A POLLUTED OFFERING

The prophet Malachi said:

When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that not evil? And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that not evil? Present that to your governor; will he accept you or show you favor? says the LORD of hosts. And now entreat the favor of God, that he may be gracious to us. With such a gift from your hand, will he show favor to any of you? says the LORD of hosts. Oh that there were one among you who would shut the doors, that you might not kindle fire on my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the LORD of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. [Malachi 1:6-11, ESV]

The entire Bible takes it as a given that God's people are going to give. In the Old Testament there was no question to whom that offering was to go -- the Temple in Jerusalem was the Israelites' single center of tithes and offerings. God had three essential messages to proclaim through the nation's giving: God is great; God loves those who are in need and cares for them; God requires a blood sacrifice as atonement for mankind's sin.

In the ancient world, the gentile nations were watching the activities of the Temple Mount. I wonder what an Egyptian or a Babylonian thought when he saw lame, blind, and diseased animals being used for the Jewish religious rituals? "Wow, if I tried to pull a stunt like that with Ra or Isis, I'd get creamed. No rain, no crops... I and my family would be finished! Their ancestors built a nice temple, but these Israelites must not be serious about worshiping their god!"

The Christian Church's stewardship of wealth is also part of God's message to unbelievers. What message are we sending them? A recent op-ed from Marvin Olasky says:

How often does God have to rap us over the head before we get it? How often do the Old Testament prophets, in various reiterations, offer the same message: God desires mercy and not burnt offerings? The gospel of Matthew reports Christ saying that not once but twice: "I desire mercy and not sacrifice." Mercy is even more important than the Sabbath, Jesus said: He promptly walked the talk by healing a man on the day of rest.

Today, how do our churches spend most of the money they receive in tithes and offerings? Some invest in ornate, cathedral-like buildings, sometimes reasoning that if people are awed by our architecture they will respect Christ more. Some try to build choirs not just to support congregational singing but to put on showtime performances that turn worshippers into audiences. How many churches invest even half of their budgets in mercy and missions? Even one-third?

My church is in the 2nd half of a large building project. I'm on board with it as it will allow us to serve more people in the future. It's big and it's not cheap, but it's not ornate (traditionally Protestants abhor gilded stuff in their places of worship). But I do wonder if it is the best use of our resources. What is the message we're sending out? Is the size of our building truly a blessing to those around us? I believe our congregation's heart is in the right place and that we do want to use the room to serve others. I know awesome things will happen and lives will be changed for the better. However many sections of our culture are completely turned off by huge church buildings and massive capital expeditures that only appear to help the well-off side of town.

What would happen if a small subset of the multitude of wealthy Christians diverted their giving away from the west side of town and poured it out instead on East Austin? Of the three messages I referred to earlier, we seem to have no trouble proclaiming God's greatness and the truth of the gospel. It's the care and concern of the Lord for those who are oppressed and shackled by poverty in our own town that we apparently have trouble embracing.

Does my use of God's resources reflect His will? In a good month, I'm giving ten percent to my church. Then a few gifts here and there to missions and to relieve the destitute. Does God see that as giving my best male ram to the temple, or am I trying to pass off a couple of runt, sterile sheep that cost me nearly nothing?

Lord work your character in me and make my gifts reflect your priorities!

DO NOT RESIST

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." [Matthew 5:38-43 ESV]

I remember being a baby Christian in sunday school, and studying the Sermon on the Mount, and this topic came up. I'll never forget when the leader immediately followed up the scripture by saying, "Now keep in mind Jesus doesn't mean for us to take this literally all the time" and proceeded to enumerate various exceptions to the rule.

My response was, what about the people who actually did take this principle seriously and put it to use offensively? Christians used it in the non-violent protests of the civil rights movement; they did extensive training in how not to fight back, even when the cops were using pain to get their message across. And they won.

