned there are two kinds of thinking. The first described above - we "think" about things others have concluded for us and accept them without much "thinking" in order to belong. The second kind of "thinking" is about the core assumptions that all conclusions are based on. This is really hard work, but that's not why we rarely 'think" about them. They are out of sight. The messengers of our "thinking" don't often go there. The reason assumptions are out of sight for most of us is that they are built in to our nature. They are normal ways of "thinking" given our nature. This kind of "thinking" does not change until and unless our nature changes. I should stop here because that's way too deep to "think" about. What difference does it make what my nature is and how it "thinks"?

Here is an example:

Suppose someone gave you a gift that you enjoy very much. It makes you feel important and happy. There are two ways to "think" about that gift to conclude it is a good gift. You can see how well it fits you, how it looks and feels on you, what others may think because you now have one. This way of "thinking" is called "the consequence of things." Another way to "think" about the gift is by focusing on the one who gave you the gift. You can "think" about that person's love for you, their generosity and acceptance of you no matter what you do. The gift is meaningful because the giver is amazing. This way of "thinking" is call "the source of things."

The Bible calls the first way of "thinking" - walking in the flesh, the carnal mind - and this way of "thinking" flows from our fallen human nature.

The Bible calls the second way of "thinking" - walking in the Spirit, the mind of Christ - and this way of "thinking" flows from a regenerated Spiritual nature.

What difference does our nature make? It determines our core assumptions which then influences how we think, feel and act in all of our life's situations. Every doctrine or belief from arguments of smart people are what they are because of one of two "ways of thinking" that they start with. So it is with you.

What difference does it make how we THINK? None at all if we do not aspire to the abundant and virtuous life. Otherwise ......

Thoughts and ideas

Thoughts and ideas are as common as breathing. They impact us in profound ways. They can be helpful to us or harmful. Therefore, are we victims of them? Do we control them or do they control us? Maybe you don't care. Thinking about thoughts and having an idea about ideas may just be too stressful? or useless to you! But, you know what ponderers do, THEY PONDER

First, let's start with the difference between thoughts and ideas. You may find it difficult to define either, must less distinguish between them. My old trusty authority on words, the 1828 Webster dictionary, says that a thought is "a object produced by the operation of the mind". The mind thinks and thoughts are the outcome. Then, what is an idea? Webster kind of beats around the bush on this, sometimes seeing idea as the same as thought, but sometimes extending the notion of an object produced by the mind to the understanding or meaning of the object or thought - the object's purpose or intention.

I am sure many of you by now are worried about me. Why would I spend any THOUGHT on this? While hardly anyone thinks about thought, what we assume about thought and ideas is very important in living an abundant and virtuous life.

First of all, what causes the mind to produce the particular thought it produces? Why do some people have "better" thoughts than others? Do we have some skill that affects our thoughts? Are thoughts more a product of morality than ability? Are humans even authors of their own thoughts?

Second, once we have a thought, what provides us the understanding? Would two people always have the same idea from the same thought? If not, what would cause the difference? Is it skill or moral goodness that makes the difference?

One serious flaw in our humanity may be that we think we are responsible for our thoughts and ideas. By being the source, we are in control. We just need more training or discipline or some kind of personal development to have the thoughts and ideas that produce a better life.

Let's consider another possibility - REVELATION. Maybe thoughts, the object produced by the mind, and ideas, the meaning of the object produced by the mind, actually comes to us from outside our selves? What if the process of the mind is more like a receiver than a generator? Does that matter?

If this is true and the mind is a receiver, then there is a very important question to ask - who or what is the sender? Maybe the ultimate quality of our life is not training our mind to produce, but to submit our mind to the right sender?

The Christian understands this theologically. We learn through Scripture that the Holy Spirit "bears witness" to us many things. We can't even produce the object of our prayers - this is revealed to us by the HS. The HS told Philip to witness to the Ethiopian Enuch and told Paul to go to Jerusalem. Most Christians accept revelation THEOLOGICALLY. But, to what degree do we accept it PSYCHOLOGICALLY? Can this Kingdom idea of thoughts and ideas have primacy in your life every moment and in every situation? Can we submit our minds to revelation as a matter of practice, or will we continue to think we are in control of producing our thoughts and ideas when we are not thinking theologically?  

I just happen to think that the return on an investment in revelation is "out of this world" ....

