Whose Slave Are You?

“A person will worship something, have no doubt about that,” said Emerson. A corollary to that would be that we all serve something; for that which we worship we serve (in some manner or other). Or, to put it more dramatically, we are all slaves to one thing or another.

Of course, this runs quite contrary to the nature of most every American. We are, after all, “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Time and again, whether from Hollywood, politicians, pundits, or even the pulpit, the independent, free spirit of Americans is cheered, celebrated, and encouraged. Since the late 18^th century the message has been clear: Don’t Tread on Us.

Putting Emerson’s conclusion in a spiritual light, the Apostle Paul said in the book of Romans, “…you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.”

So, we are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness. In other words, we are either slaves to Satan or slaves to Christ. Being a slave to Christ is a theme that runs throughout the New Testament. Time and again in his letters, Paul referred to himself as a “slave (or “servant” in some translations) to Jesus Christ,” as did Peter, James, Jude, and John.

John MacArthur writes that “Being a slave of Christ may be the best way to define a Christian.” He later adds, “When you give somebody the gospel, you are saying to them, ‘I would like to invite you to become a slave of Jesus Christ. I would like to invite you to give up your independence, give up your freedom, submit yourself to an alien will, abandon all your rights, be owned by, controlled by the Lord.’ That’s really the gospel. We’re asking people to become slaves.”

C.S. Lewis put it this way: “Christ says ‘Give me All. I don’t want so much of your time and so much of your money and so much of your work: I want You. I have not come to torment your natural self, but to kill it. No half-measures are any good. I don’t want to cut off a branch here and a branch there, I want to have the whole tree down. I don’t want to drill the tooth, or crown it, or stop it, but to have it out. Hand over the natural self, all the desires which you think innocent as well as the ones you think wicked – the whole outfit. I will give you a new self instead. In fact, I will give you Myself: my own will shall become yours.’”

However, he concludes, “The terrible thing, the almost impossible thing, is to hand over your whole self – all your wishes and precautions – to Christ. But it is far easier than what we are all trying to do instead. For what we are trying to do is to remain what we call ‘ourselves’, to keep personal happiness as our great aim in life, and yet at the same time be ‘good.’ We are all trying to let our mind and heart go their own way – centered on money or pleasure or ambition – and hoping, in spite of this to behave honestly and chastely and humbly. And that is exactly what Christ warned us you could not do. As He said, a thistle cannot produce figs. If I am a field that contains nothing but grass-seed, I cannot produce wheat. Cutting the grass may keep it short: but I shall still produce grass and no wheat. If I want to produce wheat, the change must go deeper than the surface. I must be ploughed up and re-sown.”

Of course, “trying to…remain…ourselves” sounds innocent enough, even downright American. However, this is one of the great lies of the enemy. It is great, because it is so subtle and deadly. Through what is commonly referred to as “pride,” many have been led into what Lewis refers to as the “Dictatorship of Pride.” Pride, he notes, comes straight from hell. “It was through Pride that the devil became the devil; Pride leads to every other vice; it is the complete anti-God state of mind.”

Many people have overcome poverty, physical disabilities, addictions, and so on, through their pride. “The devil laughs,” says Lewis. “He is perfectly content to see you becoming (wealthy), brave, and self-controlled provided, all the time, he is setting up in you the Dictatorship of Pride—just as he would be quite content to see your (cold) cured if he was allowed, in return, to give you cancer.”

A dictatorship: now that is about as American as a Swastika. Yet that is exactly the view of humanity that many Americans espouse today. In pop culture and politics Americans are told again and again that they need to be true to themselves and take what is theirs. Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians all often fall prey to a pride-centered view of the person.

Many of the political problems we currently face would be greatly reduced - if not eliminated - if we ceased being subjects of a "Dictatorship of Pride." Problems with health, poverty, and old age would be alleviated if we were focused on serving God and our neighbor rather than ourselves.

For each of us, this battle against our pride is our ultimate challenge. Unsurprisingly, victory lies with humility, with surrender—giving ourselves over to the One who has purchased us with His blood. The Bible tells us that we are not our own; we have been “bought at a price.” Sounds a lot like a slave, doesn’t it? Make no mistake about it; each of us is serving something. The only question is whose slave are you?

Copyright 2010, Trevor Grant Thomas

Dealing With Imperfection

If you pay attention to the sports world at all, you are well aware of the recent “tragedy” that occurred in Major League Baseball (MLB). In case you missed it, Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga was one out away from pitching a perfect game. (A perfect game is when a pitcher (or pitchers) wins a game, retiring all 27 batters faced.)

