Here, test yourself. Is your view of Jesus “meek and mild”, perhaps a “laughing Jesus”, a quiet, soft-spoken guy? Is He the compassionate one who never said a harsh word? Well, then, I suggest that you are correcting Jesus, because that’s not the biblical image. Consider the following.
Jesus wasn’t some “nice guy” when He instructed His disciples on their traveling mission:
Whenever you enter a town and they do not receive you, go into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near.’ I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town. Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more bearable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. The one who hears you hears Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me, and the one who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me” (Luke 10:10-16).
Oh, my, that’s pretty harsh language. Even more so when you understand that the biblical “woe” isn’t our standard “woe is me”, but a curse pronounced against a sinful person or group. I mean, seriously, how is a Jew of His day supposed to take it when He says “it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom”? That can’t be considered “warm” or “sensitive”. It is certainly not “inclusive”. Wasn’t Jesus supposed to be the lover of all sinners? What’s all this?
His diatribe in Matthew 23 is much worse. At least seven times He describes the local religious rulers as “hypocrites”. He has “friendly” (not very) descriptions like “white-washed tombs”, “vipers”, and “blind fools”. He accuses them of making converts and then “you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.” Oh, it’s big, and its an entire chapter. Seriously, Jesus, describing them as “a child of hell”? That’s not friendly at all. It doesn’t coincide with our “nice guy” image of Jesus. The image of Christ in the Temple with whip in hand doesn’t really fit well with the soft-spoken, laughing Jesus we like so well. His repeated references to people who will “be thrown into the fire” (Matt 7:19; 13:40; 18:8-9; 25:41; John 15:6) don’t come across as humble or kind. Jesus, in fact, has the most definitive descriptions of eternal judgment in terms of “where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched”.
We have a lot of compassionate readers who are always disapproving of me for being mean. Well… how do you like those verses? Jesus isn’t always Mr. Nice Guy, which is fine because I really like mean Jesus. Matthew 10:34-38 is one of my favorite passages – I like to bug my mother with it. She’s not a Christian, so it’s pretty fun.
Fun. Laughter. Happiness. Good times. No worries. Is this how life is supposed to be? Is our definition of loving life and seeing good days measured by the amount of happiness in our lives? Now, this isn’t just aimed at the “singles,” rather the post is aimed at marriage and what people tell us a good marriage is.
I was contemplating the notion that a marriage is defined as “good” by how “happy” the couple is. Now, I don’t want you to get the impression from me that I think a couple isn’t supposed to be happy in a marriage, no-no, I want to give you something to “munch” on. I found this article by Greg Koukl. The topic was on happiness and this is just one gem from the article:
“In the pursuit of happiness, human institutions are valid not because of transcendent ethic but because of temporal fulfillment, which is essentially self-centered. For example, marriage is a valid commitment as long as you’re happy. If you’re not happy anymore in the marriage, then you have reason to dissolve the marriage. But I would contend that if you’re getting married to be happy, then you’re getting married for the wrong reasons. Not that personal fulfillment is not a valid goal in some measure, but that’s not what it’s all about.”
Notice Greg didn’t condemn happiness in a marriage, rather he was making the point that happiness isn’t the goal of marriage. So, what is the goal of marriage?
“You marry as a covenant agreement between two people to maintain a family unit in society to accomplish certain things, to help each other and embrace the events and issues of life together as helpmates, to raise a family and provide a stable environment for them. Though all of those things may breed a measure of happiness, they breed a measure of misery as well. That’s why the covenant, the agreement, the commitment between husband and wife is not based on happiness. If it was you’d have to amend your vows to say, ‘Until unhappiness do us part.'”
Did you catch it? We don’t marry to be happy. Why do we marry? To “maintain a family unit in society to accomplish certain things, to help each other and embrace the events and issues of life together as helpmates, to raise a family and provide a stable environment for them.” That’s why man and woman marry. A person pursuing happiness alone will be horribly disappointed with marriage because marriage is not an institution for happiness alone.
Recommended read!
This post made me think of another post I saw on Neil Simpson’s blog about Phil 4:13.
Excerpt:
Philippians 4:13 (“I can do all things through him who strengthens me”) is one of the most misinsterpreted verses in the Bible. I used to misquote it. I can’t remember the last time I heard it used correctly. It is one of the top 10 searched verses on biblestudytools.com, along with another frequently abused verse, Jeremiah 29:11.
