Speaking directly

When ol’ Gene worked for a paycheck, which seems like centuries ago, my job was to manage people and operations.  I gave direction to many, many people—over the span of my career, well over a thousand.  I was in a complex business with critical deadlines.  The business had to run like a clock to survive. 

Early on I learned to communicate (both written and oral) in a managerial style, which is very direct.  Many of my instructions had to be relayed to others who interfaced with our operations.  The last thing I could do was communicate indirectly, i.e. speak to the side of subjects hoping people would somehow get the message.  They had to understand exactly what was expected, what they were to do, and when. 

Also, in communicating managerially, communications had to be with a minimum of words.  Time was money and long “flowered” dissertations were often either not read or misread.  So short, direct communication was a style I tried to perfect.

That brings me to Gene Pool’s blog.  I have noted that most folks first scroll down blogs to see how long they are to determine if they have the time to read what is written.  If blogs are long and drawn out, many readers are lost quick.  And second, if readers have to work to determine what the writer means, they will stop reading.  I don’t blame them because I do the same myself.  Today everyone’s time is limited, and with the volume of “stuff” that vies for our attention, we just don’t have the time to read long dissertations trying to figure out where they are going.  So my standard limit for blog subjects is one page of 12-point type.  If it runs over one page, I go back and streamline the communication. 

All that said, I have found that in normal social life some people are not used to short, crisp communications.  They perceive them to be blunt and thus confrontational, offensive, abrasive, or all the above.  They are not used to being communicated with as such.  Also, the old saying in written communications if it can be misunderstood, it will be is always present.     

Well, ol’ Gene and his blog has not meant to offend or ruffle feathers, at least thus far.  And if I do, there will be little doubt of the offence or ruffle.  A question that has always been one of my pet peeves is, “what do you mean by that?”  I have, and will try to say what I mean, and mean what I say the best I can.  And when I error or misstate something, please point it out so I can correct and apologize.  I do not want to unintentionally hurt someone’s feelings. 

So, here I am running close to the end of one page of 12-point type.  I must come to a close.  Thanks for staying with me on this matter, assuming you have.

Gene Pool

Chicken poop and flower nectar

This year is the year of the chickens for Cess and me.  Four weeks ago a box was delivered by the mail man containing fifty-five little chicks, each about the size of a ping pong ball.  Their specific breed is broiler chickens, to be raised for slaughter in just eight weeks.  During the eight weeks they will rapidly grow to about eight pounds thanks to many bags of high protein feed and lots of fresh water.  Thus far they have consumed about 400 pounds of feed.

Yesterday, Cess informed me that I needed to replace the wood shavings spread on the floor of the chicken house—that even though she tries to keep it as clean as possible by scooping up the poop, there are little white worms now in the shavings.  These worms are maggots from the flies chicken poop attracts.  And boy howdy, 400 pounds of feed going through chickens produces lots of chicken poop that attracts lots of flies.

As I went about the less than pleasant task I noted some little yellow flowers just outside the chicken house that were in bloom.  And fluttering around the flowers were several pretty butterflies, sipping sweet nectar.  I thought to myself there has to be a parallel or analogy here—pesky flies inside attracted by what attracts flies, and lovely butterflies five feet away attracted by what attracts butterflies.  There were no flies on the flowers and no butterflies on the chicken poop.  I guess one moral to this could be, if you want butterflies plant flowers.  And if you want pesky flies, spread chicken poop.

Then this scripture started rolling around in my head:

What do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? …  What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?

Now where might the application be?

Gene Pool

Why I keep only nine of the Ten Commandments

Those of us with children know from experience that kids can sometimes ask the most penetrating of questions.  Mine sure have, that’s for sure!  And as they have grown to adulthood they still ask questions that ol’ Dad doesn’t always have ready answers for.  I think they do it just to watch me squirm. 

Sweet daughter, who now has grown kids of her own asking her penetrating questions (which she so richly deserves), asked me a few months ago, “Dad, if you are such a faithful believer in the Lord why do you only keep nine of His Ten Commandments?”  Of course, she was referring to the command

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.  Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates: For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.  

I tried to give sweet daughter the standard comebacks I have been indoctrinated with over the years, such as there is a verse saying believers came together on the first day of the week and broke bread (for that matter there is a verse that says believers met every day and broke bread together), that the Lord Jesus arose from the dead on the first day of the week, etc.  But as I listened to myself I noted how absolutely feeble those answers sounded when placed opposite a command of God he himself burnt into stone.

The more I pondered her question the more I was driven to I ask myself “specifically who does history say it was that changed the rest and worship day from the seventh day of the week to the first?”  It did not take long with a computer and Goggle to come up with a guy named Constantine the Great, a Roman emperor during the third century AD.  On March 7, 321AD he single-handedly decided that all the religions of the empire, of which there were many, would unify in working Mondays through Saturdays, and take Sundays (the day of the sun god) as the day of rest and worship.  That’s it!  Done deal!  So from then on, for Christians, Jews, pagans, et al, it was Sun(god)day—the venerable day of the sun.  And if anyone resisted the order of the established church or emperor there were all sorts of unpleasant things that awaited him. What’s new? 

