RBV: Matthew 24:12

"And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold."

—Matthew 24:12

That this verse "randomly" came up in the random verse generator seems none too coincidental today. Yesterday saw the senseless massacre of twenty kindergarten children an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, plus six other adults. A day later, we still have not been informed of the shooter's motives, although we have been told that he was "troubled" and perhaps "autistic" and "weird." His grade school classmates and neighbors are not surprised at all that his life ended this way. He seems to have been a time-bomb just waiting to go off.

Obviously, his actions in killing so many people--and children especially—show no love at all. One would have to be "cold," without feeling, to do such a thing. It brings up another verse, II Timothy 3:2, where the apostle Paul prophesies that the last days would be dangerous because "men will be lovers of themselves," and in verse 3, "without self-control, brutal." It seems we are seeing this prophecy fulfilled in ever-greater frequency, as people seem to have less and less compunction about terrorizing and taking the lives of their fellow human beings. Under the grip of a merciless narcissism, many are losing their humanity.

Even so, Matthew 24:12 is not speaking about such people; it is not addressed to the people in the world at large but directly to Jesus' disciples and their spiritual descendants. How do we know this? Jesus uses the word agape for the love that grows cold. Such spiritual love, godly love, is unattainable by those driven by the spirit of this world. This agape love—the love of God—is the kind that is "poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit [which] was given to us" (Romans 5:5). Jesus, then, is warning His church that the wickedness of the world will increase to such an extent that it would sap the spiritual heat out of His own people, causing their love to grow cold.

This has two major ramifications: 1) People in God's church will love Him less, and 2) they will love each other less. These are the two recipients of godly love. We will see the effects of this drop in the temperature of our love in reduced time and respect for God and in deteriorating relationships between brethren. We will ease off in our prayer and study, relax our formality before God, and behave carelessly ("sin in haste and repent at leisure"), assuming that He will forgive us our every trespass. Yet, we will gossip about our church friends, take advantage of their kindness and forgiveness, betray them when convenient, and judge them mercilessly even for their most minor faults. None of these things express godly love; they all portray love growing cold.

Late in his life, the apostle John wrote almost exclusively about agape love. Most of his audience probably thought it was an obsession with him, and they likely turned a deaf ear to him, complaining that the old man was ranting about his pet subject again. But perhaps John remembered hearing these words from Jesus' lips decades before and realized that love was what the church needed to be reminded about. "This is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another" (I John 3:11). "If someone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?" (I John 4:20).

Clearly, he saw the practice of godly love in the church as critical to those living in his day. How much more critical is it to those of us who live so much nearer to the horrors of the end time and the return of Jesus Christ? The horror of the murders in Newtown, Connecticut, should remind us that we need to stoke the fires of God's love as we see the Day swiftly approaching.

What Is Real Conversion? (Part Six)

We have learned that conversion is primarily a process, a transformation of a Christian's nature from human and carnal to godly and spiritual. Much of conversion occurs in the mind, putting off selfish, sinful beliefs, inclinations, and approaches and putting on their holy and righteous counterparts. However, the life of a human being—Christian or not—is not played out solely in the mind; what people think and believe manifests itself in words and deeds. Conversion, then, must also play out in changed behavior, the fruit of God's Spirit accomplishing its miraculous work in us.

The first-century Corinthians provide a negative example from which we can learn. Immediately after the apostle Paul declares that Christians "have the mind of Christ" (I Corinthians 2:16), he informs the Corinthians, "And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. . . . [F]or you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?" (I Corinthians 3:1, 3). Despite their having become Christians through baptism and the laying on of hands, these Corinthians had retained their pre-conversion natures. How do we know this? It exposed itself in their carnal behavior! As Paul says, they were acting just like other people who had not received God's grace.

Their conversion had never really left the starting gate because they had failed to continue in the process of spiritual transformation. The author of Hebrews explains what must occur:

For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Hebrews 5:12-14)

Conversion, then, is the process of exercising our senses, not the five senses, but the mental and spiritual faculties of reason, understanding, and judgment. If we are not making judgments about events that are happening in our homes, in our communities, in our workplaces—if we are not determining whether they are right or wrong, and if we are not endeavoring to correct those that are wrong, then we are failing in our conversion. We are, in fact, in danger of neglecting our salvation and drifting away.

The writer, however, is not finished with his instruction. In the next chapter, he shows them what they need to do:

We are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things that accompany salvation, though we speak in this manner. For God is not unjust to forget your work and labor of love which you have shown toward His name, in that you have ministered to the saints, and do minister. And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope until the end, that you do not become sluggish, but imitate those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. (Hebrews 6:9-12)

Notice what he encourages them to do: to show diligence, that is, "earnestness," "zeal," "deep commitment with eagerness." He advises them to dedicate their lives to this spiritual transformation and to stick with it to the end, as this is what those who will inherit the promises do. In other words, they need to launch zealously into a campaign of regaining all their lost ground. As he implies, Christianity is not a religion for the lazy.

The apostle Peter says much the same thing in II Peter 1:2-8:

Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue. By which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. For if these things are yours and abound you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

He mentions that, since the Father and Christ have given us so much—even allowing us to share in God's nature—we should strive to add to our faith. Just believing that God is and that He has forgiven our sins is not enough (James 2:19). Among other things, we must grow in these qualities: virtue, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love. If we work to instill these godly attributes into our characters, we will be producing the kind of fruit that God wants to see in us (John 15:1-8).

Peter concludes his instruction in verses 10-11: "Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Spiritual growth and producing fruit are what makes our calling sure. Our maturity as Christians is based upon us zealously, diligently working to move our conversion along.

