The Price of Freedom

This is Memorial Day weekend, and it is a perfect opportunity to remember one of the basic truisms in life:  freedom is not free.  There is always a price to be paid for our freedom.  Nelson Madela said, "There is no easy walk to freedom anywhere, and many of us will have to pass through the valley of the shadow of death again and again before we reach the mountaintop of our desires."  On Memorial Day we remember those who have given their lives in the service of our country, so that we have the freedom to speak our minds, to worship, to assemble, and more.  


I am not sure this generation really understands the price that needs to be paid for freedom.  I am currently reading "Inferno", by Sir Max Hastings.  It is a rather large book on World War II.  As I read it, I am reminded of the horrors of war and the sacrifice made by people on the home front to provide for the troops in the field.  


My father was a fighter pilot in the early years of the Vietnam War.  He flew an F-8 Crusader off the USS Hancock.  He was a legitimate war hero for his extraordinary courage in the face of danger.  Here is a picture of an F-8 Crusader of my father's squadron, VF-211:

Here is an account of the incident that earned him the Navy's highest honor:



On 21 June 1966, the Crusaders mixed it up with MiGs again. Navy Crusaders were providing escort and performing reconnaissance on that day, and when an RF-8A was shot down, Crusaders vectored in on the location to provide cover for the pilot, who had ejected successfully and was waiting for a search-and-rescue (SAR) helicopter.


The Crusaders were at low altitude and low on fuel when they were bounced themselves by MiG-17s. Lieutenant Gene Chancey hit a MiG with cannon fire at close range during the mixup, tearing off his opponent's wing. However, the MiGs also scored hits on the Crusader piloted by Chancey's flight leader, Lieutenant Commander Cole Black, and Black was forced to eject.


Lieutenant JG Phil Vampatella's Crusader had been hit by flak earlier, but he was still in the fight. A MiG got stuck on his tail and Vampatella had to engage afterburner and run for it. The slower MiG broke off the attack. Even though Vampatella was low on fuel and had problems turning due to his battle damage, he decided to turn back and engage the MiG. He fired a Sidewinder that detonated behind the MiG and sent it into the ground.


Vampatella was "breathing fumes" when he managed to get a tanker on station just off the coast. However, the tanker was low on fuel, too, and Vampatella was just able to make it back to his carrier, the USS HANCOCK, with no fuel to spare for a second go-round. On inspection, he discovered that his Crusader had been hit in the tail by a 37 millimeter flak round and was peppered with small shrapnel holes. Vampatella won the Navy Cross for the action.


This was a few months before my oldest sister was born.  My father risked his life for his friends knowing full well that his wife was due with their first baby, and that the baby could be born into a world without a father.  He survived it, and three children came after the first.  I am happy to report that my mother and father are doing well to this day.  I am so proud to be the son of a father who has fought so bravely for our country, and of a mother who endured endless days not knowing if he would return home alive.  Such is the price of freedom.


But you know, freedom on an even grander scale has been purchased for us as well.  We are all burdened with the reality of a sinful nature, and we are, in fact, slaves to sin.  But Jesus Christ came to set us free.  Galatians 6:1 says, "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery."  


Christ purchased our freedom with his death on the cross and subsequent resurrection from the grave.  He offers us this hard-won freedom if we would only receive it by faith, by trusting in Him alone.  This weekend let us all remember the price that hundreds of thousands of Americans have paid in order that we may be free; but even more than that, remember the sacrifice of God's Son, so that we may be free from the bondage of sin forever and may have eternal life through Him.

Freedom and Responsibility

"Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote the freedom to err." - Mahatma Gandhi

We are a people that demands freedom and "rights".  We expect fair and, yes, sometimes preferential, treatment from others, from the government, and even from God.  But there is one thing that too many people don't realize, whether by ignorance or by choice:  true freedom comes with consequences.  Too often people want their freedom to make their own choices apart from the interference of others or of government, but when they use that freedom unwisely, they expect to be bailed out by the same people and institutions that they demanded stay out of their lives in the first place.

