Sad news a few days ago that former Christian music artist Jennifer Knapp came out as a lesbian in preparation for the release of her newest album. During a segment of Larry King Live, Knapp said, “I think there is plenty of evidence in my exploration of my faith through the sacred text of the Holy Bible that I have definitely recognized that we are somewhat at the handicap of our own interpretation of a sacred text.”

That somewhat convoluted sentence basically means that the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality is a matter of biblical interpretation.

Actually, it’s not.

The Bible’s prohibitions against homosexuality are no different than it’s prohibitions against lying, stealing, murdering, or adultery. Try this on for size:

• “You know, it’s okay to murder someone ‘cuz it’s a matter of biblical interpretation.”
• “Hey, it’s okay for me to lift your wallet ‘cuz the scripture isn’t really clear on that whole ‘thou shalt not steal’ business.”
• “Yes, I slept with your daughter. But I love her and besides, the Bible doesn’t really address the issue of sex between two unmarried people in love.”

Jennifer Knapp’s real problem is not her homosexuality. Her lesbianism is actually a symptom of a much greater problem. Her problem is with her fallacious view of the Bible. It never fails that when someone questions the authority, or reliability, or inspiration of the scriptures that sin is just around the corner—if not already in play. Such is sadly true for Jennifer Knapp. It’s the exact same problem Eve had under the shade of the Tree of Knowledge. Satan asked Eve the question, “Did God really say…?”

When sin presents itself you can always expect that a “Did God really say,” moment is not far away. A low view of scripture gives more weight to the self-will to sin. “Did God really say,” is the perfect excuse for sin. Just like Eve, we know what God said, we simply choose to ignore or contradict it and then question its validity.

Did God really say homosexuality is a sin? Yes, he did. And he also said that it’s a forgivable sin to the one who confesses and repents by coming into agreement with him on the issue.

How well do you know God? Has it ever occurred to you why we are able to know the depths of God’s character?

We all have people we know better than others. We know them better because we spend more time with them, interface with them more than others, and feel a closeness to them. In the case of our Lord Jesus, the more time we spend in communication with him, the more meaningful time in his word and contemplating his truth, the better we get to know him. But I submit that our knowledge of God’s goodness and character would be severely limited if not for one terrible thing.

Sin.

Allow this to roll around in your head for a while. Had it not been for sin we would know and understand far less about God’s character than we do right now. When I say “know,” I’m referring to knowing God experiencially. It’s one thing to know God theoretically or intellectually, but experience is a different matter altogether.

Without sin we would not know about God’s forgiveness. Without sin there would be no need to express forgiveness to anyone. Forgiveness, both giving it and receiving it is a wonderful experience.

Without sin we would not know about God’s grace and mercy. If we had been without sin, to whom would he demonstrate these traits of his character?

Without sin we would not know God’s justice. We say that God is just and all his judgments are true. But we would not comprehend the scale of God’s justice if there were no sin.

Without sin we would not know God’s long-suffering (patience). God does not orchestrate the immediate damnation of the sinner. Rather, he takes time for the sinner to come to conviction. He puts up with the sin of all mankind, for his own purposes.

Without sin we would not know God’s wrath. Honestly, that’s something I can do without. Thankfully, those who know Christ will never experience the fullness of God’s wrath. But we can know something of God’s character by recognizing his wrath toward those who reject his son and remain in their sin. Knowing his wrath helps us to understand his justness, grace, mercy, and forgiveness.

I’d also like to submit that without sin we would not know the full expression of God’s love.

It’s one thing to love when things are good and relationships are close. But it’s another thing to love when offended or rejected or persecuted. The sinner who comes to know Christ comes to realize how much God’s loves him or her because of the love expressed through the cross of Christ. How much deeper is our understanding of God’s love because Jesus suffered horribly for the sake of our redemption. The full expression of God’s love could never be fully experienced if not demonstrated through his suffering for us. Can there even be a full expression of love without suffering or sacrificing for another? If Christ is our model for loving expression, then I think not.

I hate sin. I long for the day when my sin nature will forever be removed from me. But I’m also in awe that God’s ordination of sin’s existence enables me—enables all of us—to experience God’s character in ways that would not be possible without sin. Truly, our knowledge of God, our understanding of his character, of who he is, would be greatly limited if not for the expressions of God’s character demonstrated because of sin.

How deep and profound it is to understand God’s character because of our flaws. It reminds me of one of my favorite passages:

“We know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28).

All things, even sin which separates us from God is used by God to enable the Christian to know him, to really know him in ways not possible without the existence of sin.

What other ways do we know God better because of sin?

First posted for Christmas, 2006 (with edits).

---

One wonders why there are so many people in America who seem so offended at a simple greeting like, “Merry Christmas.” While talk show hosts rant about the “Attack on Christmas,” by big chain stores, school boards, and the ACLU, others wonder what in the world is so offensive about a seasonal greeting steeped in tradition like, “Peace on earth, good will towards men.” After all, we’ve been fed many lines over the decades that Christmas is about love, and family, and unity, and peace.

I suggest that our leftist friends have finally realized what Evangelicals have been saying all along—love and family and unity and peace are all well and good, but they have little to do with the core of Christmas. I think it is for this reason that the anti-Christmas crowd has rushed in its anti-Christian fervor to suppress the holiday—because its real meaning is making a real difference in society the other 364 days out of the year.

The commercial-fed line on Christmas for many years has been “Peace on earth, good will towards men.” (Side thought: If the secularists are right and Christmas really is about “peace on earth and good will toward men,” yet they are trying to minimize or eliminate Christmas, then they have some ‘splainin to do.)

The words “peace on earth” come from the story of Jesus Christ’s birth in Luke 2:14. The problem is that only half the verse is quoted for holiday celebrations. The full verse actually reads: “Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth among men with whom God is pleased.” The first implication, and later what becomes direct statements in the New Testament is that God is not pleased with most men. The second implication is that God came to earth in the form of a man to do something about it.

Let’s drive this home more directly. Christmas, that is, the birth of Jesus Christ, is about three things:

1. The Incarnation: God became a man in Jesus Christ
2. The Humiliation: God experienced death as a man
3. The Exaltation: God experienced resurrection as a man

The fact is that there would be no Christmas without Easter. Easter gives Christmas it’s meaning. Without the death and resurrection of Jesus, what would his birth matter to us? His claim to incarnation would be nothing more than unproven words. If Jesus really is God in human flesh, if he really did suffer a humiliating death He could have prevented through the exercise of his deity, and if he really did rise from the dead never to die again, then Christmas is a lot more than “Peace on earth,” and a year-end boost for the economy. It is about the reason for His incarnation in the first place.