It would have been only the twenty-first perfect game in the 141 year history of MLB. That’s merely 20 perfect games in over 575,000 MLB games played. That’s about .003% of all games played. By comparison, more people have orbited the moon than have pitched a MLB perfect game. It is truly one of the rarest of sports achievements.

Galarraga was one out away from his perfect game when a ground ball to first resulted in a missed call by the first base umpire. The perfect game was forever ruined. Moreover, it was a bad missed call. In the words of MLB ESPN analyst Tim Kurkjian, this was a call that umpires get right 100,000 out of 100,001 times. The replay of the incident was shown over-and-over again on sports programs across the country.

Television news networks and newspapers across the country reported the happening almost immediately. I was on my laptop at the time, and both Fox News and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution had the story on their websites as “breaking news.”

In other words, because of his missed call, umpire Jim Joyce is now the most famous (or infamous) baseball umpire in the world. Pundits all over the sports world used this moment to call for sweeping reform in MLB umpiring—the use of instant replay. Some even called on baseball commissioner Bud Selig to intervene and “undo” the travesty. They make good arguments, but that is not the direction I would like to go here.

As stellar as Galarraga’s otherwise perfect game was, the performance afterward by the principle characters involved teaches a lesson that no perfect game would allow—one which I believe will leave each of them with a far greater legacy than the perfect game would have.

Immediately after the blown call, Galarraga smiled, returned to the pitcher’s mound, and went back to work. His manager Jim Leyland came out to argue the call; it was quite heated. After the game, Leyland was much more understanding. “The players are human, the umpires are human, the managers are human,” Leyland said.

After the game, upon seeing the replay, Joyce took the unusual step of quickly admitting his mistake. “It was the biggest call of my career, and I kicked the s­--t out of it,” Joyce said. “I just cost that kid a perfect game,” he added as he sullenly and humbly paced the umpires’ locker room.

Moments later, Joyce went even farther and tearfully asked the Tigers general manager Dave Dombrowski if he could personally apologize to Galarraga. Joyce then went face-to-face with Galarraga and told him he was sorry and even added a hug. This act quickly diffused an otherwise bitter Galarraga. Galarraga said, “You don't see an umpire after the game come out and say, ‘Hey, let me tell you I'm sorry.’ He felt really bad. He didn't even shower.”

The next day, Joyce was scheduled to work behind home plate—the highest profile umpiring position. MLB gave Joyce the option of taking the day off. Joyce refused. Prior to the game, wanting to diffuse any negative crowd reaction to Joyce, Leyland sent Galarraga out with the day’s lineup card.

Leyland stated, “This guy is an outstanding umpire. I just really think it's a day for Tigers fans to really show what we are all about in a positive way…The guy had every bit of integrity. He faced the music. He stood there and took it. What else can he do? I just don't believe in beating people up like that…This guy was a mess. My heart goes out to him.”

As the lineups were exchanged, what boos were aimed at Joyce turned into cheers for Galarraga. Joyce, again full of emotion, had tears in his eyes. Galarraga patted him on the shoulder for support. When the game began, surrounded by his fellow umpires for their support, as the Tigers took to the field, several of them passed by Joyce and showed their support for him as well. For the most part, Tigers fans also showed themselves forgiving. When the game was over, Joyce said, “I don’t want to make it sappy and say it was love, but the support I got was just love.”

Don’t get me wrong, given a chance to do it over, almost everyone involved would rather see Joyce make the correct call and have Galarraga “immortalized” into MLB history along with the 20 other perfect game pitchers. However, we now have an incident that transcends sports. We have an example of grace and forgiveness. We have a man owning up to his mistake and saying that he is sorry. In other words, we have an outpouring of love that no “perfect game” could ever have given us.

Copyright 2010, Trevor Grant Thomas

How Much is Enough?

A few weeks ago, Barack Obama said he believes that “at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” Many conservatives were (somewhat) rightly aghast. Hearing this from the President of the United States makes me very nervous. I certainly do not want our government empowered to decide how much money that anyone can make. However, hearing this from an individual, and looking at it from a biblical and spiritual perspective, I think Barack Obama, the man, made a good point.

Many times over, my wife and I have led the How to Manage Your Money Bible study, developed by the late Larry Burkett of Christian Financial Concepts (now Crown Financial Ministries). About 12 years ago, very early in our marriage, this study was key in helping Michelle and me get on the right path financially.

