One of the advantages of reading through the Bible on a regular basis is that you will encounter passages that you might not otherwise read. In my reading today it was the juxtaposition of the OT and NT readings that raised some interesting questions.
The OT reading for today included Psalm 18, a portion of which reads:
20 The LORD dealt with me according to my righteousness;
according to the cleanness of my hands he rewarded me.
21 For I have kept the ways of the LORD,
and have not wickedly departed from my God.
22 For all his rules were before me,
and his statutes I did not put away from me.
23 I was blameless before him,
and I kept myself from my guilt.
24 So the LORD has rewarded me according to my righteousness,
according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight.
(Ps. 18:20-24, ESV)
Here David says that God rewards him for his righteousness. But the NT reading was from Romans 3, which includes these verses:
10 as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
(Rom. 3:10-12, ESV)
The contrast between these two statements really jumped out at me. Was David righteous or was he not? Was he simply deceived or arrogant for claiming to be righteous? Or was he using the word “righteous” in a different sense? It might be tempting to explain this as a different view of righteousness in the OT and NT, but that won’t do because the Romans passage is excerpted from Ps. 13:1-3 and Ps. 53:1-3.
In Romans Paul is talking about our lack of absolute sinless perfection, but David was talking about something else. David was very aware of his sinfulness as some of the other Psalms attest (Psalm 51 comes to mind). So I don’t think that his statement in Psalm 18 was a claim to sinless perfection. David was aware not only of the need for forgiveness, but also the need for God’s grace to live for Him (Ps. 19:12-13). Can a person who has needed to confess some serious sin and who needs God’s help every day to walk with Him still talk about “my righteousness” and “the cleanness of my hands”? Apparently David thought so.
Should we think of ourselves as righteous? I don’t mean only “positional righteousness” (I am considered righteous by God because Christ died for me) but “practical righteousness” (I generally live my life according to God’s standards). I am not suggesting a legalistic approach or an arrogant superiority (”I am not like other men,” Lk. 18:11-12). But if we are serious about following Jesus should we see ourselves as people who normally do the right thing and usually obey God? Perhaps if we did we might find it a little bit easier to live as God intended us to live. If we constantly tell ourselves and each other, “You’re going to sin, and sin a lot” it might become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
What do you think? Was David right to think of himself as righteous? How do you think of yourself?
The US Supreme Court has ruled against the Christian Legal Society in their case against the UC Hastings Law School regarding requirements for membership and leadership positions. The campus group welcomes anyone to attend, but requires voting members to sign a statement of faith and commit to Christian standards of conduct. They had argued that the rules established by Hastings could be interpreted in such a way as to force them to allow a non-Christian to become a Bible study leader.
Although the particular focus of the complaint that Hastings had against the group was on their statement about sexual morality, specifically homosexuality, today’s court ruling is much broader than that. It may be interpreted to mean that any requirement to commit to a statement of faith or Christian conduct is discriminatory and not to be allowed by a campus group. Even establishing such requirements only for leaders may come under attack.
If campus Christian groups are forced to give up their Christian identity in order to be registered as official campus organizations it would force them to operate off campus. We need to keep watch on this issue, and pray for continued open doors for campus ministry.
In today’s reading in my church Bible reading program there is a curious phrase: “Azariah the son of Nathan was over the officers; Zabud the son of Nathan was priest and king’s friend” (1 Ki 4:5, ESV). There is nothing unusual about the king having friends, but this statement appears in a list of officials in Solomon’s court: “King Solomon was king over all Israel, 2 and these were his high officials. . .” (vs. 1-2). All the other titles mentioned in 1 Kings 4:1-6 are clearly government officials, so that made me wonder if the “king’s friend” was also an official position.
Solomon was not the only one to have an official “friend.” In a list of officials in David’s government we find this statement: “Ahithophel was the king’s counselor, and Hushai the Archite was the king’s friend.” (1 Ch 27:33, ESV). Why would “the king’s friend” be listed among top government officials?
