Bottom line up front: God’s Commendation Medal

Introduction: I know of no one who does not appreciate being commended. Whether it’s an “Attaboy/girl,” or a friendly slap on the back, or a commendation medal of some ilk, most people would concede that praise is a welcome occasion.

Our Spiritual Lives & the Question of Spiritual Resilience: We train our bodies, our marksmanship, our mental acuity, our abilities to accomplish sundry missions, etc. All well, good, and necessary in the profession of arms. But what about our spiritual lives? What are ways in which we might cultivate spiritual disciplines into our lives? How might we labor for that type of commendation?

Illustration: On a deployment I was on several years ago, I had a commander that I grew to deeply respect. He was a to-the-point, matter-of-fact type man but who was by no means cold or aloof. He was simply very streamlined in his approach to command and to his life as a whole. Nothing seemed wasted with him. He told us in a staff meeting one time in Iraq that each day, a part of his regimen involved growing in at least three areas: physically, intellectually, and spiritually. I like that trinitarian approach. And we’d see him each day. He’d do his PT for the physical regimen; he’d study, read, and develop professionally via continuous education for the intellectual pieces; and spiritually, he was and remains a Christian, and so he’d attend chapel services, read the Scriptures, associate with fellow believers, pray, and lead his family spiritually.

Encouragement/takeaway: When Paul penned his letter to the Thessalonians in the late 40s in the 1st. c. A.D., Paul commended his audience this way–namely, that they had “turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come” (1 Thessalonians 1:9-10, ESV). Think of that–a letter of commendation from the apostle Paul. What did Paul commend them for? In short, he commended them for forsaking idolatry and embracing the truth.

Spiritual resilience is not to be confused with empty bromides of psycho-babble or fortune cookie cliches. Wise spiritual resilience must be rooted in the objective truth of ultimate reality, and that means discerning the truth from falsehood. May we ground our spiritual resilience upon the One who is truth itself.

Introduction: I remember in reading a brief but powerful spiritual reflection of a WWII survivor, wherein the author grappled with how and why some of his fellow Jews survived the spiritual anguish that accompanied the unspeakable physical and emotional horrors of Auschwitz. The author wrote something to this effect (I don’t have my copy of his book at my computer currently): “He who has a why to live can bear/endure almost any how.” The book is Man’s Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl.

Connection to Us: As a chaplain, one of the areas that occupies much of my time is ministering to those who are in need. That is the paradigm we have set in Scripture. The word pastor means “shepherd.” The man called by God is to shepherd the flock of people God has entrusted him with; he’s to care for the flock of God, to use Peter’s language: “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God that is among you . . .” (1 Peter 5:1-2, ESV). We see the biblical command to have qualified elders to shepherd the flock. So much of that shepherding means walking with them through the valleys that we all face in life. We are not to “talk at” people; rather, we are to walk alongside them as shepherds who love the sheep.

Encouragement: If you’re in the valley, look to the ultimate Shepherd, Christ himself, but also for the elder/pastor/under-shepherd who cares for you and is walking alongside you. If you’re not in a valley, be getting ready for one; such is the nature of this world (Romans 8:22-24).

Bottom line up front: The Biblical View of Reward

Introduction: Colossians 3 was one of the passages I was studying. Specifically, verses 18-25. I don’t understand it when folks say they can’t understand Scripture; letters like Colossians are replete with practical items. For example,

22 Bondservants, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ. 25 For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality. (Colossians 3:22-24, ESV)

In modern parlance, we might say, “Keep it real” or “Be genuine.” Stated negatively, it would read like, “Don’t be a hypocrite, because God sees, and we will answer.” Stated positively, it would read like, “Work hard and properly because rewards are meted out via God’s standard, commensurate with what we did properly and for God’s glory.”

What the passage does NOT teach is that we merit favor with God by way of our works. What it does teach is that if we are Christians, our works will bear witness that we’re being transformed by the sovereign grace of God into vessels that reflect Christlikeness. As Paul writes in one of his other New Testament letters, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10, ESV).

Encouragement: When we think upon Colossians 3:22-24, we see clearly that we’re to fear the Lord, to labor diligently for the Lord, and to trust the Lord to reward redeemed people. God crowns his own graces. That is, the fact that God would reward us sinners after rescuing us is grace upon grace. How much more, therefore, should our labors reflect said grace. We are told plainly not to aim to please men in a sycophantic way; rather, we are to labor faithfully because we know that we are ultimately evaluated by the scales of the Righteous and Holy One.

