Places

Calvin Fairbanks

Today as I was reading Richard Wurmbrand he mentioned the exploits of the Calvin Fairbanks. This Methodist minister spent 17 years in prison for helping free slaves in nineteenth century America. His paid a dear price for living out his faith on behalf of those suffering around him, and is credited with freeing 47 slaves. I honor the memory of such a great American hero. Here is an excerpt on Calvin’s life from Wikipedia:

Born in Pike, in what is now Wyoming County, New York, Fairbank grew up in an intensely religious family environment. Listening to the stories told by two escaped slaves whom he met at a Methodist quarterly meeting, he became strongly anti-slavery. He began his career freeing slaves in 1837 when, piloting a lumber raft down the Ohio River, he ferried a slave across the river to free territory. Soon he was delivering runaway slaves to the Quaker abolitionist Levi Coffin for transportation on the Underground Railroad to northern U.S. cities or to Canada.

The Methodist Episcopal Church licensed Fairbank to preach in 1840 and fully ordained him in 1842. Hoping to improve his education, he enrolled in 1844 in the “preparatory division” of Oberlin Collegiate Institute, now Oberlin College, a center of anti-slavery sentiment. Responding to an appeal to rescue the wife and children of an escaped slave named Gilson Berry, Fairbank left Oberlin for Lexington, Kentucky, where he made contact with Delia Webster, a teacher from Vermont who was to help with the rescue. Berry’s wife failed to meet Fairbank as planned, so he and Webster set their sights on freeing Lewis Hayden and his family.

Fairbank and Webster successfully delivered Hayden, his wife Harriet and Harriet’s son Joseph to freedom in Ohio, then returned to Kentucky where they were identified and arrested for assisting the runaway slaves. Webster was tried in December 1844 and sentenced to two years in the state penitentiary, but served less than two months of her sentence. Fairbank was tried in 1845 and received a 15-year term, five years for each of the slaves he helped free. He was pardoned in 1849 when a grateful Lewis Hayden raised the money to pay off Hayden’s former master.

In 1851, Fairbank helped a slave named Tamar escape from Kentucky to Indiana. On November 9, with the connivance of the sheriff of Clark County, Indiana and Indiana Governor Joseph A. Wright, marshals from Kentucky abducted Fairbank and took him back to their state for trial. In 1852, he was again sentenced to 15 years in the state penitentiary, where he was singled out as a target for exceptionally harsh treatment that included flogging and overwork. Finally, in 1864, three years into the Civil War, he was pardoned by Acting Governor Richard T. Jacob, who had long advocated Fairbank’s release.

Once free, Fairbank married Mandana Tileston, to whom he had become engaged during his brief period of freedom in 1851. Known as “Dana,” she moved from Williamsburg, Massachusetts, to Oxford, Ohio, in order to visit Fairbank in prison as often as possible and to press the case for his pardon with the Governor of Kentucky. Their only child, Calvin Cornelius Fairbank, was born in 1868.

The conditions of Fairbank’s life in prison broke his health. Although he held jobs with missionary and benevolent societies, he was not able to support his family. At one point he and his wife tried to earn a living operating a bakery in the utopian community of Florence, Massachusetts. Mandana Fairbank died of tuberculosis in 1876 and the couple’s son was raised by her sister and brother-in-law. Fairbank remarried in 1879, but little is known of his second wife, Adeline Winegar.

Fairbank’s memoirs were published in 1890 under the title Rev. Calvin Fairbank During Slavery Times: How He “Fought the Good Fight” to Prepare “the Way.” Unhappily, this effort earned him little money. He died in near-poverty in Angelica, New York, and is buried there in the Until the Day Dawn Cemetery. He is generally credited with helping free 47 slaves.

