To Hypocrite, or not to hypocrite

I have heard secularists say that we believers ought not bring those convictions that come from our faith into the political sphere. That those convictions ought to remain in the religious sphere (i.e. we can have our opinions at church, but should not be allowed to vote on those issues or act on them when they are matters of the state).

My response was that they are asking us to compartmentalize our beliefs. They are asking us to only act as believers on Sunday.

But any believer who has ever discussed his faith with a non-believer has heard the charge that the church is full of hypocrites.

So it seems inconsistent to me when they say that we ought to only live out our faith on Sundays, but then charge us with hypocrisy when we don't live as believers the rest of the week.

Perhaps it would help clear up the issue for them if I ask them to only act married when they are at home and not act married when they are out in public. Of course that would be absurd. Any committed and reasonable spouse would expect their spouse to behave as a married man or woman at all times. Not only that, but we as a civil society expect those who are married to behave in a manner consistent with their marriage vows at all times. Society looks down on those who don't do this, which is why adultery, infidelity, and spousal abuse are not applauded as tolerable behavior.

But I would say that society also looks down on those believers that don't act like true believers during the week. This is why they are charged with hypocrisy.

The admonition to leave our religious convictions out of the public square does not make much sense coming from the very people that would say that if we follow that admonition we would be guilty of hypocrisy.

The Problem of Evil

A master painter understands the relationship between illumination and contrast and uses them both to glorify his subject.

God's subject? Himself.

Pen-Pals

When you were a kid did you know anyone who had a pen-pal? Or did you have a pen-pal? That was cool, wasn't it?

But what if your friend spent all of their time writing to and reading notes from that pen-pal? What if they that's all they did? They didn't play with friends. They didn't come outside. What if they stayed in their house all the time writing note after note after note to their pen-pal? That would be a little weird, wouldn't it?

What if they did come outside and when you ran up to say hi, they took out a little notepad and started writing notes to their pen-pal while you were talking? That would be rude, wouldn't it? Or maybe just as you started talking, they took out an envelope from their pen-pal and started reading the letter inside.

Would you still think it was cool to have a pen-pal? I doubt it.

As a kid, you'd probably take off and find someone who really wanted to be your friend.

Why is it that as a child we would have recognized this behavior for what it was, but as adults we do the same thing digitally and call it 'social networking?'

Perhaps children have a basic understanding of what a "friend" is that we as adults have lost sight of.

Consultant / Client Relationship

As consultants we want our clients to succeed. By making our clients successful, we are successful. So it is a bit mind-boggling when as a consultant you offer what is best (which, more often than not, is more difficult for the consultant) and the client insists you give them something substandard.

Charles Schulz must have had insight into this part of the consultant / client relationship.



The Oatmeal has also written about this here.

Bloom

To bloom in Spring, one must prune in Winter.

Professors, Instructors, and Teachers

A professor tells you what he thinks. His subject is the world of ideas.
An instructor tells you what to do. His subject is facts.
A teacher shows you how to think about what you do. His subject is wisdom.

There are many professors and instructors, but precious few teachers.

Respect your professors.
Honor your instructors.
Emulate your teachers.

No ear has heard

On Sunday our worship pastor made the comment during a song, "Sing with the angels" at which point all the musicians stopped playing and the entire church was singing acapella.

How do we know that the music in heaven lacks accompaniment, or that angels don't play musical instruments? Couldn't it be that not only are they great musicians, but that they are skilled at playing instrument we could never even imagine, making sounds and tones, creating harmonies that our ears don't even have the ability to hear?

The Bible says that when we go to be with the Lord, we experience a change and we receive glorified bodies. Is it the case that the only advantage that comes with these bodies is that they don't age or don't get sick? Isn't God much more imaginative and creative than that?

I would expect that the glorified bodies we receive can hear things that our earthly ears cannot hear. See colors our earthly eyes cannot see. Taste flavors our tongues cannot taste. Our minds will understand things that are hidden. Our hands will be able to work with a skill that is not available to us now.

Let your imagination go. Try to think of what a new color would look like? What would an entire rainbow of new colors look like? What would music sound like if it was completely new, with sounds you've never heard before? What kinds of fragrances would be so envigorating, so penetrating that the fragrances we have now would seem dull by comparison?

Humans are incredibly imaginative and creative. For years we have pushed the envelope of sight and sound, taste and smell. But we have always had a single pallet to work from. A limited set of colors, a smaller set of flavors and aromas, and an even smaller set of musical tones. And for thousands of years we've been able to take those limited sets and do so much with them.

Now try to imagine if those sets were not limited.

The Bible says that our eyes have never seen, our ears have never heard, and our minds cannot imagine or even comprehend the things that God has in store for those who love Him.