As I pulled out of the garage and backed down the driveway, our sweet neighbors had two Sunday morning girls munching their sod. When the girls spotted me photographing them, they raised their heads, and cocked their ears. Their black eyes focused upon me, and their legs swelled readiness.

They are familiar deer, so they did not bolt. They watched me back the car down the drive. At the bottom, I put the gear shifter into ‘D’ from ‘R’ and ascended the hill.

Pretty ones, I’ll not harm you.

The rains have fallen much over the last three days, and we are grateful. The grasses are greening again, the leaves on the hardwoods deep-green from the lightning and nitrogen. You can hear the creeks running across the road and also behind the house.

The fawns will appear on this Spring stage soon–in their spots and frantic energy and skinny shaking legs, close to their moms, shaking with youthful energy, thirsting for summer’s lushness. And their sundry thirsts–those hundreds and thousands of creatures’ thirsts–will be slaked.

And 100% of it will be via the hand of providence. 100%.

Bottom line up front: We are what we love.

Introduction: A book I read last year has remained in my thoughts. It’s been like a kernel in the mind, something that remains and calls for attention. The book was J.K.A. Smith’s You Are What You Love. One of the gems in Smith’s book follows: “ . . . . since our hearts are made to find their end in God, we will experience a besetting anxiety and restlessness when we try to love substitutes. To be human is to have a heart. You can’t not love. So the question isn’t whether you will love something as ultimate; the question is what you will love as ultimate. And you are what you love” (Smith, 10).

Connection to Our Everyday Lives: In designing teaching curriculum on moral leadership and ethical decision making for soldiers, many of the scenarios I’m posing soldiers revolve around the issue of the standard by which they make decisions. Is that standard permanent? Is it subjective or objective? If you say it’s objective, why does it change to reflect culture? What sources undergird that standard? In sum, ethics cannot be reduced to mental gymnastics about what came first, the chicken or the egg. We must think maturely about moral leadership and the foundation for ethical decision making.

Scripture: Psalm 115 puts it so clearly:

Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to your name give glory,
for the sake of your steadfast love and your faithfulness!

2 Why should the nations say,
“Where is their God?”
3 Our God is in the heavens;
he does all that he pleases.

4 Their idols are silver and gold,
the work of human hands.
5 They have mouths, but do not speak;
eyes, but do not see.
6 They have ears, but do not hear;
noses, but do not smell.
7 They have hands, but do not feel;
feet, but do not walk;
and they do not make a sound in their throat.
8 Those who make them become like them;
so do all who trust in them. (Psalm 115:1-8, ESV)

Verse 8 is such important theology: We become like what we love/worship. That was Smith’s thesis in his book. That’s the issue here in this psalm. Will we love truth, or will we love idols? That’s the always-fundamental issue, is it not?

Encouragement: May we love the truth rather than the idols. May we recognize that truth is revealed in Scripture, and that the Word became flesh and dwelled among us (John 1). There is a holy standard—fixed, unchanging, and altogether holy. May we love what we ought to love.

“To make no decision in regard to the growth of authoritarian government is already a decision for it” (Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?, 257).

Introduction: Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Why do I say that? Well, I’m going to try to accomplish two things in this piece. First, I’ll show the main takeaway of what God says via the apostle Paul in Romans 1. Second, I’ll show how it is demonstrated live on camera. No, I’ll not be the one on camera. Rather, it is two men who are hugely successful in their respective fields. Bret Weinstein is an evolutionary biologist who denies the existence of God. The second man is media giant Tucker Carlson, who claims to be not only a theist but a Christian. Their worldviews are in conflict. Weinstein is a materialist; Carlson is a theist. Let me break it down visually:

Weinstein	vs.	Carlson:
No God	vs.	God exists
Reality is reducible to material substance	vs.	Reality is both material and immaterial; the supernatural is real, too (not simply imagined).
Darwinian evolution	vs.	Biblical creation
Values are ‘useful’ but ultimately ungrounded on anything but the desire for power and continued existence.	vs.	Values are unavoidable, and they are grounded in God and in our nature as beings created in God’s image and likeness.
Good & evil are ‘narratives’/stories we tell ourselves.	vs.	Good & evil are realities we all know intuitively, and their parameters are defined by God in Scripture.