Popularity: 3% [?]

picture originally uploaded by vaXzine

I hesitate to ever comment on foreign policy because I readily acknowledge my ignorance of international relations. Of course, from the looks of the last 50 years, I’d suggest many folks in government have also lacked finesse in foreign policy. I yield to the insight and expertise of friends like Charles Strohmer who have focused extensive time and analysis from a “wisdom perspective” into the challenges of foreign relations. With that disclaimer aside, I thought I’d foolishly venture into this space and something that has been on my mind over the last few days as I’ve watched President Obama interact with Chavez et al.

Could it be that Obama is modelling a cruciform foreign policy? What do I mean by cruciform? I am talking about a foreign policy in the shape of the cross (at least to some limited extent). I don’t know that Christ calls nations and national leaders to replicate his Golgatha journey, but I do think Jesus reveals the hidden wisdom of God that can guide many human relations. In Philippians 2, Paul argues that Jesus freely exchanges his position in the Godhead to take the position of man and a cursed man at that.

Jesus reveals the way true kingship works. The true king lays down his life for the nation. (Think legend of Holy Grail.) The only one who can give power is the one who possesses true power. So only God in Christ can come to the cross on behalf of his enemies (sinful humanity). Paul calls for God’s children to model this same power giving attitude in their relationships with one another. Now I am not suggesting the Scripture indicates that this is a model for relationships between nations, but what if? What if a nation possessing virtually ultimate power, could operate in humility and “limited” deference.

I am not suggesting that we turn a blind eye to enemies or even invite terrorists to the “table” as equals. But I am suggesting that there may be room for a model of foreign policy that turns “realpolitik” on its head. Right now the United States has a power unequaled by any one nation. While some continue to prophecy our demise, what if our power is not decreasing but could actually be increasing for the foreseeable future? Could we model a behavior and a foreign policy that does not have to prove it’s power. We have it and can use if and when needed. As a result, we can also humble ourselves and engage other countries in a “wisdom” way that might open doors for renewed friendships and even transformation of some enemies to friends.

I am not a pacifist and am not suggesting the nation lay down and give in to all the demands of other nations. But we might rethink how we listen, we might respond in wisdom ways that look to tomorrow as well as to the next 50 years. We might be willing to make a few compromises in the short term for long term rewards.

Jesus embraced the cross for the joy set before him. Is there a way a nation can embrace the cross? I don’t know, but sometimes I wonder.

Popularity: 12% [?]

picture originally uploaded by kjd

Yesterday I listened to a lecture from the Teaching Company on The History of the United States specifically about the period directly following the signing of the Constitution. Professor Guelzo tells the story of how the framers of the Constitution never anticipated political parties, and if they had, they might have outlawed them in the Constitution.

Parties were self-sustaining organizations that tended to collect power, money and corruption at top. If anything, they seemed to inhibit true political and positive engagement in England. Rejecting these long Whig and Tory controversies from English politics, early American politics was driven by caucuses. By caucuses I am talking about people who united around a cause or issue for a finite time period until the Congress addressed the issue or the organizer died or quit. The Congress was made up of representatives from each region but not connected to specific long-term political parties. Caucuses were temporary and were ways to address specific issues facing the newborn nation.

But Hamilton and his banker friends made the agrarians like Thomas Jefferson nervous. Serving as Geroge Washington’s Secretary of Treasury, Alexander Hamilton supported fiscal and foreign policy goals at odd with the agrarians. He used his power to push laws through Congress. Concerned by actions and policies of Hamilton, Jefferson and friends begin to form groups of Republican Democrats against the policies of Hamilton and the Federalists. These groups organized into parties, and soon Hamilton responded by organizing a Federalist party.

Of course, the party system quickly devolved into the self-sustaining organization that our founders would have preferred to avoid. As I thought about this shift, I thought about the various points in our history when an “issue” has started out as a “caucus” but over time devolved into a “party organization.” Once that happens, I would suggest it is not in the interest of the party to truly resolve the “issue” because sustaining the life of the part has become more important than the issue. I will let my readers think of their own issue-party groups (and I think they’re are all over Washington).

As I discussed this idea this morning with another minister, he pointed out that the church often does the same thing. What starts out as a caucus of people connected by an encounter with the Lord often turns into a self-sustaining organization that may even “at times” oppose the move of God in the interest of preserving the organization. Something to think about.