When the housing market crashed a few years ago (and it's a long, complicated story), we saw greed at every level:  politicians (who wanted to be able to thump their chests at what wonderful programs they created), banks and other lenders (who saw an opportunity to make money risk-free), and even individuals (who were able, through insane financial products, to purchase homes they had no business owning, as their income did not warrant such a purchase).  It wasn't just "corporate" greed; it was greed all the way up and all the way down.

But what happened when, as many predicted would be the case given the shady nature of the entire setup, deals started going bad?  What happened when people who couldn't afford these homes to begin with actually started defaulting?  They demanded relief.  The banks demanded federal help.  Everyone wanted the fruit of the tree but nobody wanted to take responsibility when the tree died.

When GM went under, what did people expect?  To be bailed out.  Why are most people opposed to privatized Social Security accounts?  Because what happens if people make bad investments?

Go back and look at Gandhi's quote above.  Freedom, if it is to be freedom at all, necessarily includes the possibility of making bad choices.  It is not true freedom if we are insulated from mistakes.  If we want freedom, we need to be personally responsible for the choices we make using that freedom.  And yes, that means reaping the benefits of good and productive choices, but it also means living with the consequences of poor and destructive choices.

Personal responsibility and the law of reaping and sowing (see Galatians 6:7-8 - "Do not be deceived,  God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.  For the one who sows to his flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will reap eternal life.") are necessary components of living in a free society.

Fully Integrated

I've been in a lot of discussions over the years with people who have stated that it would be very nice if I could simply please set my religious views aside and focus on the topic at hand. I understand what they're getting at. They are not interested in talking about religion, and they would prefer if my opinions were not unduly influenced by my faith and religious convictions. While I understand the sentiment, and while I am quite capable of discussing matters without citing chapter and verse, I must be honest and tell people that it is exceedingly difficult - and, frankly, a very unfair request on their part - for me to separate my faith from the rest of my life. Here's why.

For many people, their faith is a part of their lives. Religion is just one component of many, and because it is essentially a component, it is not terribly difficult to compartmentalize things. Religious faith becomes no different than any other area of interest, which can be set aside as needed. But for me, my faith is who I am. My primary identity is the fact that I am a Christian. To take that away would be to remove my heart, and it would fundamentally change who I am. You see, if Christianity is true, it has profound implications for us. Jesus came to seek and save the lost, it is true, but He is also very interested in the whole person, while here on earth. His mission wasn't only a heavenly one; it was earthly as well.

When a person believes in Jesus, he or she agrees to allow God to do a transformative work in his or her life (not that He would need our permission to do anything). God works onus from the inside out. Recall Jesus' words to the Pharisees in Matthew 23:25-26 - "25 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean." You see that Jesus is interested in the inner man, and out of that we will see evidence of that work in our lives. Here is the upshot of this truth: everything I do reflects my faith in Christ. Now, let's be real: I make lots of mistakes and I am hardly sin-free, but the way I think about parenting reflects Biblical principles of parenting. The way I think about relationships reflects Biblical principles of relationships. The way I think about government reflects Biblical principles of government. You get the idea. I am not as consistent as I would like to be, but who I am is bound up in my relationship with Christ. So when I am discussing important cultural issues, I try to be empathetic and put myself in other peoples' shoes, but at the end of the day, my beliefs and choices flow from who I am at he core of my being; and at the core is my Christian faith. This is what it means to be integrated - that what's on the inside (our beliefs) is the same as what's on the outside (your actions).

How about you? Who are you? What are your core beliefs that shape your opinions about morality, politics, sexuality, culture, relationships, etc.? Are you a fully integrated person?

Should We Take the Bible Literally?

In my previous post I argued that it's almost unimaginable to be a follower of Christ and ot believe the Bible.  I can picture a scenario where a tribe hears the good news from a missionary and believes but doesn't have the physical Bible on hand. But that is a very different scenario from a person having the Bible available and choosing to disbelieve for various reasons, and still claiming to believe in Christ, and follow His teachings.  In other words, if you claim that the primary documents that tell us who Jesus is and the things He did and taught are not fundamentally true, on what basis do you believe in Jesus? And in what Jesus are you believing?