We really don’t have a lot to go on here, but it seems likely that “the king’s friend” served as a close personal adviser and confidant. While it might be anachronistic to say that Zadub was Solomon’s accountability partner, it is possible that he was a close personal friend who had the right to speak the truth to the king. Apparently this relationship was important enough to be listed among the other high government officials.
We all need someone like that in our lives, someone with whom you can share your deepest secrets, and on whom you can depend to be loyal to you and keep your best interests in mind, and who has the right to speak to you honestly or even bluntly when the situation requires it. Early Celtic Christians called it a “soul friend.” Brigit of Kildare, an Irish nun and abbess in the fifth century said “Anyone without a soul friend is like a body without a head.”
Of course some who talk about “soul friends” are into kooky mystic stuff. But the basic concept is sound. Solomon was given extraordinary wisdom, and he saw a need for such a friend. Those who are in leadership positions are especially in need of a friend like that. We are prone to take ourselves too seriously and to neglect nurture of our own souls. In our individualistic society we tend to try to forge on ahead by ourselves. God didn’t design us to be lone rangers.
Do you have a “soul friend”? If not, do you want one? Are you able to be a “soul friend” to someone else?
In a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Christian Legal Society is fighting for its right to limit membership to Christians. The University of California’s Hastings College of the Law has denied the Christian Legal Society recognition as a campus student group because they require voting members to sign a statement of faith, and regard “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle” to be inconsistent with the statement of faith.
Hastings demands that no recognized campus groups may exclude people due to religious belief or sexual orientation. By including not only behavior, but belief as well, their position implies that Christian groups cannot require adherence to Christian beliefs for people to become voting members or to serve in leadership positions. Should Christian groups be required to give an atheist the right to become a Bible study leader? Are campus Christian groups forbidden from requiring those in leadership to hold to Christian beliefs or to enbrace a Christian code of conduct?
Most secular campus have similar non-discrimination policies. If those policies were rigorously enforced or if Christian groups on campus were challenged on these points many other campus fellowship groups might find themselves in a similar position.
Please pray for God to work in this court case. If the Christian Legal Society loses, we will be one step closer to the day when all campus Christian groups will be forced to choose between abandoning their Christian principles or leaving campus.
Tomorrow is Saint Patrick’s Day. What was the origin of this day, and who was Saint Patrick? And what in the world does it have to do with leprechauns and shamrocks?
Who was Saint Patrick?
Patrick (c. 387 – 17 March, 493) was a Romanized Celt who grew up in Britain. There are two letters written by him in Latin that have survived and are generally accepted as genuine. The more important of the two, his Confession, gives a brief outline of his history and his missionary work. (You can read it on line here).
His father was a deacon and his grandfather was a priest, but young Patrick didn’t take his faith very seriously. At about age 16 he was captured by Irish raiders and taken back to Ireland as a slave. There he was put to work as a herdsman, and was often alone outdoors. During this time prayed daily and his faith grew. After six years he heard a voice speak to him in a dream telling him that his ship was ready. He fled his master and walked 200 miles to the coast where he found a ship that could take him back to Britain, although he had quite a few adventures before he finally arrived at home.
A few years later he had a vision calling him to return to Ireland as a missionary. He began a period of religious training and was ordained as a priest before returning to the land of his captivity. Now in his mid-40’s, God used his familiarity with Irish language and culture to open a door for the Gospel. He made missionary journeys throughout Ireland and baptized thousands of people and started hundreds of churches. After his death, his missionary bands continued to spread the Gospel in Ireland. A century later the Irish church began sending missions teams to Britain, which was by then dominated by the newly arrived pagan Anglo-Saxons. Soon afterward they began to send missions teams to Continental Europe as well.