Text of Scripture: Romans 1:18-23, ESV is the passage I promised in my opening. Here it is:

¹⁸ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. ¹⁹ For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. ²⁰ For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. ²¹ For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Claiming to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

The link to Tucker’s video:

I was walking outside as part of PT when I listened to this recently. Let me say a heartfelt thank you to both men. Tucker was a gracious host, sometimes pithy and witty, and at other times a very sloppy theologian, but was kind throughout. Bret was likewise very kind, respectful, measured, but absolutely inconsistent in his worldview. Here is what I mean: How can a materialist ground words and concepts like ‘good’ and ‘evil’? How can he justify using the value-laden terms like “We should do this …” or “We shouldn’t do that”? What role does ‘should’ have in a universe where all is material? We are, in Weinstein’s worldview, sometimes (on the good days, you know) cooperating germs, grown-up cosmic dust, that for some reason wants to have an audience via podcasting and the writing of books and teaching in the academy.

As a Christian, I was embarrassed by some of the unfortunate things Tucker said about the Old Testament and New Testament contradicting one another; they do not contradict. They reveal a progressive story of Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Restoration, but they most certainly do not contradict one another. The Old Testament is the gospel concealed; the New Testament is the gospel revealed, as has been said countless times in church history.

Again, my heartfelt thanks to Tucker for broadcasting his debate with Bret. I’m grateful for the levels of respect demonstrated by both men. But what I took away from it all is that PhD. so often just means “Piled Higher and Deeper.” In other words, there was so much sloppy thinking, so much self-referential absurdity, so much contradiction by Weinstein that I had to laugh more than a few times.

I commend this episode of Tucker’s podcast to you, and welcome thoughtful feedback, as Romans 1 was on full display by the materialist interviewed by Tucker.

Would that red hands could wash dark deeds down, as thoughts bow with hands of prayer. The washing’s left to Heaven’s showers alone.

“It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world and moral courage so rare” (Mark Twain).

Text: It’s a short psalm from Solomon. Its wisdom remains:

1 Unless the Lord builds the house,
    those who build it labor in vain.
Unless the Lord watches over the city,
    the watchman stays awake in vain.
² It is in vain that you rise up early
    and go late to rest,
eating the bread of anxious toil;
    for he gives to his beloved sleep.

³ Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord,
    the fruit of the womb a reward.
⁴ Like arrows in the hand of a warrior
    are the children of one’s youth.
⁵ Blessed is the man
    who fills his quiver with them!
He shall not be put to shame
    when he speaks with his enemies in the gate. (Psalm 127, ESV)

The Matter of Definition: “Mission creep” is military jargon for a loss of focus upon the initial mission. Mission creep is usually accompanied by many qualifiers and exception clauses, to such a degree that the initial point of the mission gets blurred, obfuscated, or even lost.

Question: When it comes to our ethical and moral leadership, how much more important is it that we fight to prevent mission creep? In plain language, we ought to be diligent to “keep the main thing the main thing.” The fundamentals, in other words. “Putting first things first” is the way a curriculum I often teach soldiers phrases it.

To revisit the question, then, When it comes to our ethical and moral leadership, how much more important is it that we fight to prevent mission creep? This is one more example of God’s wisdom for all who will heed it. Solomon, a man who was often the sage (and other times the fool), he reminds us in the 127th psalm that it is possible to “labor in vain” (Ps 127:1a, ESV).

How’s it possible to labor in vain? Well, if we labor for the merely temporal, we forfeit the eternal. As Paul phrases it, “So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal” (2 Cor 4:18, ESV).

Christ himself phrases it this way: “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?” (Mt 16:26, ESV)

Teaching: Throughout the 127th psalm Solomon emphasizes the same theme: We can work ourselves to the bone, but if we’ve built on foundations of sand, the edifice is fatally compromised and will both fail and fall. Why? Because it was not founded upon the truth. It was a house of cards.

Encouragement/takeaway: Let us admit that the easiest thing in the world is to be distracted. This is surely the Age of Distraction. That’s mission creep by another name. Mission effectiveness, hearing “Well done, good and faithful servant/[soldier]” requires laboring for that which endures because it is founded upon truth.