But if it is true that one cannot truly follow Christ apart from accepting that the record of His life and ministry is true - in other words, believing the Bible - the next question is this:  what does it mean to believe the Bible?  Most people I know bristle at what I am about to say, but I think one needs to believe the Bible literally if he is going to believe it at all.



The biggest objection people have to understanding the scriptures is the notion of taking the Bible literally.  What they generally mean is that there are stories that seem far-fetched and to believe the Bible literally is to believe that such far-fetched (yea, "impossible") stories are true. Since they don't want to feel dumb for believing in the unbelievable, they simply choose to disbelieve.  Which, of course, makes a certain degree of sense.  It should be noted, though, that scientists present us with all kinds of claims that seem to be "unbelievable" (or at least, incredibly hard to believe).  For example, we are told that light is both a wave and a particle; we are told that the universe simply popped into being from nothing on its own; we are told that something can exist in an infinite number of quantum states but it is only the observation of the thing that determines its actual state; we are now being told that there very well may be multiple (in fact, an infinite number of) universes that make up a "multiverse".  Some of the smartest people on earth believe in these things - and I'm not even saying that they're wrong - but the point is that they are all extremely hard to believe, and yet we are told by the experts that they are true.  So it is very much within us believe things that seem far-fetched.


But what I really want to explore is the idea of taking the Bible literally.  I've mentioned what people think it means, but to paraphrase Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride, I do not think it means what they think it means.  To take the Bible literally means to take it as the literature dictates.  Let me explain.


The Bible is made up of 66 individual books.  Now, some of them are actually two parts of the same work (like 1 and 2 Kings).  Each book intends to communicate specific things in a particular way.  There are, in other words, different genres of literature. Here are some of the genres and a book that represents that genre:


Poetry - Psalms
History - 1,2 Chronicles
Gospel - Luke (a kind of biography/history/gospel message)
Epistle - Romans
Prophecy - Jeremiah


Each of these genres approaches its reader in a specific way, and should be read as such.  Suppose I am reading Acts 16:1-3.  It says, "16 Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. ² He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium. ³ Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek."


When I read this I need to realize that Acts is a book of history, and thus when I believe the Bible literally, I believe that Paul actually visited Derbe and Lystra and actually met a man named Timothy who was of mixed parentage and who had a good reputation in the area.  


But suppose I read Isaiah 55:12, which says, "You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands."  What am I to make of that?  If I take the Bible literally am I supposed to believe that trees have hands and that mountains and hills sing?  No, that would actually do the text a grave injustice, because it is not claiming any such thing.  As one commentator noted, "These are highly poetic images to express a happy state attended with joy and exultation."  The point of the passage is that God is calling people to Himself, and He is the giver and sustainer of life, and He promises good to those who love Him.  It is written in poetic form and thus uses metaphor, imagery, and other creative measures to communicate truth.  It is not meant to be read like a history or science text.


One more:  suppose I read John 20:24--29 - the story of "doubting" Thomas.  Jesus has died and the disciples are claiming that He has risen.  Thomas is, shall we say, highly skeptical.  He said, "Unless I see in His hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into His side, I will never believe."  And then, eight days later, Jesus appeared to Thomas.  If I read that story, that is not poetic literature.  It is meant to convey fact.  Jesus actually did appear to Thomas, and Thomas actually believed in the physical, literal resurrection of Jesus.  To turn this episode into some sort of "spiritualized" event (i.e., it didn't really happen; it's just something for us to feel good spiritually...whatever that means) is also to do a grave injustice to the text.


So to take the Bible literally is to take it as it was meant to be taken.  Nothing more, nothing less.  


So yes, a Bible-believing Christian (again, is there any other kind, really?) should take the Bible literally, but that means recognizing when it is speaking historical fact, offering words of encouragement, using figures of speech, etc.  It's all part of the incredibly dynamic Word of God, as He communicates truth to us in a variety of ways.

Can you be a non-Bible-believing Christian?