Popularity: 11% [?]

picture originally uploaded by Edu-Tourist

America stands out as unique among industrialized Western nations for the high level religious participation in general, and the high number of confessing Christians in particular. While some recent studies indicate a tiny increase in secularism, I do not believe there is enough data to indicate or forecast long term trends. Patrick Allit in his Teaching Company course on American Religious History indicates that America actually differentiates itself from other Western nations in that our religious fervor may have actually increased in the 20th century as compared with the 17th and 18th century.

He suggests that this unusual differentiation in the normal trend confounds some scholars. Why the increase? Allit suggests at least one possibility: because America is not a Christian nation. Not in the legal sense. Most secularized western nations still have official state churches like the Church of England. These nations are legally Christian but not practicing Christian nations. In America, the trend is the opposite. Our national politics can be disconcerting to other secular allies because the religious content seems completely intertwined in the dialogues and speeches of politicians, including our newest president. Americans (Christian and non-Christian) have a deep symbolic reservoir of religious and Christian symbolism.

Why would Allit see this as a reason for expansion (and/or sustaining power) instead of extinction? He suggests that the lack of a state church opened the door for churches to operate in the free market. So American developed a unique form of Christianity: free market Christianity. Our Protestant churches in particular but even the Roman Catholic church has demonstrated the ability to adapt and change to a changing culture.

On the one hand, this is a good thing. Drawing from some ideas on power and faith by Mark Noll, I would suggest that in America, Christianity became connected with the struggle of working class against the elite. (I am not talking about political movements, but about social groupings). Interestingly, the struggle is opposite on the other side of the ocean. in Europe, the working class has often left the faith and struggle against a religious elite.

So it appears to have actually benefited Christianity that America was not formally a Christian nation. There are other interesting tidbits about the relation of faith and practice in America. Allen C. Guelzo suggests that it is possible the great legacy bequeathed to Americans from the colonial period is the first “Great Awakening.” In The Great Awakening there is a pairing of religious fervor and social change. Guelzo believes this pattern continues to repeat throughout American history. Now this is not to suggest Christians were unified in a particular social act.

In reality, Christians have often divided on acts of social change right up through the civil rights. But this does indicate that religious fervor and the public have never been completely separated in practice. While I perceive this as a good, I also recognize the danger in religion moving beyond a pairing with a social cause and become paired with a political party (but that is for another blog post).

The downside of accepting this argument is that religion is so deeply connected to the market that it has often mirrored the market. Lacking the stability of Christianity in many nations, the American expression seems more deeply subject to trends (on both the right and left). This has resulted in American Christianity looking rather similar to American Pragmatism. And to Robert Bellah’s argument that in the American practice, the public religion of individualism rises over each creed. His insight is prophetically haunting and might be a warning to an American church that often looks like another form of American consumerism.

In spite of the negatives, the freedom the Christian church has known in a state that is not specifically aligned with any religion is tremendous and should be guarded. At the same time, I would hope that Christians might exercise this true freedom of religion with wisdom, avoiding the trap of living from one trend to the next and learning how we might continue to grow and change while still learning from the wisdom our deep roots in ancient traditions.

Popularity: 12% [?]

picture originally uploaded by quinn.anya

Before answering that question, I might ask another related question, “Is there such a thing as a Christian nation?” This is debated among some Biblical scholars but for the most part the Bible does not address a “Christian nation.” The New Testament is addressing a Christian family. This is a family of believers who confess Jesus Christ as Lord. So I don’t think there is a such a thing as a Christian nation.