Do you understand?

How often in your discourse with others are you faced with the question, "do you understand?" Seems like a simple question. Usually you say you do, but you still have lingering questions. You may even fail to be as empathetic as you should be because you really don't fully understand.

How can this be?

Consider this

What may be going on is that you may understand WHAT the other person is feeling or experiencing, but you cannot really understand WHY they feel that way or HOW you can help them feel better or WHO is really causing them to feel threatened or fearful.




One problem with "understanding" are the complex set of questions the human brain seeks answers to. We usually only settle one of those in our discourse with others. Shouldn't we make an effort to explore or probe all of the dimensions of understanding when we engage others in communication?

Maybe "walking the brain" with another about important issues will truly help us listen and understand each other better?

Another issue with understanding is the frequent use of ambiguous or imprecise language. For instance, recently I listened to someone teaching young people about principles of good financial management. For illustration purposes, consider two of these principles:

1. save
2. avoid foolish debt

These sound reasonable, but how instructive are they? Does the audience really understand what the expert speaker is saying?

For instance, is saving merely a practice of putting money away? Maybe, maybe not. Putting money under your pillow during times of high inflation is not prudent. Sometimes saving can look like spending. What? Yes, spending can be either consumption or investing. If I buy something that will appreciate in value, then I am saving. Saving is much more complex than just the activity of setting money aside, SO simply instructing others "to save" can be easily misunderstood.

What makes debt "foolish"? Is this description of debt sufficient to guide anyone to prudent financial management? Is the idea of "foolish" too incomplete to provide good guidance? Suppose we advise others to avoid being too leveraged with debt? Is "foolish" debt really debt we have with risk in our ability to pay if and when adversity arises? If so, to help another understand the issue with debt, shouldn't we use the notion of leverage?

These are just examples, but they all illustrate why we talk and talk and talk and think everyone understands, BUT THEY DON'T.

Those that know me often roll their eyes when I push for more clarity. It may be a curse I live with but the absence of completeness and precision in our words too often leave us all frustrated or naive that others understand when they REALLY don't?

Just something to ponder ......

Protest: free speech or moral failure?

Recently around 100 students and other adults walked out of Notre Dame graduation ceremony to protest VP Pense's speech. Some applauded this as exercising first amendment rights to free speech. Many booed the action seeing it as rude or disgusting. Can both be right?

Unrelated but also recent was a report published showing significant moral decline in our country.The question that came to my mind is this: "can free speech and moral failure be related? If so, what makes it so?"

The right to free speech has been seen as an admirable behavior and necessary to liberty. However, the right to free expression may be misunderstood. This right is granted by the Constitution to protect citizens from government suppressing dissent. Somehow we have taken this to mean any citizen has the right to say or do whatever they wish about another citizen, even to silence those with whom they disagree. Is free speech acceptable when it shuts down free speech? Is this the idea of free speech envisioned by the Founding Fathers? Is bullying in the name of free speech a source of moral decay?

While protecting citizens from government control of speech, did the Founding Fathers envision that citizens would use free speech as a license for contempt? It seems that when someone acts in a way to diminish or condemn another person, they have held the other person in contempt. "Contempt" means treating someone with disdain, as if they are worthless. The Bible claims "contempt" is a form of self-righteousness - worse than anger and the same or worse than killing. To the degree walking out on someone is an act of contempt, this form of exercising free speech is a self-elevating moral failure.

Should we as a society frown on free speech that shows contempt and honor free speech that respects others and fosters debate? Its a sad day when bullies stand behind free speech to hold others in contempt. This is not a Constitutional right AND is a moral flaw,

You may think walking out on someone and disrespecting their right to speak is not contempt, but you cannot turn your back on the notion that debasing another person in the name of free speech is what our country is founded on and deserves protection.

  Moral imperative is a boundary on freedom of expression. 

Certainly worth pondering .....

Why sidewalks?

I was out for a walk today in the subdivision my daughter lives. It really was not a particularly special walk in that I was trying to avoid the rain and had nothing important to occupy my mind. A little way into my walk the thought overwhelmed me (as thoughts often do to me), "why did the developer spend the money to put in these nice wide sidewalks?"