Now it seems great Constantine claimed to be a Christian since he had some sort of vision that led his army to a victory somewhere.  But at the same time he carried the title of pontifex maximus, a title emperors bore as heads of the pagan priesthood.   He also went about sporting the Apollonian sun-rayed diadem, and had coins struck with his face appearing on one side and pagan gods on the other with inscription “committed to the invincible sun.”  To his credit (?) he authorized bishops of the then Roman (Catholic) church to determine doctrine (what is believed and taught) and dogma (a system of doctrines), whereby he assigned himself to enforcement throughout the empire of such doctrine and dogma.  Towards the Roman church he was friendly.  And the Roman church was friendly to him in return.  But to Christians who did not go along with “the program” i.e. those who tried to follow Scripture, they found themselves cross-wise with the empire—a bad place to be.   

So to sum it up, that’s the kind of guy who is basically responsible for why I go to church on Sundays, and keep only nine of God’s Ten Commandments.  All I can say is, “go figure.”

Gene Pool     

 

Reefs on the narrow road—Gene’s ship hits a few

I stand amazed at scriptural interpretations of some who are looked to for religious guidance these days.  No wonder our society is on the wide road to hell.  Recently I was at GotQuestions.org, a religious website I have a degree of respect for, and found this:

“Some understand 1 Corinthians 7:15 as another “exception,” allowing remarriage if an unbelieving spouse divorces a believer. However, the context does not mention remarriage, but only says a believer is not bound to continue a marriage if an unbelieving spouse wants to leave” (emphasis is mine). 

What a miserable interpretation!  I have to ask, does anyone ever consider context any more?...and look up words and terms in a lexicon?  In this chapter, Paul is discussing the subject of husbands and wives satisfying their partners sexual needs, specifically the husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.  The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.  Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time.   

The word translated bound is douloo, which means give one’s self wholly to one's needs and service.  An example of what Paul is describing would be if a husband abandoned his home and spouse, caroused around behaving like an unmarried man, and later returned to his wife expecting his sexual needs to be fulfilled.  In this scenario his wife is not obligated (bound) to fulfill them.  And the same if the wife left and then came back for sexual fulfillment.  It has nothing to do with divorce, and for sure it does not provide for remarriage.  Just the removal of the obligation for sexual activity with a wayward spouse. 

And while on the subject of divorce, would you not consider the apostle Paul to be a qualified interpreter of what Jesus said and meant on various subjects?  Well, here is what the Lord personally instructed him to command us regarding divorce: 

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.  But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband.  And a husband must not divorce his wife (1 Cor. 7:10-11).

I have to ask, how can anyone read those words and then come up with a marriage escape clause a few verses later?!!!  There are two clearly stated options, (1) separate or (2) reconcile.  Nowhere does Paul say anything about divorce being an option.  And nowhere in the Bible is there provision for divorce and remarriage.  If someone comes up with a biblical reason for divorce from 1 Corinthians 7, they are manufacturing that reason—also known as twisting Scripture.

I hope this is the last on this subject for a while.  Needless to say, ol’ Gene’s ship has hit several reefs (some hidden) in putting forth his understanding of Scripture as related to marriage—it goes opposite the flow of our pagan culture.  But please understand, my intentions are not to alienate.  I am convinced that God intends for people to marry and be one as long as they both shall live.  And after they have become “one flesh,” it’s done.  Marriage may be undone in the eyes of the world, but there is no undoing it in the eyes of God.  Our Lord meant it when he said what God has joined together let no man separate.  If someone does separate the union, they not only sin against their spouse and family, they sin against God.

Gene Pool                

Escorted through the gates of hell

Back when I worked for a paycheck I worked with a group of corporate attorneys.  I vividly recall a meeting with all of management where the chief attorney made a statement that got everyone’s attention big-time.  The subject of the meeting was handling and disposition of toxic waste, and the following of government regulations.  He said that there was personal jail time for anyone caught intentionally disregarding the regulations—that the government had gotten serious on the matter and was no longer simply levying fines on corporations.  Someone in the audience asked if there would be personal representation by the corporate legal staff, to which the answer was yes.  The chief attorney went on to say that he had represented people in the past—represented them all the way to the jail cell.  His point was, if found guilty, there was little that could be done about it, even with a high-powered lawyer by our side.

Which brings up the reason for this blog post.  The last post about the marriage escape clause has generated some less than complementary emails. (And some complements too.)  But as I think about it, we humans, the created, want to have our way when it comes to running our lives, regardless what the Creator intends.  We even go so far as to manipulate the Creator’s instructions (Scripture) to come to conclusions that suit ourselves, totally ignoring those instructions that condemn.  And we love religious leaders who support our waywardness…invariably out of fear of alienating the masses that fuel the system.  When this happens, it brings back memories of that chief attorney escorting his clients to jail, except in our case our religious leaders are escorting their flocks all the way through the gates of hell.