But now that language of Lord throws a monkey wrench into the question. Lord is a title for ruler or king. A Christian looks to Jesus Christ as their ultimate Lord and King. This leads to questions about how a Christian relates to authority. But for the sake of simplicity, I’m going to stick with Paul’s admonition in Romans 13:

1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor

Following the pattern in Scripture (and even exemplified by Paul himself), Christians submit authority inasmuch as authority is in line with the Law of God. But as we see in case of Daniel, Paul and even Jesus, the children of God sometimes come into conflict with the authority and even suffer and die at the hands of authority. There are times whether intentionally or unintentionally, our actions in service of Lord Jesus will appear as actions in subversion of the Law. But I would post a big warning here: this is not an open ended excuse for rebellion against authority. I can’t develop that whole idea here or yet, but I am working with the idea of how Scripture model resistance of child to parent when the parent is in the wrong. Biblical wisdom offers insight into the dynamics of parent-child relationships on a family level and extending all the way to a political level.

Back to America as a Christian nation. The history of our nation is intertwined with the stories of Christian faith and Christian faults. Depending on whose telling the story, I may hear wondrous stories of Christian participation in the founding and sustaining and transforming of the nation, or I may hear a litany of evils laid at the doorstep of Christians and Christian churches. Both stories may or may not be true, and are usually a mixture of both.

If I look to the founding of the nation, I do see stories of faithful believers seeking to build a city on a hill. If I look back farther, I can see how the Reformation set political changes in motion that allow North America to be established in ways that are very different than South America. For instance, the Reformation struck a blow to the heart of the medieval concept of the “Great Chain of Being.” This made room for ordinary citizens to rise up their class (or drop beneath it). It opened up freer movement in the class system, which plays a fundamental role in the nature and attraction of American colonies (where a man can change his status and become something new). This freedom of movement will be severely restricted in the South American story.

I can see a variety of instances that look like blessings from God, and they may be. But if I follow the pattern of Jeremiah, I would suggest that I should be able to see a variety of instances in the story of many nations that look like the blessings and warnings of God. In other words, I would suggest that God is involved in different ways in the story of every nation. At the same time, humans are involved and we can curse and destroy and oppress in every language, creed and culture. Some would like to lay violence and destruction at the doorstep of Christianity, by in reality they are laying violence and destruction at the doorstep of humans.

History is replete with unimaginable horroes that human do to other humans: sometimes in the name of a god, sometimes in the name of a tribe, and sometimes in the name of humanity (look at the 20th century horrors committed by totalitarians supposedly devoted to the common secular man). It is unhonest and unfair to lay all evil at the doorstep of religion while ignoring the horrors committed on local, national and international levels by all sorts of humans. This preponderance of evil raises another question about God. I am not going to address that here, but for those seriously (as in honestly) interested in answers to the question of evil and God, I would suggest looking at the 20th century’s foremost philosopher on the topic: Alvin Plantinga.

So what I am proposing is that I think the Bible indicates God is active in the stories of all nations, all peoples, all clans. In the stories of Joseph and Daniel, we see God’s particular revelation in Abraham’s descendants shared as wisdom in the courts of Gentile kings. Ancient Israel is the only theocratic nation in Scripture and even there the kings and people were often at odds with the wisdom of God. So prophets and other counselers would be sent to the kings to bear witness to the wisdom of God.

Today we live in a world where God may work in the midst of nations or in between nations but that does not mean that God has ordained one nation over another. According to Ephesians 1:15-23Ephesians 1:15-23
English: King James Version (1611) - KJV
15 Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, ¹⁶ Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; ¹⁷ That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: in...: or, for the acknowledgement ¹⁸ The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, ¹⁹ And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, his mighty power: Gr. the might of his power ²⁰ Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, ²¹ Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: ²² And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, ²³ Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.  

WP-Bible plugin, we Jesus as the one Sovereign ruler in the world. he works in and through the church. While the church is referred to as His body, there is no indication that he is limited in rule by the body. While this causes consternation and possible confusion among non-believers, Christians understand Jesus as King of the World. And in due time, the fullness of His rule will be revealed.

So He intimately working in the midst of America and other nations as well in spite of wicked men. Christians believe that wicked rule does not and will not have the final say. So we hope and act toward that hope of His righteous rule (read free from all oppression including religious oppression) extending from sea to sea (Psalm 72). With this hope in mind, we participate in the civic affairs of the nation. But we must never replace the hope for His ultimate rule with the limited and failing expressions of our rule. Thus we must be cautious with how we treat and understand power.