I am sure most every subdivision that has been put in during the past 10 - 15 years has sidewalks. So maybe it was competitive pressure? or maybe the developer included sidewalks because it was just the thing developers were doing? Maybe the question was not even asked because not putting sidewalks in was never an option?

Of course there are positive reasons for sidewalks: added safety for walkers, especially kids, and some people just like how they look. But all I could do was think about the negatives: it added costs and it was unfair to the property owners who had the sidewalks on their side of the street because they had much more lawn care requirements in edging both sides of the sidewalk in addition to the street border.

The streets were nice and wide already and most of the streets were a cul-de-sac with very limited traffic. Many walkers used the streets to walk anyway and there was no accommodation for bikers. So, I pondered, "why didn't they just widen the street some, eliminate the sidewalks, and put walking and bike lanes in the streets?" Would this not provide sufficient safety for walkers and bikers and cost less to build and maintain? But the bigger question is, did anyone consider any alternative to what the developer did or was sidewalks just a given without asking the question - 'why'?  

After returning from my walk, I asked my son-in-law if he knew the answer to my question - why sidewalks? He immediately answered, without any hesitation and with great authority - "it is required by law." Oh I see now. Some bureaucrat decided that subdivisions should have sidewalks for the safety of kids because drivers are likely to be texting or otherwise not paying attention, maybe even speeding. So, again the solution to people not taking responsibility for their actions is government regulation. Again, the government requires citizens add cost to whatever they are doing to avoid risks.

Maybe subdivisions should have sidewalks, maybe not. Maybe the trade-off between costs and safety is worthwhile? BUT more likely and the question I really was pondering was, "did anyone really consider the question of  'why sidewalks?' or were sidewalks put in because that is just what developers do or because their is no constraint on government regulators to cost/justify their impact on society and to consider at some point people must accept responsibility for their actions?"    

The bigger question, way more than 'why sidewalks?' is, "at what point does society reign in government regulation? What are appropriate boundaries on decisions government makes for members of society? Where should markets determine what businesses choose to do or not do? Who answers these questions - government bureaucrats or 'we the people'?"

Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing - I can go on and on with choices members of society no longer make because the government knows better. Where does this stop? What are the boundaries on regulation? These are the really big questions society must answer.

I ponder it often, do you? ......

"Gifted"

There is a fascinating movie just out called "Gifted". The main characters are a 7 yr old girl named Mary and her uncle named Frank, who has had custody of her since birth because Mary's mother committed suicide. Mary has extraordinary gifts as a mathematician, as did her mother and grandmother. Mary's mother was so gifted that her mother had kept her from all the normal aspects of life for a young girl to pursue unprecedented achievements in mathematics. Frank did not want Mary to "suffer" in that way, so he committed to give her as much of a normal life as he could. It was his gift of love to her (the multiple pictures of gifting in the movie). I won't spoil the plot for you by going any further, but I did want to share one scene that was profound in many ways.

There was a moment early in the movie where Mary asked her uncle, the one she saw as her authority, "Do believe there is a God?" Frank's response was (paraphrased), "No, but nobody really knows. The people who say they do say they have faith, but faith is just thinking and feeling a certain way. They really don't know."

We find out later Frank had a Ph D in Philosophy and had taught at a university in Boston before he took Mary to Florida away from all the influences of Mary's grandmother. What is important to note about Frank's response?

First, his response was very typical of what many people believe. This is especially true of many professors in universities. Second, Frank's conclusion about God was not the most significant message he gave to Mary. Her question was about God, but his answer was something even more profound. Hidden from him and therefore given to Mary was his core assumptions about knowledge, truth and faith. His worldview of God was a rational judgment flowing from a b4worldview about knowledge and faith. His assumption was that he could only trust knowledge he gained from physical evidence. That's a core assumption Frank never questioned, but used to "prove" everything else. He never considered that his core assumption was not the only one available to him. In fact, this assumption abut knowledge and faith maintains a great degree of futility. You could see it in Franks's answer, "nobody really knows."

Frank had a perfect opportunity to explain to Mary that there are 2 kinds of knowledge. One kind we do get from observing the physical world. And while there is physical evidence that beautiful sunsets, the ocean, the mountain, morality, love and many other things we experience in this world certainly point to "gifts" of a Creator, no one actually sees God visibly with their human eyes. Plus, we also see storms and other natural disasters as well as terrorism and many acts of evil and ask, "if there is a God, He must not really care that much or is not in control." The second kind of knowledge is the awareness we get from ways other than observation. Intuition and revelation provide us knowledge in ways that are different from what our physical senses provide. Some call this heart knowledge.