Christmas is about our sin.

Christmas (the real Christmas) is offensive to some because:

1. The incarnation of Jesus Christ points to man’s need for a Savior
2. The humiliation of Jesus Christ proves man is sinful and in need of a Savior
3. The exaltation of Jesus Christ proves the incarnation and requires submission to that Savior

As long as Christmas was regulated to gift-giving and good feelings, saying “Merry Christmas” wasn’t really a big deal. But as evangelicals have gained greater influence, so has the more important historical meaning of the Christmas season. That meaning is written clearly in the text of the Bible (which the same crowd wants kept out of schools). As the meaning of Christmas, and its year long relevance has become clearer so has the need for some to regulate any reference to it. If its meaning can’t be obscured, then it must be absconded.

I leave you with a passage from the Bible about Christmas. It is not a traditional passage about the Christmas season (I’m not much for tradition), but it is the passage that gives us the meaning of Christmas in what may be the plainest language. This passage not only explains the meaning of Christmas, but what is expected of us when we understand that meaning.

”Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Jesus Christ, who although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason God also highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the Glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:5-11 NASB)

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year—which is also another celebration of Jesus’ birth.

If there is group of people that might be described as “seekers,” then Buddhists must be high on the list. Buddhism, as a system, requires its adherent to be devoted to exploring a set of principles that will earn him or her an enlightened state that they hope will lead to the end of suffering—a noble and worthwhile goal. Those who explore the Buddhist path are taught concepts such as: The Middle Way, Samsara, The Four Noble Truths, and others.

Yet on a practical, day-to-day level, many Buddhists inwardly struggle. They feel spiritually empty, as if the practices they engage in provide some temporary satisfaction or guidance, but when over, the emptiness or futility remains. While they pursue the path they are taught the Buddha has lain out, they secretly wonder about the reality of the Buddha’s teachings. Being taught that they will experience many rebirths until finally reaching their objective, they cannot help but wonder, “Will this truly end my suffering? How can I know that what I am doing really works?”

For the next few weeks I want to explore together some key ideas in Buddhism. I attempt to compare Buddhist principles to the teachings of the Bible and Jesus Christ in hopes of helping the Buddhist seeker, discover a different kind of enlightenment—one that can be fully experienced and realized in this life, right now, without the need for what may seem like a tumultuous cycle of rebirth.

For the next few weeks we will very consider the Buddhist and Christian teachings on:

• The World Around Us
• The Seen and the Unseen
• The Middle Way and The High Way, and
• Experiencing Truth

Then I will present a short presentation called: Four Higher Truths, which will contrast the Buddha’s Four Noble Truths with a meaningful presentation of the Gospel. So let’s begin with our first installment.

The World Around Us

What is the nature of reality? How can we tell that what we experience is primarily an experience that comes from our own perceptions or is a part of true existence? If our reality is defined by our perceptions, how can we know when our perceptions give us accurate information about the world around us or even our own existence? If our perceptions of reality are problematic, then how do we address the even more important issues involving eternity?

To its credit, Buddhism tries to address the questions of reality and perception. Many Buddhists have found meaning and solace in Buddhist teachings (or debate) about the nature of the world around us. At first a person who is unfamiliar with Buddhist concepts may struggle. In fact, many Buddhists themselves struggle with these ideas. Whole schools of competing Buddhist thought have arisen to address the nature of reality.

For our purposes together, let us address the core of Buddhist ideas about the world around us:

• The evidence of reality presented to us by our senses is faulty. Human perception of the world is mistaken,(1)
• “Everything is part of an ultimate, impersonal ground of existence which is neither good nor evil,”(2)
• Good, evil, truth, and falsehood are mistaken perceptions (or conventions), which have no absolute meaning.

These ideas about reality are foundational to Buddhism’s attempt to address humanity’s ultimate problems. Let’s address these issues together and also discover how Jesus Christ addressed these issues in His teaching. First, let’s apply some common sense—and science—to the Buddhist teachings about reality and perception.

Sense & Senses

As I type these words I see them on my computer screen. By doing this I am making the assumption that you who are reading it are also seeing the same words that I typed. In fact I’m also assuming you have access to a computer, the Internet, can input a website address, find this page, and read this article. You are doing the same thing that thousands of people have done before you, and will after you. All of us share a common set of perceptions that allows us to have a certain degree of unity in our experience of writing and reading—or any other experience. Let’s call this our unity of perception.

Sight in an important part of our perceptive abilities. What we see can be pleasurable or frightening. It can foster longing or fear. What we see is also an important part of our learning process and contributes heavily to the assumptions we make together. And—together—is the point I’d like to make. If you sit in a group with a printed version and all read together from the page, you will all read the same thing. Your perception about what words are written, are the same. It is this unity of perception that encourages us that what we are reading really exists, and that by implication, it has a writer who also exists. The same may be said of the world. We have a unity of perception about the world around us. We do not all experience different realities generated by our minds like hallucinations—”self generated sensory experiences.”(3) Nor are our perceptions, illusions. “Cognitive illusions come about because the brain is full of prejudices: habits of thought, knee-jerk emotional reactions and automatic orders of perception.(4)

“Ah, but wait,” you might say. “Isn’t that part of what Buddhism refers to, cognitive prejudices, etc.?” In some ways, yes. But the idea that our perceptions create an illusion of what the nature of the world is like, must disregard the unity of perception that we all share. This leaves us with one of two choices: Humanity’s unity of perception is itself, illusionary, or our unity of perception provides evidence that our experiences and the world around us are real. Which is the case?

Saying that our perception of the shared unity of perception is illusionary is the same as saying our illusion is illusionary—i.e. our we do not experience illusion. It is self-defeating and leaves us only with our second option. Our perceptions are real. In fact, our perceptions are not only real, but our brains naturally anticipate the reality around us allowing us to experience it according to reality. Our brains know that what our senses deliver to it is real. “An act of perception is a lot more than capturing an act of incoming stimulus. It requires a form of expectation, of knowing what is about to confront us, and preparing for it. Without expectations, or constructs through which we perceive our world, our surroundings would be…confusion. Each experience would truly be a new one, rapidly overwhelming us.”(5) Where do those “constructs” come from? From the previous real-world experiences we have had!

This does not mean that we do not sometimes have faulty perceptions about the world around us, or our nature. In fact, the very thrust of the argument presented here is that Buddhism is a perceptive filter that presents an illusion about the nature of existence.

The Nature of Existence

If our perceptions about the world around us are faulty, and there is another truth underneath what we perceive, then, our perceptions about how to live in the world are also colored by our misperceptions. Could this be true? Let’s turn again to our unity of perception.