Otherwise, we may (as Christian have done) christen a ruler or rule as God’s rule and then proceed to oppress (becoming a wicked rule in the guise of Christian language). This should make Christians both expectant and hopeful of possibilities for change and service in civic affairs as well as wary of any system, party or ideology that promises ultimate solutions.

With this tempered understanding of our purpose, we can act as agents of wisdom, seeking to apply Biblical insights into the the challenges of our nation (as well as our business and communities). We acknowledge our faulty understanding and as Louis Durpe has said, our “humbled epistemology.” We serve through sacrifice rather than by sacrificing others. We may often appear to fail in our efforts, trusting in God’s hand to bring His purposes and His blessings into the world.

This wisdom approach might help us to think different of our nation as well as other nations. We can pray and trust that God’s wisdom can be at work in those nations. At times, our nation, and even our voice might be used by God to reveal His wisdom. Other times, other nations, including those we perceive with hostility, may be used by God to challenge our nation. Let us pray to His wisdom at work in the courts of the kings and then to seek to serve in the ways the are made available to us (locally, nationally, internationally).

This leads me to another question, “Is there a cruciform foreign policy?”

Popularity: 100% [?]

This little video of President Obama suggesting that America is no longer “just” a Christian nation generated quite a discussion on a friend’s Facebook. As I thought about the discussion, I thought about the challenges of sorting through a question, “Is America a Christian Nation?”

First, there could be and quite possibly is another set of questions behind the question. A person asking “Is America a Christian Nation?” Might be asking, “Is America STILL a Christian Nation?” Their question and the commentary that follows indicates they feel as though the nation has changed and possibly drifted from the nation of faith they remember in an earlier age. I might goes so far as to suggest some people are lamenting the loss of symbols and rituals that gave stability and meaning to their lives. The loss of the Christmas creche in town square is part of a larger loss of symbols that bring stability or a sense that everything is alright in the world.

This loss of symbols and symbolic language can make some people feel not only that the nation has changed but that their faith is directly challenged. So their question becomes an existential question about their sense of being in the world. Has this nation grown hostile to my faith? Will it grow hostile to my faith? Before responding to quickly to such a question, I would suggest the listener really try to understand what is it a person means or possibly fears in such a question.

Now another person hearing the question, might actually hear a completely different question. When they hear, “Is America a Christian Nation?” They hear, “Do Christians Still Have the Final Say in America?” Whereas the first person was raising an existential question (couched in political language), the second person unquestionably hears a political question about power: who has it and who does not. Their perceived threat by the Christian may drive them to respond with a historical answer.

“America never was a Christian nation.” Then they proceed to cite historical examples of why Christianity was not inherent in the nation’s founding. They might even proceed with a secondary historical remarks and comment not on American history but the faults of Christian history.

The first person might step back, surprised by what seems like an attack and suggest that Christianity is a source of values for the American culture.

And so the discussion continues. But what is really happening is that two people are talking about two very different things and moving between multiples categories of thought in the process. This creates a problem because each category of thought may require different rules for discussion and different meaning of terms. As a result, this means that they actually talk past one another. They may face one another in person or online, but their words do not connect. There is no true discussion of ideas. Simply multiple monologues.

This is a problem. If this is the only way we can talk, we will never really talk to one another. We will simply talk to the perception we have of another person. We may try to be kind (even while getting frustrated) but we will truly fail to actually hear one another. Sadly, many of the online discussions I have observed follow a path like I’ve described. This path will only reinforce perceived stereotypes and while it may appear to be some form of question and answer, it is completely opposite any like a Socratic dialogue.