[…]It is technically true that we could accomplish great things with Jesus, of course, but that isn’t what Philippians 4:13 means. The verse refers to Christ’s power doing something very specific in the believer, not some sort of general power.
I love using Phil 4:13 as an example of how to read in context. You don’t need to read the entire Bible, or all of Philippians, or chapter 4 or even a paragraph to get the real meaning. Just go back one verse!
Philippians 4:12-13 I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me.
Verse 13 is Paul’s secret for being content in all situations. That’s it. Do every thing through Jesus and you can be content in everything. It isn’t about what you accomplish, it is about how you do whatever you do.
Phillipians is one of my favorite books in the New Testament, but you have to read the verses in context.
So is marriage about happiness, or something else?
I actually do think that there are many other uses for marriage other than the “produce super-kids” plan that I always talk about. I think that men and women complement each other well, so I would look forward to have all of my nasty parts worked on, like the messiness, laziness, meanness, snarkiness, selfishness, driving too fast, and so forth. I really enjoy the feelings I get from self-sacrificial love for someone, especially when I try to lead a woman upward, and she follows my lead, and I can see her getting stronger and better.
I think the appeal of marriage for me, other than the super-kids, is that I would have someone to watch over and protect and nurture at really close quarters. Normally, I just send people books to read, or mail checks for apologetics events, or reply to e-mails. Marriage would be much better, because we could work on things together everywhere we went. I have these daydreams about being surprised in the kitchen with a hug from behind, because I am washing the dishes without being asked to. That would be fun for me. Or of coming home from work and having the children all cleaned up and dressed and hugging me right when I get in the door, because my wife has been pumping up my reputation with them while I was at work. I have lots of things like that I would like to try out that I can’t do on non-wife and non-kid people. I could do all kinds of good things if I had a family.
I think a pretty test to see if you are ready for marriage is to see how much you enjoy taking care of other people, and to a lesser degree, pets and cars and stuff like that that need maintenance. If you spend all your time trying to go places and do things and trying to squeeze a lot of fun out of life, that probably isn’t the best training for marriage. But if you like teaching people new things, and cleaning out the bird cage, waxing the car, and mowing the lawn and performing acts of service for others, then I think that’s a good sign you are ready for marriage.
I am still struggling a lot with this… on the one hand, I would do anything for my pet bird. But on the other hand, I struggle a lot to read what people ask me to read and to reply to e-mails and stuff. I haven’t waxed my car all year! This is an area where I really need to improve – getting used to being helpful to others. I seem to be able to avoid the need to be happy, but I just pour all my time into learning and writing, and not doing hard things to help others.
In response to a series of controversial decisions by the National Labor Relations Board, the House of Representatives passed a bill curtailing the power of the NLRB Thursday afternoon.
The Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act, H.R. 2587, passed the Republican-controlled House by a vote of 138-186. The bill would prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from ordering any employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any circumstance.
The NLRB has been the target of Republican ire since the board filed a complaint against Boeing in April for opening a plant in South Carolina, a right-to-work state. The NLRB said Boeing was punishing workers in Washington state with the decision.
Since then, the NLRB has handed down a spate of pro-union rules that have infuriated labor critics and Republican lawmakers.
Republican legislators say the board shouldn’t have power to dictate where private businesses locate. Union advocates claim the bill would strip the board’s ability to enforce labor laws.
The bill was sponsored by Republican Rep. Tim Scott of South Carolina and introduced in July.
“Today’s vote is important for our entire nation, as well as for my home district in South Carolina, where the NLRB is currently pursuing an agenda which, if successful, would kill thousands of jobs,” Scott said in a statement. “By removing the NLRB’s ability to dictate where private industry creates jobs, we are preventing an unelected, Presidentially-appointed government board from pitting state against state, inserting themselves into the business decisions of private companies, and scaring away investment in our nation.”
Scott has also introduced a bill rolling back several other rules recently passed by the NLRB.
By the way, I’ve been informed that something like 40% of union members vote Republican. It’s not the union members who are bad, it’s the unions. Imagine how those people feel about having dues taken out of their salaries to fund left-wing causes?