I grew up in a small town in Maine and in the town next to us was a church (that still exists, BTW) called, "Bible Believing Baptist Church."  It's a mouthful for sure, but I've often thought about the name of that church.  Sure, I get the "Baptist" part of it - it's a denominational affiliation.  But what about the "Bible Believing" part of it?  Clearly the intention there is to make sure people know that this church takes the Bible seriously, from Genesis to Revelation, every word, every thought, and that they believe that it is the inerrant, inspired Word of God.

Alright, fair enough.  But I want to ask this question:  Is there another kind of Christian other than one that believes the Bible?  Or, to put it another way, can you be a real Christian without believing in the Bible?

On the one hand, a person certainly need not accept, or even understand, the full-throated doctrine of Biblical inerrancy in order to become a Christian.  If you read the book of Acts, all it took for a person to become a true follower of Christ was to "believe in the Lord Jesus".  In the gospels, Jesus often told people that "your faith has made you well" or "your faith has saved you".  There is no mention of the need to hold to any particular bibliology.

However, can you be a real follower of Christ if you don't believe the Bible?  At this point in time, how do we know about Jesus?  Sure, there are some history books, but primarily, our information comes from the pages of Scripture.  We can't be true followers of Christ unless we believe who He is, and we believe what He taught, and we look to do as He commanded.  But we only know those things from the Bible.  When people say that Jesus taught us not to judge one another, from where do they get that idea?  They have read it (or most likely, they've heard it from someone else rather than reading it themselves) from Matthew 7.  When people say that Jesus taught us to love our neighbors, from where do they get that idea?  Again, from the pages of the New Testament (Matthew 22).

How, then, is it possible to believe who Jesus is and to believe in the things He taught without believing in the primary source for our knowledge about these things?  How can a person truly follow Christ apart from accepting as true the only first-hand account of Jesus' ministry and the testimony of His closest disciples?  It seems impossible.

So why, then, is there a sense out there of "I'm a Christian but I don't really buy into the Bible"?  It's prevalent, for sure.  I think it has to do with this:  people want the comfortable Jesus, a Jesus that doesn't actually point out tough things, a Jesus that challenges them.  They want a Jesus that accepts them for who they are, that whispers sweet-nothings in their ears, and that lets them live life as they see fit, but with a spiritual flavor to it.  There's a desire to be accepted as Christian but there's no desire to be held accountable by Christ.

Well, that's impossible, frankly.  When Jesus was presented with the woman caught in adultery (John 8), He told the Pharisees that whoever is without sin throw the first stone.  We want to embrace that idea of non-judgmentalism, but then we quickly forget that Jesus told the woman, "Neither do I condemn you.  Go and leave your life of sin."  He expressed love and forgiveness, but He also made sure she knew that she was living a life of sin, and that His desire for her was that she sin no longer.  In other words, in Jesus' love and acceptance of her, He made a point of calling her sin what it was - sin - and He called her to repent and change her ways.  The same is true for us.  We want Jesus' love and acceptance, but that can only come when we are honest with what He says about our own lives, that not everything we do is right or good.  Jesus has some very hard things for us to hear when it comes to our thoughts and actions.  We are not nearly as good as we think we are.  Our hearts are deceptively wicked, and we trick ourselves into thinking that we are "good people", when in reality, we are full of all kinds of sin.

Anyone who claims to take Jesus even remotely seriously has to understand this about Him.  They have to believe the Biblical records.  They have to take all of Jesus, not just the comfortable parts of Him.  To be a Christ-follower is to be a Bible-believer.  It doesn't mean that there's no room for questions or doubts or struggles as we wrestle with the text.  But it does mean that we do, in fact, wrestle with the text and seek to understand.  There is no such thing as a Christ-follower that cares not for the Bible.  It is an oxymoron.  (In my next post I will address the issue of "Do we need to take the Bible literally?")

My encouragement to you who claim to follow Jesus Christ is this:  read your Bible.  Learn it.  There's some fascinating stuff in there, things that you never knew.  There's lots that will challenge your thinking.  There's lots that will bring you shame and guilt, but that's ok too, because those are simply the areas that God wants to change in your life.  It has been said that the Bible is shallow enough for an ant to drink and deep enough for an elephant to bathe.  And it is true.  So go get wet.