And worse, it bears a resemblance to people who eventually do not fight with words alone but with actions. As I’ve stated before, I think we are becoming a tribalized nation. If we do not learn how to listen and learn from “the other,” we will either patronize or demonize the other. By patronize, I mean that we will speak “about” the other in a way that indicates we’ve come to realize that they are so completely ignorant, they will not have the ability to understand us. So we assume the “other” person, political party, belief system, etc, is different because of their ignorance. If they knew better, they would not be so foolish. But odds are they may be so ignorant that they cannot learn.

Worse yet, we may demonize the offending other. How many rallies has an image of “Hitler” shown up next to the offending party? I’ve seen it multiple times in rallies for and against various causes. The use of such extreme demonizing not only make dialogue impossible it truly diminishes the evil that Hitler represents to the world.

I confess that I’ve diverted from my own question, “Is America a Christian Nation?” If I think of this question within a Juridical framework, then I would look to our Articles of Incorporation for assistance. The Constitution does not declare that America is a Christian nation. Neither does is define America as religionless. It says that the Federal government is not going to declare a Federal religion (either a Christian or Secular religion). So on a purely legal level, America is not a Christian nation.

But this is not the end of the question (just the end of this post). I want to think through a few more aspects of this in posts to follow.

Popularity: 10% [?]

Clint Eastwood, like John Wayne, embodied the American icon. From the mysterious cowboys to the gun-toting Dirty Harry, many of his characters embodied traits that Americans readily identify: loners, anti-establishment, rebels, smart, pragmatic and intentional or unintentional redeemers of the downcast. In his recent, Gran Torino, Eastwood plays yet another loner, Walt Kowalski.

At the beginning of the film, his wife just died and he obviously has no relation with his children. Mr. Kowalski, as he prefers to be called, relates better to his dog than to other humans. He lives in a neighborhood that has gradually become home to a predominant minority Hmong population. His unflinching expletives and racial comments seem funny because they are so over the top, much like a Don Rickles performance.

Early in the film Kowalski gets caught up in a conflict with a gang that is harassing his neighbor. And in strange twist of events, this supposed racist becomes a savior for the Hmong family. Up to this point, Eastwood is playing the icon exactly according to the American mythic narrative.

We as a nation would just as soon keep to ourselves. We get in wars only when forced. We don’t want to be a part of some big global cooperative. We’d prefer to go it alone. And yet, we dream that we are really the world’s savior. Whether our mythic values are truly lived or not, Americans consistently reflect variations in our icons.

But then something odd happens. Kowalski is changed by the Hmong family. A Hmong shaman speaks the same words of wisdom that Kowalski’s priest has been trying to teach him. On multiple levels the family enters his life and begins to soften his heart and teach him how to life. Since he knows a lot more about dying.

Spoiler alert: As Walt softens, he can finally enter into relationship with other people including his priest. He is becoming more human. As he begins to live, he offers something Dirty Harry was incapable of offering. He loves. In his love, he is willing to die for the relationship, so that the Hmong family can really be helped instead of a temporary fix through an act of violence and vengeance.

In one act of sacrifice, Walt becomes father to the Hmong boy, judge to the gang, healer to the Hmong family and possibly even a prophet to his own family. Eastwood connects with the American icon but then challenges us to enter into relationship and to learn that sacrifice may open doors that power and violence cannot.

As I dream of what America could be, I am going to keep thinking about Walt Kowalski and the power of modeling the cross, laying down my life on behalf of those I love. And if I follow the rhythm of the gospel, this means loving my enemies as well as my friends.

Popularity: 8% [?]

The first word shatters the illusion of strength and freedom, revealing the slavery our idolatry has produced. In Deuteronomy, Moses repeatedly warns against worshiping other gods. Finally, in his prophetic song to the people (Deuteronomy 32), Moses reveals that these “other gods” are not gods at all. They are “foolish idols.” Developing Moses’ revelation, the prophets will mock the idols that people worship as God.

In order to prepare his people to bless the whole world (Genesis 12), God must free them from the enslaving results of worshiping the creature instead of the Creator. Paul picks up on this theme in Romans 1, revealing that worshiping the creature distorts our desires, our thoughts and our actions. We are no longer free to bless freely but we become enslaved to the idol that now controls us.