Everyone has some kind of concept of right and wrong, good and evil. We all share common perceptions, that there are certain things that are good, and certain things that are evil. Personal preference and culture permit varying degrees in our agreement over what is right and wrong. But the fact stands that there still remains the concept of good and evil, right and wrong.

According to Buddhist thought the issue of what is right and wrong is nothing more than a convention without absolute authority or substance. This teaching, in point of fact, leaves the adherent with the idea that what is good and evil cannot be ultimately defined since good and evil are illisionary. Let’s present it this way:

Is a belief in absolute good and evil, a right belief or a wrong belief?

If you are under the Buddhist way of thinking that last sentence is a trap in both its construct and its implication. For the Buddhist the question is unanswerable without causing a new set of philosophical problems. If you declare it a “wrong belief,” you are left with a moral dilemma. Under Buddhism, wrong beliefs or perceptions lead to suffering. If this wrong belief leads to suffering, then is not the belief itself evil (morally wrong and not just factually wrong)? Could it not be argued that Siddhartha perceptually recognized the existence of evil when he saw the sick man, poor man, beggar, and the corpse? He lamented the suffering of humanity because he recognized the evil of what he saw.

These arguments would seem to indicate the existence of evil, which would be a right belief, meaning that there is something more significantly wrong with humanity than perceptions, ignorance, and suffering.(6)

There is More Wrong with Us Than Our Ignorance

Buddhism has gotten something right about our existence. We do have a problem with perception. But according to Jesus Christ, our problem is not ignorance about the human condition. Our problem is denial.
Earlier I wrote about our “cognitive prejudices” that color our perceptions of the world around us, and our own nature. The earlier quote would seem to support the ideas of Buddhism, that our perceptions are a problem. If in fact we interpret everything around us through perceptual filters like greed, envy, jealousy, selfishness and so on, then we should ask the question: Where do these come from?

Jesus taught that such things come from within the human heart.

“The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil.”(7)

But who is an evil man? What constitutes a person who is evil?

During a conversation with a devoutly religious man, Jesus made a surprising statement. While asking about how to attain eternal life, a man called out to Jesus, calling him, “Good teacher.” Jesus responded:

“‘No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments, do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor your father and mother.’
‘And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.”
‘When Jesus heard this, He said to him, “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.’”(8)

Jesus had two criteria for evil. First, a person who is evil is a person who obeys evil. He or she is a person who engages in morally wrong thoughts, feelings, and actions. The commandments Jesus referred to were Laws given to Israel by God. Engaging in these behaviors, like all behaviors, starts from the heart or mind, and ends with the actual doing of the evil. A person who obeys evil is evil.

Second, Jesus provided a criteria for evil that was highly personal and surprising to the man who heard it.

“…and come, follow Me.”

Jesus regarded the person who willfully rejected him as evil. Why would He do this? Why did Jesus’ criteria for right and wrong have to be so relational?

Unlike Buddhism, which presents everything as an “impersonal ground of existence, which is neither good nor evil,” Jesus Christ presented himself as the ultimate standard of personal existence that is, inherently, good. He recognized that in order for man to deal with suffering, he had to deal with his relationships. Notice the commandments that Jesus mentioned. All are committed in relationship with, or to, another person. In fact, all evil is committed within the context of relationship. The same is true about good. There can be no good and no evil without relationship.

Under Buddhism the adherent attempts to either remove himself from the world through monasticism, or minimize his attachments. In other words, the devout Buddhist must minimize relationships. Yet doing so will not mitigate evil, because love is only expressed in relationships and only love can conqueror evil. Suffering is therefore, not the real problem for Buddhism, denial is.

Because Buddhism is a philosophy of the impersonal, it is only natural that it would deny concepts of good and evil beyond their use as mere conventions. Yet Jesus Christ defined good and evil only in terms of relationship—relationship to others and relationship to Himself. In Buddhism one does not have a relationship with the reality around him since his reality is considered to be an illusion of mistaken perceptions. In comparison, the Bible teaches us that we have not only a relationship with the world around us, but also the people in it, and the God who created it.

Our perceptions are real, and given to us by God so that we might “seek him with all our heart.”(9) If God has enabled us to seek Him, then surely He has given us the perceptive ability to recognize His reality.

---

1. Dalai Lama XIV, The Dalai Lama at Harvard, page 36.
2. M. Tsering, Jesus in a New Age, Dalai Lama World, page 153.
3. Rita Carter & Professor Christoper Frith, Mapping the Mind, page 127.
4. Ibid, page 131.
5. John J. Ratey, M.D., A User’s Guide to the Brain: Perception, Attention, and the Four Theaters of the Brain, page 56.
6. What if you argue that the belief itself is not right or wrong? Doing so would imply the nonexistence of the belief, and perhaps even the question. For an argument against such a point, read two paragraphs above. If in doubt, read it with a friend using unity of perception.
7. Matthew 12:35.
8. Luke 18:19-22.
9. Psalm 119:2.

Consider some of the most respected figures in religious or political history. Moses is revered by the Jews as their lawgiver. Yet Moses was a murderer. Mohammad is honored by 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide as a prophet. Yet Mohammad may have been a pedophile, having sex with a child bride when she was just nine years of age. Buddha is revered by more than 300 million Buddhists. Yet Buddhism’s founder abandoned his family without warning to search for enlightenment. Karl Marx is revered by atheists and communists. Yet Marx’s philosophies led to the murder of more than 30 million people in the 20th century.

Every great religious or philosophical figure has some dark, stained past that even their so-called good deeds later in life can never erase. The same is even true in Christianity.

Christians regard Paul as the greatest Apostle, and most of the New Testament was authored by him. Yet Paul was a man of cruelty bent on murdering Christians before he became one himself. King David is revered by Jew and Christian alike for his tender heart to toward God and his unswerving devotion to righteousness. God called David a man after his own heart. Yet David was also an adulterer, a murderer, a man even the scriptures call, “a man of war [who has] shed blood”

Jesus Christ is altogether different, wholly remarkable, and completely superior to these men. Unlike these significant figures of history, Jesus Christ lived without sin.

When his enemies publicly opposed him to draw the crowds away from Jesus, he challenged his detractors directly:

His enemies remained silent because none of them could produce any evidence for sin committed by Jesus. It was his sinlessness that made Jesus so powerful. While he had the natural authority that comes with being the Son of God; and while he had the authority that came with being a descendant of King David; and while he had the authority that came from being uniquely conceived and birthed; his sinless nature gave him a moral authority to speak, teach, and act, that no one else on earth possessed.

Even though Jesus was totally sinless, he did not use his position of absolute moral authority to condemn those who had sinned. Instead, he stood in their place, taking the punishment for the sin they deserved—the punishment that we deserve for our sin.