One of the sessions of the Bible study is entitled, “How Much is Enough?” The overriding theme of the session is that you will never have enough money until you decide that you are going to live on what you have. Also, chapter nine in Larry’s best seller Your Finances In Changing Times (over 1 million sold) is entitled “How Much is Enough?”

Clearly, Mr. Burkett, who dedicated decades of his life to teaching the biblical principles of finance, saw the concept of “how much is enough” as an important one for Christians (and anyone else willing) to grasp. Early in his private counseling there was a common question that Larry generally asked: what do you think the problem is? Almost always, the answer was: we (or I) don’t make enough money.

In nearly every situation—whether it was a $25,000 annual income, $50,000, or $100,000 —the solution was never simply more money. For example, Larry noted that if you took the family with the $25,000 income and replaced it with the $100,000 one, with everything else remaining the same, in one year—two at the max—he guaranteed that they would be back with the same problems.

Generally speaking, when it comes to financial discipline, the amount of income one has is largely irrelevant. Those who struggle financially when they have little money will almost certainly struggle in very much the same ways if they have a lot of money.

Those who are stingy with a little will be stingy with a lot. Those who are generous with a little will be generous with a lot. Those who are foolish with a little will be foolish with a lot. Jesus illustrated this when he said, “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.”

Being content with what you have and trusting God is the real lesson here. As the Apostle Paul tells us, “I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do everything through him who gives me strength.” In other words, what you have or don’t have at any given moment is not the most important thing. What is important is your relationship with Him who gives all good things.

In Luke 12:13-21, the parable of The Rich Fool also helps us gain the proper perspective on wealth and money. “Be on your guard against all kinds of greed,” Jesus warned. “A man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” Christ then revealed in the parable a certain rich man who had become even wealthier.

Never considering that perhaps God had other plans for this increase, the rich man decided to hoard it. He then said to himself, “You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.” Then God said to him, “You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?” The parable concluded, “This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God.”

Notice that God never condemned the man’s wealth; only his attitude toward it. Until we come to grips with the fact that none of us really “owns” anything, we will never have the proper perspective on money and wealth. As I have noted often before, we are merely stewards or managers of God’s property. He owns “the heavens and the earth and everything in it.” Until we accept and acknowledge this, all the wealth in the world will not truly free us, financially or otherwise.

Of course, the concept of “how much is enough” applies not only to individuals and families. If President Obama thinks that, “at a certain point you’ve made enough money,” shouldn’t it follow that, at a certain point the government has enough of our money to do the things it is supposed to do? As U.S. Senate candidate, Rand Paul, (Congressman Ron Paul’s son) put it, “People think that there is a different logic for an economy than there is for an individual.” In other words, what makes sense in a family or business budget should also make sense for the government.

Until the United States, Greece, Italy, France, you, I, and so on, decide that we are going to operate within some reasonable budget (live off what we have), no amount of money in the world will be enough.

Copyright 2010, Trevor Grant Thomas

"Demonizing" Democrats

The following shocking statements were directed at the President of the United States:

 

“It is a disgrace. This administration is a disgrace.”

 

“(He) is responsible for killing tens of thousands of innocent people.”

 

“He's embarrassing... He's not my president. He will never be my president.”

 

“You (and your administration) are villainously and criminally obscene people, obscene human beings.”

 

“I hate (him). I despise him and his entire administration — not only because of its international policy, but also the national.”

 

“I don't want add fuel to the fire, but I don't know what it's going to take for people to really wake up and understand that they are liars and they are murderers.”

 

Boy, did the liberals hate George W. Bush. That’s right—every one of the above statements was directed at President Bush. The rage on display here was not conjured up by everyday Americans, such as those attending the TEA parties, but by celebrities such as Julia Roberts, Sean Penn, Joy Behar, and Jessica Lange.

 

In other words, these comments were made by those who have a much larger microphone than the Americans participating in the TEA parties that many liberals now seemed so concerned about. Liberals then were not so concerned with “demonizing the government,” as Bill Clinton recently put. (I suppose it matters who you imagine as a “demon” for there to be concern.)

 

What’s more, YouTube is replete with videos of protests during the Bush administration that show protestors brandishing signs that say things like: “George W. Bush is a terrorist!”; “Team Bush: The True Axis of Evil”; “F-ck Bush”; “Dead or Alive” sign with the name “George W. Bush”; and so on. Then there was the Bush Assassination film.

 

This slander and violence was at least ignored, and at worst parroted, by a media that showed no concern about “inflammatory” or “inciting” statements directed at the President of the United States.