Saint Patrick’s Day
Like many saint’s days, Saint Patrick’s Day is the date of his death, March 17. Patrick became known as the patron saint of Ireland and his day gradually became a celebration of Irish culture. Although the color blue was originally associated with Saint Patrick, it soon shifted to green, perhaps influenced by the shamrock that he is said to have used as an illustration to teach pagans about the Trinity. Today the color green is an important part of Saint Patrick’s day, to the point that the Chicago River is dyed green every year on this date.
Unlike Valentine’s Day, we have some real information about the man whose name is associated with this day. I have no interest in leprechauns or shamrocks, much less green beer, but I find the story of Saint Patrick to be inspiring. He returned to share the Gospel with the people who had enslaved him, and was use by God to start a movement that resulted in thousands of people coming to Christ. That’s something worth celebrating.
For further reading:
x
Tomorrow is Ash Wednesday, which marks the beginning of Lent. Rather than writing another article on this topic, I will point you to an article that I wrote in 2007. This article has been one of the most popular ones on my blog, with many readers each year when Lent draws near.
Valentine’s Day is a celebration of romantic love, usually accompanied by an exchange of cards, flowers and candy. On several occasions as I was doing my Valentine’s shopping I found myself in a checkout line with several men each buying flowers or candy for his wife or girl friend. I think that this must be one of the biggest days of the year for sellers of flowers. An estimated 1 billion cards are sent each year, compared to 2.6 billion at Christmas.
Who was St. Valentine?
Why would I write about Valentine’s Day in a series on Christian holidays? The older name for “Valentine’s Day” is “Saint Valentine’s Day.” Who was Saint Valentine and what does he have to do with the day we celebrate in his name? Was this originally a Christian holiday?
There were three martyrs named Valentine honored by the ancient church, all of whom are supposed to have died on Feb. 14. It is seem likely that the three were confused and assigned to the same date. The most well known of the three was Valentine of Rome, who was martyred in AD 269. When pope Pope Gelasius I established Valentine’s Day in 496, he included Valentine among those “… whose names are justly reverenced among men, but whose acts are known only to God.” So even at that time not much was know about him. Most of the stories about his life are of a relatively late date, and according to the Catholic Encyclopedia are “of no historical value.”
The most common legend is that Emperor Claudius II had forbidden the young men of Rome to marry because he thought that single men made better soldiers, and he needed a lot of soldiers. Valentine defied this order by performing secret weddings for young people who wanted to marry, and eventually was caught. He was executed when he refused to renounce his faith.
According to one legend, St. Valentine sent the first “Valentine” himself. He is said to have become friends with the daughter of his jailor, and some say that he had healed her of blindness. Before his death he is said to have written her a letter, and signed it “From your Valentine.”
The Roman Connection
Another strand of the history of this day is the Roman festival of Lupercalia. This was a fertility festival dedicated to the Roman god Faunus, equivalent to the Greek god Pan, which was celebrated on Feb. 13-15. According to legend, all the single women in a village would put their names on slips of paper into an urn, and the single men would each draw out a name. The couple was then paired for a year. When Pope Gelasius declared Feb. 14 Valentine’s Day around 496 the Roman “lottery” system for dating was banned as unchristian.
Have you ever wondered where Cupid came from? He was the son of Venus and Mercury (Aphrodite and Hermes) and was the Roman god of erotic love and and beauty. It seems that Roman culture has had a large influence on this day.
What can we Learn?
The legends about St. Valentine do not appear before the Middle Ages, so they do not provide any reliable historical information. We do know that there was a martyr named Valentine, but we don’t really know anything about his life. On the other hand, the Roman connection seems to have influenced this holiday a great deal.
Putting all of this together, it seems that the early church established a Christian alternative to a pagan festival in Rome. Their goal was to steer people away from the sensual and erotic elements of the Roman feast and focus instead on a man who had given up his life for his faith. But it seems that they were only partially successful, and the unwanted elements continued to creep back in. The modern holiday takes much from pagan sources, and only its name from a Christian origin.
For further reading
Lupercalia
.