Because there are two kinds of knowledge, there are two kinds of evidence we can trust for our thoughts, feelings and actions. Science is the evidence from observable knowledge and faith is the evidence from the unobservable knowledge. Science is a "probabilistic" likelihood of something, faith is an "assurance." Frank's didn't just fail to give Mary a good answer about God, he failed to provide her a complete understanding of knowledge and faith.


Jesus came to earth to give mankind an observable glimpse of God (Christmas), but His resurrection (Easter) provided the ultimate GIFT. We now have faith we receive when God reveals Himself to us through unobservable knowledge (work of the Holy Spirit). Frank's love for Mary made a great movie. We admire that kind of love a lot. He gave her a normal life by his commitment to provide for her physical and emotional needs, BUT he missed giving her the gift that leads to eternal life, not normal life. He failed to share with her the Kingdom b4worldview of knowledge, truth and faith.

Where is your b4worldview? Where does it take you? to a normal life or to eternal life?

Certainly worth pondering this Easter ......  

Jesus' core assumptions

In the b4worldview course we established 5 categories of core assumptions people hold dear to make sense of themselves and their world in pursuit of an abundant and virtuous life:  

REALITY     TRUTH     TRUST    SATISFACTION   JUSTIFICATION

We also established two ways to view these and called them Column A and Column B. Column A represents the carnal mind or assumptions that flow from human nature.. Column B represents the Kingdom mind or assumptions that flow from identifying as primarily a spiritual being.While this may have been an unfamiliar way for you to look at worldviews and beliefs, it is actually not a new approach.

Several thousand years ago Jesus of Nazareth began his ministry with some official teaching on what the Kingdom of God is like. He chose a narrative that contrasted two completely different sets of core assumptions.


Guess what? These resemble the same assumptions presented in b4worldview. Let’s take a moment and see how Jesus’ core assumption about the abundant and virtuous life fits what is studied in b4worldview. In fact, Jesus’ argument is that as your identity changes and becomes found in Him, you receive the Kingdom mind and core assumptions that frame all of your thoughts, feelings and actions like Jesus.

Let’s look at what He said as He taught his closest students.

REALITY
Remember what we said about “reality”? You can search dictionaries and all kinds of books from cover to cover and you will not find a clear definition for “reality”. Our team looked at many sources for understanding “reality” and decided it refers to any and all existence that is worthy of our allegiance and affection. So, when we say “really”, like “do you really love me?”, we want to know if this is permanent or just a passing thing. Some would call this “eternal”, that what is real must last and hold up “forever.”

Jesus wanted His followers to understand column B reality as one that is different from column A. He specifically said this to His most dedicated followers, “do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth where moths and rust destroy and thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in Heaven where moths and rust cannot destroy and thieves cannot break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”

See the contrast? He compares Column A reality with column B reality. Column A, an allegiance to the physical world, ties our affections to things that cannot last, objects subject to all sorts of destruction. Column B, things in heaven, a spiritual realm where God guarantees that there is no way His provisions can or will ever be destroyed by anything.

It is interesting that Jesus positions this column A – column B contrast with the notion of treasure. Your “treasure” is what you value the most and direct your allegiance. In motivation theory psychologists call this “valence”. Most people think of this as your passion. Jesus says your heart flows from your treasure. That is, what you value the most is the driving force for your motivation.
Interestingly, before He explains the two ways to view reality, He reminds you of how fortunate you are to have a Kingdom mind. He says earlier in His instruction, “as you have motives that are not contaminated by column A thinking, you can actually see God Himself, although He is invisible to the physical eye.” In other words with a column B identity you have spiritual eyes - your gnosis knowledge has an “open door policy” with God – you are filled with revelation not just from but OF the author of the universe Himself.

TRUTH
Remember we said that column A assumes that you can determine truth about something by observing the way things operate in the physical world and column B assumes truth about “something” is disclosed to us by the originator or maker of the “something”. Jesus addresses this too. He reminds us that the law can be useful to understand how things work, BUT that is not enough. Jesus goes further to explain how we can know the truth.  He says, “I didn’t come to do away with what people have written and said about how things work, I, myself, fully disclose everything there is to know about how things work.”  When you look for what is true, your conclusions flow from your Kingdom identity where the actual qualities of life are disclosed to us by the author and authority of all creation.