Jesus’ sinless life was not lived in a vacuum or in some useless state as one who meditates in a lonely dessert focused on their own spiritual self-condition. Jesus’ sinless life was lived in real life, with real relationships, in real hardships, like every other normal person—yet without ever having felt, said, or committed a single wrongful thing.

Jesus’ sinless life makes him superior to every other religious teacher and philosopher. In fact, his sinless existence makes him superior to every person, everywhere, at all times. There has never been anyone, and never will be anyone like Jesus Christ.

If Jesus’ life was lived in such a remarkable, supernatural fashion, then what Jesus said, and what he did on our behalf must also have great power. If other religious teachers and philosophers have flaws of character, human failings, weaknesses, and evil deeds to atone for, and yet we regard their teachings as important, then how much more important and superior should we regard Jesus Christ, who spoke, taught, and lived, and even died without sin.

Recently I’ve been developing a new series of Bible studies on Basic Christian Ethics for use with our Steppe-by-Steppe project and Ministry Production department. The studies I’m developing now will be used as the framework to create a 10-episode TV series that will begin airing in the fall season.

As I’ve been studying through a list of ten ethics, I’ve approached the series from what some might consider a rather unusual point of view (my usually unusual points of view notwithstanding). I have a number of titles in my library on ethical studies at various levels: Do the Right Thing, Francis J. Beckwith, Moral Choices, Scott B. Rae, How Now Shall We Live, Charles Colson, Ethics, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. There are others sitting on my shelves that touch on the subject on ethics, but for most there is a problem.

Most books and articles that touch on ethics as a subject for study deal with the theory of ethics, dividing ethics into various disciplines: Normative, Metaethics, Relativism, Objectivism, Minimalism, and the list goes on. There is actually a lot of good material written about ethics (to which I’m about to add, though not as eloquently as others). Though I confess to not seeing a lot of ethical behavior, even from my own countrymen. Such is the problem of human evil. “Be not hearers of the word only, but be doers of the word” (James 1:22).

The problem with most books on ethics is that they either don’t explore the source of ethics, or they assume ethics is something created by man for the purpose of managing his character or community. Here’s a good example:

“The concept of the normal is properly a variant of the concept of the good. It is that which society has approved. A normal action is one which falls well within the limits of expected behavior for a particular society. Its variability among different peoples is essentially a function of the variability of the behavior patterns that different societies have created for themselves, and can never be wholly divorced from a consideration of culturally institutionalized types of behavior.” – Journal of General Psychology 10, Ruth Beedict, “A Defense of Moral Relativism,” 1934).

That’s a whole lot of psychobabble that means nothing more than, “Societies create ethics through consensus.” Duh. Nothing really profound there, though I’m sure a lot of people pay thousands in tuition to have someone of educational authority lecture them on the obvious. It’s easy to say that ethical systems are formed by societal consensus. It’s also easy to say that the Bible teaches us about right and wrong. But what none of that does is inform us about the first source of ethics.

When I began working on the study guides for the ethics series I didn’t want to produce the usual diatribe about right and wrong, following a set of rules, or even the Mosaic Law – important though that is (and as much as I love diatribe). I wanted to go to the source of all ethics, and that meant going directly to God.

One of the greatest statements I’ve ever read about ethics was in the book, Answering Islam. Granted, the book is not about ethics, but it was what the authors said about the character of God that first got my attention about the source of ethics. In the book the authors discuss the Islamic concept of God’s will and that because God is “supreme will” he can will himself to do anything he wants. They note that in Islam…

“[Allah] does not do things because they are right; rather, they are right because he does them. In short, [Allah] is arbitrary about what is right and wrong. He does not have to do good. For example, God does not have to be merciful; he could be mean if he wanted to be. He does not have to be loving at all; he could be hate, if he chose to do so” (Emphasis mine. Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross, Normal L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Chapter 7: “An Evaluation of Islamic Monotheism,” pages 136-137).

Maybe you don’t think that’s particularly insightful, but I think it’s brilliant. What these men have essentially said is that the Bible reveals that God is good because he can’t be anything else but good. God can’t be bad because he is unable to be bad. God can’t sin because he doesn’t have the capacity to sin; God is limited by his own character. While Islamic theology is actually correct in saying that what is right is right because God does it, that same theology misses the mark by insisting that because God can do anything he wants he could make right wrong and wrong right. In the words of that esteemed theologian, Sherman T. Potter: “Horse hockey!” Or to twist the words of J.B. Phillips, “Your god is too big!”

The Bible’s idea is that God cannot change right and wrong because he cannot change himself – he is eternal. Therefore, the right that God does is always right and he cannot will wrong to be right, and he cannot will himself to do wrong.

This truth really transformed my thinking many years ago about my relationship with God. Like many Christians I used to wonder what might happen if I “sinned too much.” Though like many Christians I didn’t have a measurement for it until I came to God’s definition of too much sin: 1. It then occurred to me that God’s thoughts, feelings, and actions toward me would never change; his character won’t allow it. “God is not a man that he should lie, not a son of man that he should change his mind” (Numbers 23:19). “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).

It may seem like I’ve rabbit-trailed, but follow me up from the hole for a minute into the garden. In the words of Professor Wayne Grudem, “God is the final standard of good, and that all that God is and does is worthy of approval…if God himself is good and therefore the ultimate standard of good, then we have a definition of the meaning of ‘good,’ that will greatly help us in the study of ethics and aesthetics” (Systematic Theology, Chapter 12: “The Communicable Attributes of God,” page 197).

Bullseye.

The source of ethics, that is, the standard of ethical behavior is God himself. We can talk about concepts of right and wrong and conscience, but every system amounts to nothing more than a consensus of men. When it comes to the consensus of men two things are always unreliable and changing: consensus and men. God is unchanging. By looking to God and his character-driven acts as the standard for all that is ethical we are released from the bondage of systems and philosophies into the wonderful freedom that comes with a relation-driven ethic founded upon the character of the good, eternal, and unchangeable God. So it’s not about the Ten Commandments, it’s about the God out of whom the Ten Commandments came. Dietrich Bonhoeffer hits the point:

“To be simple is to fix one’s eye solely on the simple truth of God at a time when all concepts are being confused, distorted and turned upside-down. It is to be single-hearted, and not a man of two souls (James 1:8). Because the simple man knows God, because God is his, he clings to the commandments, the judgments and the mercies which come from God’s mouth every day afresh. Not fettered by principles, but bound by love for God, he has been set free from the problems and conflicts of ethical decision. They no longer oppress him. He belongs simply and solely to God and to the will of God. It is precisely because he looks only to God, without any sidelong glance at the world, that he is able to look at the reality of the world freely and without prejudice” (Ethics, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 1949).