God sends Israel to Egypt to become a nation (Deut. 26:5Deut. 26:5
English: King James Version (1611) - KJV
5 And thou shalt speak and say before the LORD thy God, A Syrian ready to perish was my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there with a few, and became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous:  

WP-Bible plugin), but this land of plenty becomes a land of oppression. At some point, a new Pharaoh forgets the covenant with Joseph and begins to oppress and control the Israelites. We also learn that at some point, the Hebrews begin to trust in the gods of Egypt instead of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Joshua 24.14).

In the land of provision, they lost site of the God of provision. Egypt is the place where God chose to bless and test Israel, but Egypt is only a place of provision not the person of provision. As I meditate upon the ancient Hebrews failing to trust God in the land of plenty, I become ever aware of my own idolatry.

Often I’ve confused the place of provision with the person of provision. Forgetting that God is blessing and meeting my physical, emotional, and spiritual needs, I’ve looked to the place as the true provider. I’ve done it in the workplace, and I’ve done it in relationships.

Both in the workplace and in the ministry, I sometimes sought for provision that God was bringing from other places. For instance, we all need encouragement and affirmation (this is clear throughout several of Paul’s letters). There have been times I’ve struggled with discouragement in work and ministry because I didn’t receive the affirmation in the specific place. He was bringing it in other places like in my relationship with my wife Kelly, but not in the ministry or in the workplace.

One night I couldn’t even sleep because I was discouraged about my job. As I sat up and began to reflect upon Scripture, He immediately convicted me of trusting other gods. Just as Israel was prone to trust in the power of the horse (Egypt), I find myself not trusting that God will provide all my needs–in the places that He chooses. Sometimes that provision looks like manna (what is it?) and other times it looks more like field waiting to be plowed.

As long as we are trusting other gods to provide our emotional needs, our physical/financial needs, or even our spiritual needs, we will be subject to oppression and slavery. And worse, the image of God in us will be distorted. If we are ever to rule as kings and priests, bringing the blessing of Abraham to the whole world, we must be freed to the control of other gods.

We must be free to trust on YHWH (the Covenant God) alone. Then we are free to move as He pleases. Then we are free to have or to have not, to prosper or to suffer, we are free to rejoice and be source of blessing regardless of any circumstance.

Have mercy Lord and free me from the rule of other gods.

Note: I tried writing a variation this again as a meditation over at Floydville.

Popularity: 3% [?]

My wife asked me, “So what does Egypt stand for in the Bible?” As we talked, it evident that the typical response of the “world” is not sufficient because Egypt often shows up as a place of provision for Abraham, Joseph (and the sons of Israel), and even the baby Jesus.

As I’ve thought about it, I’ve been playing with this idea here: “Egypt is a place of provision but not the person of provision. Israel violates this distinction and looks to the gods of Egypt as the person of provision (see Joshua 24:14Joshua 24:14
English: King James Version (1611) - KJV
14 Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD.  

WP-Bible plugin). By mistaking the place of provision for the person of provision, the Israelites become enslaved by the “lords” of Egypt, and must be delivered by the LORD of creation.

We live in Egypt. Our physical and emotional needs may be met in the world around us, but this place is not the provide. YHWH is our Father who graciously blesses us in the midst of our sinfulness and the sinful world around us. He overwhelms us with blessing. If we look to the “lords” of our nation (commerce, government, education, etc) as our provider, we will (and often do) become enslaved.

Popularity: 3% [?]

NY Times writes about the latest TV sensation in Russia:

Moored to his living room couch is a shoe salesman who is more interested in watching sports than conjugal relations. His wife has shocking hair and an even more shocking mouth. A couple of ne’er-do-well teenagers round out this bawdy, bickering bunch.

Sound familiar? It should, it’s the “authorized” Russion version of “Married with Children.” It’s great to know that America is still making a “postive” impact in the world.

Popularity: 3% [?]