Jesus uses the “eye” to distinguish column A and column B assumptions about truth. That is interesting since we shared with you in great detail in session 5 how perception is so important in how we make sense of what we encounter in life. Remember we said that “its not what you see but what you see it is that matters.” Jesus points out that if the “eye is healthy”, meaning perceiving truth correctly, then your whole body will be healthy, or acting on what is true. BUT, if your “eye is UNhealthy”, then your whole body is filled with “darkness”, which means you cannot see and consequently act on what is true.

Jesus goes on to say that it is impossible to operate with both column A assumptions and column B assumptions. They are “mutually exclusive” as we pointed out in the course. He says you will either worship at the feet of the physical world, viewing truth by what you think you visibly see around you or you will worship the invisible author of all truth. Column A or Column B, they are totally different ways to see truth.

TRUST
Jesus says you can see the column B picture of trust all around you. Birds and flowers get everything they need without question. They don’t rely on what they do at all. They just receive all they need from the one who cares about them. They commit to being birds and flowers without having to judge their circumstances as supportive. AND SO, they do not worry if God will provide.

Trust is the willingness or motivation to rely on someone we cannot control, or maybe even always understand, because we believe that this someone will not act in their own self-interest at our expense. We talked about how valence or what we value influences our motivation when we discussed REALITY. The other component of motivation, the one we rely on to settle the risk of acting in a certain way is what has primacy in our attention or determines our priority. Your perception of the risk of your actions is foremost in your mind and is influenced by your assumptions about trust.  Column A assumes you must have sufficient understanding of the effect of your actions and how others will respond in order to act. Jesus says, in His own way, “NOPE, there is a column B view of trust, totally different from column A.”

Jesus says “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and everything you can imagine will follow, maybe even some stuff you cannot imagine will come too”. This is a column B core assumption. Column A would have you proving something from observation, maybe even using good scientific inquiry, before you would know you could trust enough to act.  The Kingdom mind, consisting of column b assumptions, is simply to trust in the Kingdom in which you belong. You don’t need to figure out the risks. You don’t even have to know “why”. Jesus says that making the Kingdom your priority ushers out all risk and ushers in all trust.

Back in this teaching where Jesus was sharing with Kingdom minded people about the provisions and privileges of the Kingdom, he says,  “the fortunate are those who are meek”. Now the word “meek” may mean something to you that is quite different than what Jesus is saying. Our culture, which is dominated by column A thinking, would say that “meek” is being “weak”, unaggressive, let others ‘walk all over you.” No, that is not what is fortunate about being Kingdom minded. What “meek” means here is trusting totally in your master. This idea is like a well domesticated pet. The pet receives all the goodness of their master as their emotions and thoughts remain under the control of their master. This is what Jesus means when He says column B people receive blessing as they totally trust Jesus and not their own instincts and observations.

SATISFACTION
As we have said, Jesus repeatedly claims that with a Kingdom mind “you are so fortunate”.  Jesus mentions several ways we are blessed, but His very first point is that blessing comes as you recognize that “you are absolutely destitute when it comes to providing life for yourself”. Does this sound like a rebuke of column A assumptions? That is, with a Kingdom identity, you realize you are totally inept at meeting your own needs. You avoid all the stress of the responsibility to exchange your actions to satisfy your need for purpose, joy, freedom, hope, esteem and belonging. God provides all of this. After all, He is the Creator and Ruler over all things. He makes a great promise in His instruction to Kingdom dwellers, “Do not fear, little flock, your Father has chosen gladly to give you His Kingdom.” Thus, as one who identifies with Christ, everything God has is bestowed on you, a column B assumption.

This is emphasized in His instruction to His students. Jesus explains the column A vs column B assumptions in three important virtues people desire – charity, prayer, and fasting. Jesus points out that if you do these three activities as a contingent on or in exchange for what you receive, then you will receive only in proportion to what you give. But if you do these activities from your heart because you are so thankful He has chosen you, then you can see that rewards come to you at the discretion of God. Jesus reminds us that God is a generous and reliable provider who rewards according to his sovereign will. Contingent rewards are the way of column A and discretionary rewards are the way of column B.