I’m looking forward to completing my new series on ethics because my greatest joy is not in studying the laws, rules, or principles of right and wrong (as much as I love them), but because I’m being lead into an even deeper understanding of the character of Christ himself. “He is the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15), “the exact representation of his nature” (Hebrews 1:3), and “There is none good but God alone” (Luke 18:19).

One of the most popular charges leveled against the elect is that of judgmentalism. Because Christianity teaches from the Bible about the nature of sin, and declares that sin requires repentance, some, both unbelievers and even fellow Christians charge many Christians with being judgmental or condemning instead of loving as Christ did. Yet as we shall see from this study, there are times when obedience to Christ, and adherence to God’s word requires that a Christian exercise judgment for the purpose of condemnation in turn leading to the hope of repentance.

We shall see from this study that Jesus condemned sin and certain people; that the Apostles condemned sin and certain people, and that we are enjoined to condemn sin and certain people.

Condemning a Lack of Judgment
There are times when Jesus pronounced condemnation about societies or individuals. This fact is sadly overlooked by some who tend to slice up the Bible’s text to give preference to the “positive-feeling” passages instead of the whole text. There were some that Jesus condemned and urged to repentance, and there were some that He openly condemned and left in their condemnation. Many of these examples come from the book of the Bible that many perceive to be the most gentle or representative of love in all its text. Look at these harsh examples from the loving book of John:

• Jesus condemned religious leaders who rejected His testimony about Himself (John 8:21-24), stating directly, “You will die in your sins.”
• He declared that as part of His mission He had “much to judge” (John 8:26).
• Jesus called these same religious leaders sons of the devil (John 8:42-44).
• Jesus declared that He not only came to forgive, but “For judgment I came into this world” to make those who “see” to “become blind” (John 9:39).
• Jesus declared that those who do not receive his words (believe in the testimony He gave about Himself), that “The word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day (John 12:48).
• Jesus declared early in his ministry that “Whoever does not believe is condemned already” (John 3:18).

Jesus’ declarations of judgment were foundational to understanding the consequences of rejecting the testimony about His identity and what He requires of us. The same God who sent Jesus Christ is the same God who gave the Law of Moses and proclaimed grave consequences for disobedience to the Law of God (Deuteronomy 28:15-68). Just as one could not expect to reject the Law of God given through the agency of a mere man and not suffer consequences, so too one cannot expect to reject the testimony of the Lord Jesus Himself and escape even greater consequences (Hebrews 10:28-31). Even the Apostle Paul followed in Jesus’ footsteps in this regard, sometimes proclaiming harsh judgment against both believers and unbelievers in certain circumstances. Make no mistake, Jesus and the Apostles did not “condemn the sin but not the sinner.” In fact, they condemned the sinner because of their sin – and they did so openly:

• Two believers, Ananias and Sapphira were condemned by Peter for lying – and they died on the spot (Acts 5:1-11).
• The Apostle Paul condemned a man named Elymas calling him, “Son of the devil, full of all deceit and villainy” (Acts 13:4-12). Those were strong words of a clearly judgmental nature spoken to condemn.
• Paul ordered the church to harshly condemn sin within its midst, saying of a man committing incest, “I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing,” and “You are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh…” (I Corinthians 5:3-5). Thankfully this man repented, which is what the church’s condemnation in this case was designed to do (I Corinthians 5:5, II Corinthians 7:7-13).
• Paul openly condemned those who were leading the Galatians church astray, using the harshest language: “If anyone is preaching to you a Gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:9). To paraphrase this in modern language, Paul was literally saying, “If anyone is preaching to you a Gospel contrary to the one you received, let him go to hell.” That is personal condemnation.
• The Apostle Peter condemned false prophets and teachers – those who added to the Gospel or perverted its message, calling them “irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed” (II Peter 2:12). Peter dedicated a whole chapter in his letter to the condemnation of false teachers (I Peter 2).
• Jude (the brother of Jesus) also condemned false teachers inside the church saying that they were “Long ago designated for this condemnation” (Jude 4). The majority of his epistle is a letter of harsh judgment against those who pervert the doctrines of Christianity.

How do we then rectify these many examples (and there are many, many more) with Jesus’ words, “Judge not lest you be judged?” (Matthew 7:1) It would seem upon first glance that this is a glaring contradiction. In fact even many Christians take Matthew 7:1 as a guiding principle and use that to re-interpret the already offered examples to mean something different than that which the text so plainly and clearly says.

Are Christians not to judge? On the contrary, in fact Matthew 7:1, when taken in its full context, and other similar passages reveals that we are supposed to judge – but to do so with a “righteous judgment” (John 7:24).

Immediately after Jesus said, “Judge not lest you be judged,” He did two things:

• First, He illustrated His principle with a parable about hypocrisy in judgment, then secondly, in the same breath
• He called certain people “dogs” and “pigs” because they reject truth.

Calling people “dogs” and “pigs” wasn’t exactly nice or nonjudgmental. Jesus was in fact, strongly urging us to use sober and correct judgment. There was never a time when He urged anyone to refrain from making or declaring judgment. He simply taught that our judgment must be made upon right principles, and more importantly right behavior. The Apostle Paul did the same when he pronounced some of his harshest words in Romans 1:18-32 for idolaters, liars, homosexuals, murderers, gossips, etc. Immediately after declaring, “that those who practice such things deserve to die,” he went on in Romans 2:1-2 to condemn those who condemn such practices and commit the same sins themselves. Paul’s focus was on the hypocrisy of those who judge – not the exercise of judgment itself. But Paul himself, not guilty of the sins and people he condemned, had the moral authority to pronounce God’s already revealed judgment against such sin.

Mercy as an Act of Judgment
This brings us to the practice of judgment in light of mercy. Certainly Paul, Peter, Jude, and even Jesus were not primarily concerned with the judgment of people. While they condemned sin in the strongest terms – and even openly condemned certain people – their first acts of judgment were to demonstrate mercy. In fact, mercy is an act of judgment because judgment is not always negative. The scripture says all will appear before the judgment seat of Christ – including the righteous (II Corinthians 5:10).

Demonstrating mercy toward a sinner instead of condemnation reveals that an act of judgment (condemnation) has already taken place. Jesus taught this very directly when He told the Jewish teacher Nicodemus, “Whoever does not believe [in Jesus] is condemned already” (John 3:18). Just prior to this Jesus said, “For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world” (in other words: to condemn it again, as it was already under condemnation), “but in order that the world might be saved through Him” (John 3:17). Did you notice the order of events? God had already declared us to be sinful and damned. That judgment was final. Jesus’ role was to extend mercy by taking our condemnation on our behalf. He took our place. Judgment is therefore prerequisite to mercy. Mercy is not exercised upon the innocent, but the guilty!