But nothing is new under the sun.  Jesus was facing the same situation with religious leaders 2,000 years ago.  They benefited by leading the people in what Moses permitted regardless of what God intended.  Their catering to human desires and tradition brought them on a collision course with our Lord.  Are we being led on a collision course too?  I think so. 

Gene Pool             

        

The marriage escape clause – a delusion or truth

“If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”   Wow, what a startling statement made by Jesus’ disciples. They were in shock by what they had just heard him say.  What is it he could have said that would have produced such a reaction?  Have you ever wondered? 

Ol’ Gene can’t imagine what it would be like not married to Cess, his beautiful bride of over half a century.  But the disciples of Jesus in Matthew 19 actually said it would is better not to marry if certain conditions were true.  Have you ever thought about what those conditions might be?  It has to be important…no, more important than important.  It has to be monumental since marriage is one of the things God ordained of humans in Genesis.  So what was it that was so shocking?

Looking back in previous verses, Jesus was responding to religious leaders about marriage and divorce, and how God intended it to be.  At first glance, his response appears straightforward.  He mentioned that famous marriage escape clause so many have used over the centuries to divorce their spouses with, “anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality.”  But that’s certainly not shocking or monumental.  We have been taught (and generally accepted) that to be true.  But wait, let’s remember we are not looking at what Jesus actually said, but rather someone’s translation of what he said.  In the original Greek the word translated sexual immorality is porneia.  And porneia is a word with several meanings, only one of which is sexual immorality.  Translators of our Bibles had to pick one of the meanings so they choose sexual immorality.  But another equally viable word they could have chosen is “incest,” marriage between close relatives.  That choice would have been supported with Jesus’ listeners since in Leviticus (Torah) incest is considered to be an illegal marriage—a marriage not recognized by God as legitimate.  It would have also been in-line with the trapping questions that were presented to Jesus by religious leaders.  Remember that John the Baptist had been recently executed for speaking publically against King Herod’s incestuous marriage.    

Hmmm.  Now there’s a thought.  So Jesus could have been saying “if a man divorces his wife for any reason other than discovering she is a relative,” that would surely shock the disciples.  It would mean there are no biblical grounds for a divorce at all—and that “what God has joined together, let no one separate” is not a contradiction.  Even if one’s spouse was out cheating on him, he could not divorce her and be in right-standing before God.  That could easily have resulted in his disciples saying “if this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

O dear!  Do you realize the ramifications of the incest interpretation?  It would mean the escape clause has not been an escape clause after all.  And that all the divorces in the past 2,000 years are null and void.  People are still married in God's eyes to their living first spouses.  Maybe that is why Jesus went on to say “not everyone can accept this word.”  

We had better stop dwelling on this subject else we end up as shocked as the disciples.

Until next time,

Gene Pool

Purity in the Community of God’s People

Ol’ Gene sat through some Scripture teaching this morning that triggered several thoughts for ponder.  One of the Scriptures was in Joshua 7 where a Judahite named Achan held back a portion of war spoil that was to be given over to Jehovah.  And Scripture says “the LORD’s anger burned against Israel.”  In the end, Achan was stoned and burned along with his entire family, his animals, and even his tent.  And then Scripture says “then the LORD turned from his fierce anger.”  

Wow!  One man sinned, and the Lord got angry with everyone!  Now that conflicts with our contemporary way of looking at individuals and groups, and what we consider to be “fairness.”  But with God’s people, in this case, the group is definitely punished for the act of one person.  In fact, we find examples of this throughout the Bible, the many suffering for the sinfulness of the few.

What does this mean?  Well, this Scripture, as well as many others, says to me that God has high expectations for His people--expectations to maintain purity within the community--expectations for them to be a holy people.  He expects them to be intolerate of willful sin.  And if His people tolerate it, that is, if they corrupt the community by allowing sin in the group, God will not go with them as proved by Israel’s defeats at the hands of its enemies.

This can be brought forward and applied to the new covenant church.  God still expects purity within the community of His people.  Those who think He doesn’t ought to ask Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5).  He killed them to keep impurity from creeping into the infant church.  Later God gave His people instructions by way of Paul’s letters on how to handle corruption among themselves.  And if His people ignore those instructions, they will suffer spiritual defeat.  God will depart from their midst and remove His lamp stand.  Satan will defeat them. 

At least this is the way Ol’ Gene Pool puts together the totality of Scripture.  God is the same today as He was yesterday.  So don’t discard those harsh stories in the Bible as being old fashioned, unloving, and not applying to us in this day in age.  If you do, well….check the Scripture for yourself to see what it says on the matter. 

Blessings in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Gene Pool