You want to know something that is interesting? These three activities are also core to the 5 Pillars of Islam. BUT, there is one big difference. The difference is what we discussed in the b4worldview course. The difference is a column A vs column B core assumption. In Islam the follower must do these things in exchange for God’s favor. While Muslims do look to God to meet the needs of their soul, they do so with a column A assumption, believing in reward and punishment based on their own actions. So while charity, prayer and fasting are central to the life of both Christians and Muslims, the assumption that influences a Christian and a Muslim’s thoughts, feelings and actions associated with these three virtues is totally different.

One of the needs of the soul we discussed was purpose. Remember column A purpose had to do with how we impact our circumstances, including lives of others, by what we do. Jesus makes a statement about purpose that suggests a column B assumption. Jesus says our purpose is to reflect the significance of God to others, using light and flavoring as illustrations. This view of purpose aligns with the spiritual orientation that we fulfill our purpose when our life points to and glorifies God rather than when we accomplish something significant that reflects our own glory.

JUSTIFICATION
Jesus gave His followers an astounding contrast between the Kingdom of Heaven and the way the world generally thinks about becoming OK. He said, “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees, you are not right with Him.” “Wait a minute,” His students must have thought. “The Pharisees are the most moral people we know. How can we be better at meeting the standard of the law than them?” That was Jesus’ point. He used hyperbole a lot to draw a distinction between two ideas. Basically, He was saying it is impossible to be right with God by what you do.

Jesus uses three examples to point the students to how they are inclined naturally to meet God’s standard with a column A view of doing the right thing. He says you focus on the law to not kill, but you hold anger and contempt for others in your heart – GUILTY. This is self-righteousness, using column A thinking to view yourself as better than another. He says you focus on not committing adultery, but you are consumed by lust – GUILTY. This is self-gratification, using column A thinking to exchange your actions for physical pleasure from another. Thirdly, He says you set up rules, such as when you can divorce your wife, that meet your needs but ignores God’s desire and will for you – GUILTY. This is self-justification, using a column A that man can establish the rules where God has set in place what is right.

If we asked God to be a teacher in b4worldview course, He would say that the column A mind does not justify you before Him. There must be another way. He goes on to suggest to us that the way of his Kingdom, column B, is not one of rights in this world. He says the world works on reciprocity, like “an eye for an eye”. BUT, the kingdom is grasping the privilege of being His child, in His Kingdom, so that we are not bound by justice that man can exercise. We go the extra mile and give others what they have no right to ask us for. The Kingdom mind makes us complete, not an exchange view to strive for what we deserve.

Earlier Jesus had explained the Kingdom this way, “You are fortunate you are rejected by the world around you because you are made righteous by God Himself.” In other words, seeking your approval from others is not the way to be made OK when God has made you OK by His willful act on your behalf.

Justification involves judging. Column A mind leads people to want to be the judge and determine what is right and who is OK. Jesus warns His students about column A judging. He tells them that if they operate under a column A type of judgment, where people decide who is guilty or not based on their own judgments of what is right and wrong, then that is the judgment they will receive. You will receive a “guilty verdict” based on what you do against the standard. This morality you seek to fulfill may be your own standard or be set up by society or maybe even be the standards you think God has established. In a sense Jesus is saying that when you depend on or apply justice to determine what someone deserves, then that standard of justice is what will be applied to you. Jesus is basically repudiating column A Justification. He is reminding you of its futility.

Jesus uses the example of wide and narrow gates to contrast the two ways for you to consider justification. He says column A looks wide open, seems to be a good way to go, in fact, it feels very natural to use justice as the basis for determining who is guilty and who is not. Remember how we discussed in detail in session 5 that justice may be the greatest concern of people. Judging each other, and ourselves, by what we do is the most natural way to understand what makes us right or OK.
Column B is very “narrow” in a sense. It is narrow because if requires that we off load our desire for justice to be applied and accepts that God took care of our guilt and made us OK by His own action, not ours. It is just so hard, so unnatural to see justice that way.