In this sense also we see that God’s judgment is part of His expression of love. For He judged us rightly as people corrupted by sin worthy of death (Romans 3:23, 6:23). His response to our condemnation was not to leave us condemned, but to offer mercy (Romans 5:6-11) by taking our judgment upon Himself (I John 2:2). Yet for those who reject His mercy, only judgment awaits (Hebrews 10:26-27).

Jesus is the Model
There can be no doubt from the scripture that we are called upon to condemn sin and even at times to judge people – especially within the church (I Corinthians 5:12-13). Yet our first response to sin must always be that of Jesus Christ – mercy. “If you see your brother in sin,” the scripture says, “go and tell him his fault between you and him alone” (Matthew 18:15). Jesus lays out a process for dealing with sin that is designed to:

• Condemn sin,
• Avoid public embarrassment for the sinner, and
• Encourage repentance so that
• Mercy and forgiveness may be shown, so the
• Person doing the confronting can openly support the person being confronted.

In fact, any confrontation of sin that does not follow Jesus’ instruction and more importantly – His purpose of mercy, forgiveness, and support – is an act of sin itself (Romans 2:1-2). However, even though we are always to confront sin with the hopes of seeing repentance and forgiveness, there are some who will not receive it. Jesus condemned such people with the words, “Let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matthew 18:17).

Conclusion
To follow Christ we must follow all of His ways. To fulfill God’s plan of becoming like Jesus (Romans 8:29) we must imitate His instructions. Do you want to be faithful to the message of the Gospel and the love of Jesus? Then you must express God’s judgment. For without expressing God’s judgment, then you cannot express God’s mercy. The Gospel of Jesus Christ cannot be expressed apart from the condemnation of sin and the subsequent offer of mercy. Without understanding our sin, and our condemnation, then what reason do we have to accept mercy?

By understanding and expressing God’s judgment we come to a fuller appreciation for God’s grace (Ephesians 2:4-9). It is God’s mercy and grace that every sinner needs, and we receive it and give it through an act of judgment.

The execution of Saddam Hussein drove me back to the Bible. It was alarming to read the reaction of so many people to Saddam’s execution. Regardless of whether he was executed with “dignity,” or whether the men carrying out the deed were vengeful or politically contrary, none of it matters in the sense that in the end Saddam Hussein received the just penalty for his crimes. In fact, he technically received less than justice, which I explained in my commenterry, The Rightness of the Rope for Saddam Hussein.

Watching the reactions on the news, and reading through dozens of blogs from the Middle East to the Americas, you would think that Iraq had executed an innocent man. Of course most commentary was focused on the behavior of the hooded men, the political motivations and implications. But so what? So the masked-men were jerks and made Saddam’s last moments more bitter than he expected. In the words of Michelle Malkin, “Boo-freaking-hoo.” The behavior of Saddam’s hangmen doesn’t change the fundamental rightness of the penalty he received.

This is how it always is with sinful man. Sinful man, that is, the person who approaches the world from a view that is different from God’s, always protests God’s justice. In fact, sinful man often protests mercy as less than merciful – such as those who complained that Saddam Hussein wasn’t receiving humane enough treatment in prison, or didn’t get to talk to his monstrous daughter before receiving his rope-burn.

These issues drove me back to the Bible during the week of execution to re-examine the death penalty as a justice concept from the scriptures. I pulled out old Bible studies on justice and mercy, and decided to take a close look at the first death penalty recorded in the Bible, and the first capital crime. What I discovered in this go around gave me reason to pause and think carefully. The most important thing I came away with from this study was not about the death penalty, or God’s ideas about justice and mercy, rather, it was man’s reactions to God’s justice and mercy.

Murder & Mercy
Read: Genesis 4:1-16.
The Old Testament’s Mosaic Law prescribed the death penalty for certain crimes including premeditated murder, rape, incest, witchcraft, kidnapping, adultery, homosexual encounters, bestiality, violence against parents, blaspheme, and breaking the Sabbath – ouch. Yet the laws that spelled out this detail were not in place when the first murder was committed. In fact, the first murderer did not receive the death penalty.

Cain, the eldest son of Adam and Eve, murdered his brother Abel for no other reason than his jealousy of his relationship to God (4:4-5). For his premeditated murder of his younger brother, God exiled him (4:11-12). He did not receive the death penalty. It might be argued that God was still in the process populating the earth and this need prevented a death sentence from being handed down. Yet the scripture is clear that God did not “need” Cain to populate the earth as Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters after Cain and Abel (Genesis 5:4-5).

Upon confronting Cain about the murder of his brother, God’s first act was to attempt to draw out a confession from Cain. “The Lord said to Cain, ‘Where is Abel your brother?’” (4:9) Certainly God knew where Abel was – probably standing next to him! The question was nearly identical to the question He asked Adam in the garden after Adam ate the forbidden fruit, “Adam, where are you?” (3:9) This brings us to our first point:

• God’s preferred means of dealing with sin is to solicit confession for the purpose of demonstrating grace.

(Grace and mercy are different. Mercy is not receiving what is deserved. Grace is receiving more than we deserve, in good favor.)

When Eve sunk her teeth into the fruit God didn’t boom through the trees, “Get your lips off that!” Nor did He shout at Cain, “Murderer!” His first reaction in both cases was to try and coax a confession. In fact, throughout the Bible God’s first approach and requirement – even in the Mosaic Law – was to encourage confession, repentance, and restitution. When you think about it, we have a very crude (and often misused) form of this in our modern law – the plea bargain. In exchange for a confession a criminal may receive a reduced sentence.

In the Bible, when confession was not forthcoming things would become more difficult for the sinner.

The Mosaic Law required that the victim or victim’s family, under state supervision, execute a sentence of death. If God had applied this law to Cain, Adam and Eve would have had to execute their firstborn son. This was unlikely to happen, leaving only one person at the time that could carry out such a sentence – God (God did this once as we shall see later). Adam and Eve had already seen that God’s punishments could be severe (2:17), but it was also equally demonstrated that God’s practice of dealing with sin was merciful. Though God declared they would die if they ate the fruit, they did not immediately die – in fact they lived 10 times longer than we do! By allowing them to live God was also making preparation for the promised Savior – their descendant – who would atone for their sin and the sin of the world (3:15-16).