Then you watch the movie Ghandi and realize that even unbelievers can take this principle and use it. The non-violent protesters, nearly all Hindu and Muslim, stood up to the British government, knowing ahead of time that they would be beaten and imprisioned. Again they trained and planned for their own pain and how to deal with it, when their opponents came at them with clubs and guns. Ghandi's inspiration was the words of Jesus Christ.

Do I think there is a time to take up arms against an oppressor? By all means. Does the Bible prohibit the use of force in all situations? Certainly not.

I personally draw the line between governments and the church. Christians can become police officers and soldiers and perform their duties in fighting evil. I love reading about the valiant deeds and sacrifices of our soldiers throughout American history. I am not worthy to wipe the dust off their feet. However if the government decides it's time to discriminate or even oppress the Body of Christ, we are called to respond *non-violently*.

I am really torn about this issue. On the one hand I understand the Second Amendment and the reasons why the Founding Fathers enacted it (insurance against tyrannical governments; enforcement of property rights when police are not available). On the other hand I have trouble reconciling it with a radical commitment to the Sermon on the Mount. Can I be thinking "What Would Jesus Do" while simultaneously, as a civilian, shooting someone? Even in self-defense?

I believe the obedience of God's people on this point in the first three centuries is one of the reasons the pagan Roman Empire was converted to Christ. They set the example for us. Yes, the examples of war and God-ordained violence are throughout the Old Testament. And Jesus did not command the Roman centurion to leave his vocation before proclaiming about him, "Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith" (Matthew 8:10 ESV). But within the New Testament church, we who are not agents of the state -- does God want us to be riflemen?

KERRY BELIEVES IN CHOICE

...Kerry reiterated that he believes that life begins at conception — and that a woman has the right to choose whether to abort.

Asked whether he believes abortion is taking a life, Kerry said a fetus is a "form of life."

"The Bible itself — I mean, everything talks about different layers of development. That's what Roe v Wade does. It talks about viability. It's the law of the land." The Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v Wade ruling legalized abortion in America.

"I don't believe personally that it's the government's job to step in and take my article of faith and transfer it to somebody who doesn't share that article of faith," said Kerry, a Roman Catholic.

Yes of course I believe Jews are a "form of life." Would I close down that concentration camp on the outskirts of town? Well you understand that gas chambers and crematoriums are against my strong religious convictions. But it's not the government's job to take my article of faith and impose it on others who believe the slaughter of Jews is necessary to the health of society.

Which lie do you prefer? The first option is: unborn children are nonhuman globules of inert organic matter and so can be disposed with at our convenience. Unfortunately science makes that position more untenable every day. So the alernative is: I believe it's wrong but I can't impose my views on others. Sounds great but why don't we use that same argument for Child abuse, rape, murder, arson, and theft? Aren't there thoughtful people who believes those are OK in certain circumstances? Why do we impose our moral framework on them?

And alongside Kerry's moderate rhetoric, in the background he does in fact want all women to be able to choose an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. That's what supporting NARAL means.

Describing the 2004 presidential election as "the most important in decades," NARAL quotes John Kerry's praise for the abortion group in their endorsement of the liberal Massachusetts senator's presidential campaign.

"NARAL is without question the first line of defense," Kerry is quoted in the e-mail as saying at the Roe v. Wade 30th Anniversary Dinner in 2003. "We will not go back to the days of back alleys ... we need to take on this president and all of the forces of intolerance on this issue; we need to honestly and confidently take this issue out to the country and we need to speak up and be proud of what we stand for."

Those evil right-wingers refuse to tolerate abortion! We need to be SPEAK UP AND BE PROUD of 40 million dead babies since Roe!

However I need to say there is only a small difference between Kerry's positions and actions, and Republicans who talk a wonderful pro-life game, but do not lift a finger to oppose it in their roles in government. Which is 98% of all Republicans in office. Here's praying that Bush 43 will do a better job of selecting a conservative Supreme Court justice, if he is given the chance, than Bush 41 did. USA Today brings this 'phony war' to light in a 2002 article.