WOW, that is a lot. Jesus did not take short cuts in explaining His Kingdom to His students. That’s one reason we were so detailed throughout b4worldview course to explain the two sets of core assumptions, the two minds – column A and column B. Jesus was very focused throughout His b4worldview course with his students to contrast the two minds – the mind of the world – relying on eido knowledge primarily and focusing on what you can do to earn or gain, through exchange, REALITY, TRUTH, TRUST, SATISFACTION and JUSTIFICATION and the mind of Christ, relying on gnosis knowledge of God and thereby receiving from the Father all that is necessary for the abundant and virtuous life. After all, He chooses to give it all to us and HE CAN.

He finishes His course reminding His students the futility of column A and the fullness of column B. He compares the two minds with a builder who has two options for building his house. The builder can build his house on sand, BUT when the storms come, his house will not withstand the pressure and will be destroyed. OR he can build his house on rock, so that when the storms come, the solid foundation will prevail and the house will not be destroyed.

This is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Much of what you learned in b4worldview course may have been surprising and somewhat disturbing to you. Well, the Bible tells us that when Jesus had finished His course with his students, “they were astonished.” You see, Jesus taught with an authority on this subject. Its not like He just studied what someone else had said or written. He is the author of His message. In other words, Jesus said, you can take what I have said about the two minds to the bank.”
In your human nature, your carnal mind results in the futility of a column A b4worldview, a set of assumptions that leads to destruction. Yet, God has acted on your behalf and in doing so, has provided you with a new identity, an identity different from the one you inherited from the error of Adam and Eve, a new identity resulting in an abundant and virtuous life influenced by a different set of core assumptions - the column B b4worldview.

Jesus gives us in this historically profound course on b4worldview some GREAT NEWS. The Gospel is not just a great course of instruction, the Gospel transforms your mind from a focus on REWARDS and RIGHTS you expect from this world to a focus on PROVISIONS and PRIVILEGES of the Heavenlies.

You move from futility to fullness.

This is certainly worth pondering and maybe some investment in time to go through the b4worldview course .......

sensible healthcare reform

Healthcare reform is called "complex". What makes it complex? For starters, there are multiple constituents, each with different needs and solutions. Then there are the multiple players, each of which have roles that are not agreed upon by society. BTW, this is called "healthcare reform" but it is really "sick patient payment or insurance reform". healthcare would include many elements of diet and exercise but it is what it is. Let's first look at the constituents and then lets look at the players.

Constituents
Sr citizens on Medicare

Poor citizens who have too few financial resources to be self sufficient in their healthcare choices.

Other citizens fall in several classes - those with high risk from pre-existing conditions, those with high risk because they do not belong to a risk pool, and everyone else

Players
Market based companies - these are the organizations who have a mission to provide care for ailing members of society in a way that they gain economic benefit.

Government - this is an agent of society that exists to meet needs in society when market based organizations cannot deliver their mission sufficiently to produce an acceptable return on capital.

Individuals - the consumers of healthcare services that initiate the use of the service.

Here's the plan -
1. Sr's on Medicare continue as is (approx 30% of pop)
2. Poor people (maybe 20%) have medicaid that is funded through block grants to States to apply as they feel they should for their citizens (this also creates competition between (States)
3. All other individuals obtain insurance as they choose from market providers. Market forces and other steps, such as eliminate govt mandates on coverage, competition across States, tort reform, and increase supply of medical professionals by govt sponsored scholarships, loans and grants, will lower overall costs resulting in more affordable insurance premiums.
4. States will use some medicaid funds to re-insure the market based suppliers for high risk clients of the market based insurance products that have conditions with the likelihood of unusual or catastrophic consequences. This allows Insurers to use the government funded capabilities to insure pre-existing conditions and keep their clients premiums lower. Private businesses can compete with the State to provide the re-insurance coverages.
5. Any citizen (not on Medicare or Medicaid) that does not have a sufficient risk pool from which to buy affordable insurance can subscribe to Medicaid for 5 years. The Medicaid premiums will be income and age tested just as insurers do in the regular market. Subscription is renewable in 5 year blocks at the choice of the client. The client can opt out of medicaid individual policy at any time they have opportunity for a more affordable option through a risk pool they can join.

The freeing of market based solutions for a majority of the population, the use of re-insurance practices to relieve insurers of high risks, and the govt participation in areas businesses can not cover profitably will allow each constituent and each player to best realize their needs and roles.

Feel free to pass this on to any politician who may wish to provide solutions rather than play power politics as usual. This is only a short blog post so I am sure when the lawyers get through it will be 100 pages of garbly goop :-)