Cain followed in his father’s footsteps as a “tiller of the ground.” He brought sacrifices from what he harvested, however, his sacrifices did not please God (4:3-7). The scripture intimates that Cain did not bring the first fruits (best), but just a simple nondescript offering. This signified that Cain was first in Cain’s life.

His brother Abel did not follow in his father’s footsteps – he followed in God’s. Abel it seems, took his cues from God’s sacrifice of an animal to make coverings for Adam and Eve – he became a shepherd (3:20, 4:2). If scholar’s assumptions are correct and man did not eat meat at this time, then Abel’s profession had only one purpose – sacrificial worship. When Abel brought an offering, he brought God the best of his flock (first fruits), and the “fat portions.” This signified that God came first in Abel’s life. Interestingly, Cain brought offerings from a profession that was given to his father as the result of a curse. But Abel brought offerings from a profession that God modeled for redemption. This brings us to our second point:

• Sinful man always places his desires above God and above others.

Cain didn’t bring the first fruits he kept them for himself. Cain was jealous of his brother’s fortune with God, wanting to have God’s fortune to himself, but did not want his brother to have it. Yet Cain was also unwilling to do that which would give him God’s favor.

Adam and Eve received exile and a delayed death sentence. Cain the murderer only received exile. But there’s another interesting aspect to the difference in punishments between Adam, Eve, and Cain. Adam’s punishment was to have the ground cursed because of his sin (3:17-19). But Cain’s punishment was to be cursed from the ground (4:11).

Cain’s punishment denied him the ability to sustain his life, and draw fulfillment from it. Additionally, since he was “cursed from the ground,” we can assume that his days as a farmer were over. The very profession he used to bring his offerings from was now removed from him. This was God’s way of saying to Cain, there is no sacrifice for your sin. This is true because Cain showed no remorse, sorrow, or repentance for what he had done. Nor did Cain even feign to ask for forgiveness. Cain’s only response to God was not that he was sorry, but that God’s response to him was unjust. Look at what Cain said when he found out he was to be exiled instead of killed, “My punishment is greater than I can bear” (4:13). This brings us to our third point:

• Sinful man always views God’s justice as unjust, and often views God’s mercy as unjust.

The scripture also affirms this: “Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely” (Proverbs 28:5). By not exercising a sentence of immediate death God was giving Cain many more years of life to consider his sinful state so that he might eventually come to repentance. The New Testament echoes this concept in Romans 2:4, “God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance.” God granted a mercy to Cain that he did not deserve. Cain’s response was to protest both God’s justice and God’s mercy.

Cain also assumed a punishment for himself that God did not declare. He protested, “From your face I shall be hidden” (4:14). In fact God said no such thing. The punishment He gave was designed to lead Cain to repentance. All Cain had to do was recognize God’s unmerited favor toward him and respond. God’s face was not hidden from Cain. In fact, God was looking upon Cain with mercy in hopes that Cain would have a chance to see him face to face. Sadly, Cain rejected God’s kindness, signified when the writer says, “Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord” (4:16). God did not leave Cain; Cain left God. This brings us to our fourth point:

• Sinful man rejects God’s means of gaining His favor – repentance, obedience, and good character.

God already instructed Cain on how to gain his favor in 4:6-7. Instead of doing what God said to do to gain his favoring attention, he did the very thing that would gain God’s wrathful attention.

Cain’s error was the error of all sinful men who desire selfish benefit regardless of consequences. Sinful man rejects the notion of eternal consequences for their action. This is unlike the character of God who took the consequences of our actions upon Himself when Jesus Christ was crucified as a substitutionary sacrifice for our sins. God was the one who initiated the death penalty for certain crimes. And it was God the Son who received the penalty of death for the crimes we have committed. In fact, God even applied the principle of “life-for-life” to Himself, signifying that the death penalty, a life for a life, was a just principle.

Long after the days of Cain and Abel, God declared that the sin of man had become too great and that He would act to intentionally kill every living thing on earth. The scripture says:

“The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land” (Genesis 6:5-7).

This is the first time the Bible says that God would take direct action to kill men. God in His justice decided to carry out the just punishment for sin on a world that only pursued “evil continually.” Yet after the flood, when Noah and his family were released to repopulate the earth, God declared a new law, a law that foreshadowed the coming of Christ:

”Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (Genesis 9:6).

While God did not sin by subjecting the penalty of death upon sinful men (death, spiritually speaking, is a form of exile); He did give Noah a foreshadowing of what was to come. God had shed man’s blood in the deluge, and by man His blood – the blood of Jesus Christ – was to be shed.

The penalty of death for sin, especially the kind of gross sin where there is only evil continually, is a just penalty. At times men must suffer the penalty for their sin. But we can be thankful that for the chosen of God, those whom He has redeemed by His own sacrificial blood, that penalty of death is already paid.

The penalty of death sometimes suffered under secular law is a just penalty when prescribed for just reasons. God’s mercy does not negate the justice of the principle. And God did not prefer mercy over justice. He preferred both equally, which is why death is sometimes prescribed, and why the Son of God took that prescription for us. This is a stark contrast between the attitude of sinful man, who rejects God’s justice and mercy, and the righteous God, who embraced justice and mercy with outstretched arms on a cross.

One wonders why there are so many people in America who seem so offended at a simple greeting like, “Merry Christmas.” While talk show hosts rant about the “Attack on Christmas,” by big chain stores, school boards, and the ACLU, others wonder what in the world is so offensive about a seasonal greeting steeped in tradition like, “Peace on earth, good will towards men.” After all, we’ve been fed many lines over the decades that Christmas is about love, and family, and unity, and peace.

I suggest that our leftist friends have finally realized what Evangelicals have been saying all along – love and family and unity and peace are all well and good, but they have little to nothing to do with Christmas. I think it is for that reason that the anti-Christmas crowd has rushed in its anti-Christian fervor to suppress the holiday – because its real meaning is making a real difference in society the other 364 days out of the year.

The commercial-fed line on Christmas for many years has been “Peace on earth, good will towards men.” (Side thought: If the secularists are right and Christmas really is about “peace on earth and good will toward men,” yet they are trying to minimize or eliminate Christmas, then they have some explaining to do.)

The words “peace on earth” come from the story of Jesus Christ’s birth in Luke 2:14. The problem is that only half the verse is quoted. The full verse actually reads: “Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth among men with whom God is pleased.” The first implication, and later what becomes direct statements in the New Testament is that God is not pleased with most men. The second implication is that God came to earth in the form of a man to do something about it.