 

But it wasn’t just the kooky celebrities and deranged protestors on the left who were unhinged in their anger. Take note of some of the comments made during Bush’s eight years by leaders of the Democratic Party:

 

“He betrayed this country! He played on our fears! He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure pre-ordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place!”—Al Gore

 

“The man's father is a wonderful human being, I think this guy is a loser.”—Harry Reid

 

“Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader.”—Nancy Pelosi

 

“We will take to the streets right now. We will delegitimize (him), discredit him, do whatever it takes, but never accept him.”—Jesse Jackson

 

“Regime change! (Do you think this bothered Chris Matthews?) Bush has to go and we have the power to do it. The officials of the government shall be removed from office for crimes and misdemeanor…”—Ramsey Clark

 

“American treatment of terror detainees at the Guantanamo Naval Base is comparable to torture at the hands of Nazis, Soviet gulags and even Cambodian mass murderer Pol Pot.”—Dick Durbin

 

“In the last six and a half years we have seen a dangerous experiment in extremism in the White House.”—Hillary Clinton

 

“I'd say if you live in the United States of America and you vote for George Bush, you've lost your mind.”—John Edwards

 

“There has never been an administration, I don't believe, in our history more intent upon consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda.”—Hillary Clinton

 

“President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country.”—Harry Reid

 

“The situation in Iraq and the reckless economic policies in the United States speak to one issue for me, and that is the competence of our leader.”—Nancy Pelosi

 

“This country was the moral leader of the world until George Bush became president.”—Howard Dean

 

“No president in America's history has done more damage to our country and our security…”—Ted Kennedy

 

Barely two years from the 9/11 attacks, in September of 2003, writing for Time magazine, Charles Krauthammer notes that, “Democrats are seized with a loathing for President Bush — a contempt and disdain giving way to a hatred that is near pathological — unlike any since they had Richard Nixon to kick around.” As a result of this behavior, Krauthammer discovered what he considered to be a psychiatric syndrome: Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS).

 

The TEA Party protests have miles to go before they approach the vitriol that was directed at Bush over a period of several years. And once again the mainstream media finds itself shamefully guilty of the hypocrisy and bias that it is so frequently accused of.

 

Copyright 2010, Trevor Grant Thomas

Democrats and Wall Street

According to Politico, “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Thursday (4/22/10) that he will not wait for Democrats and Republicans to reach a bipartisan compromise on a Wall Street reform bill, scheduling the first key test vote for Monday.

 

“I’m not going to waste any more time of the American people while they come up with some agreement,” Reid said. “The games of stalling are over.”

 

“…Democrats have made a political calculation that at least some Republicans will feel compelled to back the bill Monday, even without any changes – and if they don’t, it’s the GOP that looks bad.”

 

It seems that Senate Majority Leader Reid, weary after the long health care battle, is not in the mood for another lengthy legislative fight. And for this reason alone he is better positioned to move the liberal agenda? I don’t think so. Also, just because the GOP is unwilling to support more bad liberal legislation they are the ones who are going to look bad? Again, I don’t think so.

 

The Republicans were hardly damaged goods after the health care debate. Currently, nearly every generic congressional poll has the Republicans in the lead. Rasmussen has the Republicans with a 10 point lead over Democrats.

 

Also, Americans are still strongly opposed to the Democrats’ latest and greatest legislative achievement, Obamacare. Rasmussen has Americans opposing Obamacare by 20 points. Quinnipiac shows the opposition up by 14 points, and the last Fox News poll reveals Americans opposing Obamacare by 15 points.

 

What’s more, with significant election victories in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, Republicans should be nothing but emboldened when it comes to standing against the liberal agenda being championed by today’s Democrat Party. Of course, with the Massachusetts victory giving the Republicans 41 Senate seats, the Democrats can do nothing without some Republican support. As long as the polls stay where they are, what is the Republican motivation to relent?

 

Furthermore, despite the stereotypes, when it comes to financial reform, and when one actually looks at the facts, the Democrats are no position to paint themselves as standing against the big money and influence of Wall Street. According to this from Open Secrets, the current big money from large corporations OVERWHELMINGLY goes to Democrats over Republicans. Notice who is #65 on the list, tilting “Strongly Democratic.” That’s right. The liberal poster child for financial reform: Goldman Sachs.

 

And when it comes to the “party of the rich,” again according to Open Secrets, of the top 50 individual donors, 34 were “Strongly” to “Solidly” Democratic (one “Leaned” Democratic).

Given all of this, if Republicans stand firm and united and preach the facts, there is no reason to allow the Democrats another bad legislative victory. 

 

Copyright 2010, Trevor Grant Thomas