Newly-proposed legislation in Congress would restore federal funding for abstinence education as the Obama administration continues to discriminate against grants to programs that promote abstinence over sex education.
Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services announced new funding opportunities for initiatives on the subject, but included a caveat that grants would no go to agencies promoting abstinence education. Applicants for the FOA must include a written statement, according to a National Catholic Register report, that abstinence education is not part of the program, because the Obama administration considers it an “unallowable activity.”
Organizations receiving funding under the program must make a “commitment to not use funds for unauthorized activities, including, but not limited to, an abstinence-education program.” Some $75 million has been authorized under the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 for the programs.
[…]On Tuesday, legislation was announced on the floor of the House of Representatives that could change this and restore funding for abstinence education. The Abstinence-Centered Education Reallocation Act, sponsored by Rep. Randall Hultgren, an Illinois Republican, is a bill that will put a priority on the sexual risk avoidance message found in abstinence programs.
Abstinence education isn’t just about STIs, it’s about love and marriage. Marital stability is stronger when single men and women avoid premarital sex.
Pro-growth Tax Reform
This one is part of Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” plan. This time he is explaining his 3-step plan to reform the tax laws to promote job creation.
America’s economy has been hit really hard. A lot of people have lost their jobs. More borrowing and spending and higher taxes are not going to bring jobs back to America. The last thing we need to be doing is to complicate job creation in America with this complicated tax code that we have today.
A tax code should be fair, competitive and simple, and the US tax code fails on all three counts. Here are common-sense ideas we’ve advanced before…ideas that have bipartisan support.
First, we have to make our tax code fair.
It’s full of deductions, credits and special carve-outs – otherwise known as “loopholes” – that let politically-connected companies avoid paying taxes. Every dollar that businesses spend lobbying for a better tax deal, is a dollar they’re not spending on making a better product.
And, since every dollar hidden in a loophole doesn’t get taxed – politicians make up for this lost revenue by increasing overall tax rates. So we need to close these loopholes.
But if we just close loopholes, then our federal corporate tax rate is 35 percent, which is really high.
Add in state and local taxes, the rate climbs to 39.2 percent – the second highest tax rate among developed countries.
On top of sending almost 40 cents out of every dollar earned, straight to the government, businesses pay investment taxes, payroll taxes, and a handful of other taxes our government makes job creators pay.
In the 21st century global economy – and when American families need jobs – this approach just doesn’t make any sense.
We need to make our tax code competitive.
The budget we passed in the House of Representatives calls for closing the loopholes and lowering the rates.
The President’s bipartisan Fiscal Commission proposed something similar.
Its plan would reduce the corporate tax rate to as low as 26 percent, and to lower the top individual rate that many small businesses pay to as low as 23 percent.
So if we lower tax rates, does that mean the wealthy pay less in taxes? Not if we do it by closing loopholes. Because the people who use most of the loopholes are those in the top tax brackets. For all the money that’s parked in these tax loopholes, all that money’s taxed at zero. Take away the tax loophole; lower everybody’s tax rates – that money’s now taxed. But its taxed at a fair more simple, more competitive way so the small business men and women who are out there striving and competing have a better tax rate so they can compete in this global economy.
Third, let’s make the tax code simple.
All together, individuals and businesses spend over six billion hours and 160 billion dollars, every year, just trying to understand and comply with the tax code.
Let’s simplify the code, not just by closing loopholes, but also by decreasing the number of different tax brackets taxpayers fall in.
Fewer brackets, along with lower individual rates, will make the tax code less complicated, and let more people keep more of the money they earn.
There’s a reason this approach has attracted bipartisan support: It’s Fair, It’s Competitive, and It’s Simple.
America’s been knocked down before. We’ve had tough recessions before, and we know that the secret to growing jobs and prosperity in America are through the ingenuity and the hard work of our businesses – of our small businesses, of our large businesses, of job creators. We don’t want a tax system that rewards people for coming to Washington and getting special favors. We want a tax system that rewards Americans for hard work, risk taking, entrepreneurship , investment and innovation. These are the kinds of things that have made America great in the past. And these are the kinds of ideas the we’re going to need if want to grow our economy in the future and compete in the 21st century global economy.
Imagine if the United States were the best place for companies to do business. Imagine the job growth that would stimulate.