Let’s drive this home more directly. Christmas, that is, the birth of Jesus Christ, is about three things:

1. The Incarnation: God became a man in Jesus Christ
2. The Humiliation: God experienced death as a man
3. The Exaltation: God experienced resurrection as a man

The fact is that there would be no Christmas without Easter. Easter gives Christmas it’s meaning. Without the death and resurrection of Jesus, what would his birth matter to us? His claim to incarnation would be nothing more than unproven words. If Jesus really is God in human flesh, if he really did suffer a humiliating death He could have prevented through the exercise of his deity, and if he really did rise from the dead never to die again, then Christmas is a lot more than “Peace on earth,” and a year-end boost for the economy. It is about the reason for His incarnation in the first place.

Christmas is about our sin.

Christmas is offensive to some because:

1. The incarnation of Jesus Christ points to man’s need for a Savior
2. The humiliation of Jesus Christ proves man is sinful and in need of a Savior
3. The exaltation of Jesus Christ proves the incarnation and requires submission to that Savior

As long as Christmas was regulated to gift-giving and good feelings, saying “Merry Christmas” wasn’t really a big deal. But as Evangelicals have gained greater influence in the last 20 years, so has the more important historical meaning of the Christmas season. That meaning is written clearly in the text of the Bible (which the same crowd wants kept out of schools). As the meaning of Christmas, and its year long relevance has become clearer in American society, so has the need for some to regulate any reference to it. If its meaning can’t be obscured, then it must be absconded.

I leave you with a passage from the Bible about Christmas. It is not a traditional passage about the Christmas season, but it is the passage that gives us the meaning of Christmas in what may be the plainest language. This passage not only explains the meaning of Christmas, but what is expected of us when we understand that meaning.

”Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Jesus Christ, who although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason God also highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the Glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:5-11 NASB)

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year – which is also another celebration of Jesus’ birth.

I finally got around to reading the USAID’s report, Mongolia: Trends in Corruption Attitudes. Here are a few tidbits from the report:

• 90 percent of the public reports that corruption is common
• The higher the income the greater the reported inclination and incidence of bribe paying
• Respondents claiming that some corruption is acceptable increased from 14.3 percent to 19.5 percent – almost one-fourth of the population.
• Those who make more money have a greater inclination to pay bribes
• Teachers, doctors, and civil administrators are the top three recipients of bribes, with bribes to teachers making up 39.3 percent of reported incidents

The USAID report helps put some concrete to what was already known – Mongolia is a society steeped in corruption. The report helps to shatter at least one myth about corruption, and also sets off a loud alarm about Mongolia’s future.

First, there is a long-held myth that corruption, or the need to engage in corruption is primarily facilitated by poverty (or in the worldview of some: suffering). Low income and high unemployment, it is thought, are the primary motivator for bribe-paying and taking. Yet the report would seem to indicate something more sinister. According to the report, when it comes to recognizing corruption in its various forms, Mongolia citizens know what they are facing. “Not surprisingly, the higher the income and the better the education, the greater the awareness. And as unsurprisingly, the higher the income the greater the reported inclination and incidence of bribe paying” (“Awareness and Understanding,,” Page 2). It might be argued that it is only natural for those with higher income to pay more bribes because they are more often targeted as having more money. Yet the report also indicates quite clearly those who have a higher standard of living also have, “The higher the inclination to pay a bribe to overcome regulation and bureaucracy, and to accept corruption” (Ibid, Emphasis mine). The fact of the matter is that according to the report, nearly 20 percent of the population views “some degree of corruption” as “acceptable.”

Rising income, status, and quality of life, it seems, have not done anything to stem the tide of corruption. One would think that if poverty or suffering facilitated corruption that getting out of poverty would weaken or eliminate it. The trends show otherwise. Poverty and suffering are not the cause of the corruption problem. It’s more basic than that, which I will address shortly.

Second, it is hard to see how Mongolia will be able to successfully battle corruption when those who hold the responsibility for raising, nurturing, and protecting the next generation routinely practice it. When westerners living in the west think of corruption they usually think of government agencies, elected officials, etc. And while Mongolians also think of such people as synonymous with corruption, on a practical day-to-day level they report having to pay bribes most often to teachers (39.3%), doctors (37.6%), government clerks (34.1%), and policemen (22.7%) in that order. If teachers who are training our children are among the most corrupt, then what can be expected of the next generation? Worse yet, Mongolians report paying bribes to teachers because they have “no choice.” Don’t pay the bribe and your kid will be flunked, or suffer other setbacks. If teachers are giving parents “no choice” but to pay bribes like a form of educational protection money, then one can’t help but wonder what kids are learning from these same corrupt educators.

Mongolians face a two-fold problem. They are vulnerable to the most corrupt who hold the power of the services they so desperately need, but they also give corruption a free pass, with an increasing number of people believing that corruption in some form is “acceptable.” Add to this that greater affluence does nothing to solve corruption, but only presents more opportunities to exercise corruption’s evil, and you wind up with a society so steeped in corruption that only something radical has any hope of changing the status quo. Some thought that passage of Mongolia’s new anti-corruption laws would make a dent, but the statistics indicate otherwise.

A friend of mine regularly repeats a rule he applies to his business: “You can never make a good deal with a bad person, and you can never make a bad deal with a good person.” How simple, and how true! Good people, that is, people with good character do not need a set of rules or guidelines to enable good behavior. And rules and guidelines won’t necessarily prevent bad behavior (though they can have a helpful restraining influence). No one ever had to pass a law to prevent a good man from doing the right thing.

Mongolia’s efforts at implementing anti-corruption legislation are good. A good law is like a dog, it needs a set of sharp teeth. But if the person holding the leash lacks good character, the law can often be unleashed with bad results. Worse yet, it may simply be left in a cage.

Mongolian society has primarily been informed by the worldviews of Atheism and Buddhism; but they don’t seem to be able to affect the kind of character in society that makes corruption a source of personal shame. If these worldviews actually had that ability, then one would expect with such a long history here that corruption’s acceptability would not be on the rise. The same is true in other nations primarily informed by these worldviews.

The Scriptures regard corruption as sin – a moral problem. This means that corruption happens first and foremost because the heart of man is naturally corrupt and wicked. We have a natural propensity to want to do the wrong thing – especially if we think we will benefit from it. The affluent and the common are equally corrupt, though the corruption of the affluent tends to have wider and deeper effects. Since we are all corrupt people, societal corruption cannot be finally solved with the band-aids of new regulations and punishments. They can help put up a few roadblocks, but they can’t prevent the driver from looking for a new route. They cannot solve the problem. Corruption can only be solved when people make a personal decision that corruption is so morally offensive that they will not participate in it at any cost. When we view corruption as personally offensive and destructive to personal character, then we will take pains to avoid it and consistently condemn it in deeds as well as words instead of the situation we have now – excusing it and finally accepting it as so much of Mongolian society seems to have done.