What is real conversion? It is the transformation of our characters, our intellects, our emotions, our actions, our words, our very thoughts, from the evil way inspired by Satan and man's carnal nature into the divine nature—the very nature of God Himself!

So, how much like God are we? How straight and true is our trajectory to putting on the image of Christ (Romans 8:29)? How much of the old man have we put off, and how much of the new man have we put on (Colossians 3:9-10)? Are we growing in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ (II Peter 3:18)? Are we cooperating with God in being transformed to His image (Romans 12:2)? Are we making becoming more like Christ a daily goal (Luke 9:23)?

Though the Corinthians had their problems with carnality—as we all do—they worked to overcome them and began growing. Paul's final words to them in his second epistle should give us encouragement as we "work out [our] own salvation" (Philippians 2:12): "Finally, brethren, farewell. Become complete. Be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you. . . .The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all" (II Corinthians 13:11, 14).

Liberal Lion or Liberal Lyin'?

With the death of longtime Massachusetts Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy this past week, the American people are provided another "teachable moment" in this summer of teachable moments. According to the mainstream media, with the exception of a few courageous pundits on Fox News, Kennedy was "the Lion of the Senate," a shaggy but noble figure whose very presence in the world's most exclusive club brought progress and bipartisanship to an otherwise unruly and divided collection of decidedly lesser beings. Whatever the measure before the Senate, he could forge an alliance with a colleague across the aisle and craft a compromise bill that made both sides giddy with feelings of accomplishment and victory.

Okay, time to wake up from our trip to Fantasyland.

Granted, Kennedy was by all accounts an affable, likable fellow in public and private and certainly toward those who shared his liberal vision. It is also true that he spent 47 years in the Senate making deals with moderate or liberal Republican Senators to push through legislation that incrementally accomplished his goals. Finally, it is difficult to find even political enemies of his who will speak disparagingly of him as a person, especially now that he is dead. Evidently, despite his money, power, position, and "Kennedy aura," he was a jovial, amiable man.

Yet, here is the teachable moment: Notwithstanding the charming veneer, Ted Kennedy was not a good man, and his politics were not beneficial for the United States. All of this begs the question: Why are Americans constantly duped by well-dressed, well-spoken snake-oil salesmen posing as concerned advocates for needed progress? From Franklin Delano Roosevelt to John F. Kennedy to Jimmy Carter to Bill Clinton and now to Barack Obama, Americans seem to love liberals who promise utopia yet produce only more government control and spend more of our money.

In spite of the mainstream media's self-imposed silence on the matter, Ted Kennedy's sins are well-known. His appetites for alcohol and women are legendary. The most notorious incident of his life occurred in July 1969 on Chappaquiddick Island. Young Mary Jo Kopechne died in a fathom of water under Dike Bridge, after the first-term Senator, who was married, panicked and left the overturned, submerged car in which they had been driving home from a party. Kennedy later returned with two friends to rescue her, but he never reported the accident to authorities. The car was pulled from the water the following morning and identified as his, whereupon he gave a statement to the police.

He later pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury. The judge gave him a suspended two-month sentence, and his license was suspended for about sixteen months. At the inquest, requested to be held secretly by Kennedy-family lawyers, the presiding judge found that Kennedy had been negligent, but the district attorney decided not to pursue manslaughter charges against him. The next year, Kennedy was reelected to his seat, receiving 62% of the vote.

His actions at Chappaquiddick affected the lives of only a small number of people, but his numerous political actions throughout his Senate career involved millions of Americans. His first major piece of legislation was the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, the law that in essence opened the floodgates to millions of illegal aliens, producing the immigration fiasco this country now faces. About it, Kennedy declaimed on the floor of the Senate:

First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. . . . Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. . . . Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia. . . . In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think. . . . The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.

In fact, the critics were correct, as subsequent events have proved.

He is also known for his devastating, Senate-floor attack on Judge Robert Bork, only minutes after his nomination to the Supreme Court was announced by then-President Ronald Reagan. Judge Bork is a highly intelligent, civilized, even witty man, but one would think he was nothing short of Hitlerian after hearing Kennedy's scathing verbal assault:

Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.

In this spirit, he and other Senators engaged in an unprecedented offensive to scuttle Bork's nomination, an action that has become a recognized verb, "to bork." Judge Bork has since written that Kennedy later said it was "nothing personal," but as vicious as the attack was, that is hardly likely.

Lastly, the present healthcare reform legislation is as much the product of his mind and ambitions as anyone's. With his death, Democrats are seriously considering placing his name on the bill, changing it from the wounded "Obamacare" to "Kennedycare," a more sympathetic moniker. No matter what it will ultimately be called, it will still be horribly damaging to American freedom, the healthcare system, and the free-market economy.

Which bring us back to the "teachable moment." How long have we known and repeated the old saying, "Don't judge a book by its cover?" It is clear that, as a nation, we have not learned the lesson. Have we in God's church learned it? Can we tell a good man from a bad one? Can we discern a servant of God from a servant of Satan? Can we tell the difference between true, godly love and human nature's counterfeit? Remember Paul's command in I Thessalonians 5:21: "Test all things; hold fast what is good."

The Face of Identity Politics

This week, the country witnessed the heavily televised confirmation hearings on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Besides the rather galling partisan support (read: fawning infatuation) that she received from the majority Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee before whom she appeared, the "wise Latina" from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, obviously intently coached by the Obama administration, deflected and sidestepped most questions concerning her controversial statements, rulings, and associations. While she in no way did this deftly—her comments and answers were often rambling and occasionally non-sequiturs—she did it well enough to avoid causing any fatal harm to her nomination.

However, her answers were disingenuous at the very least. Commenting on Sotomayor's second-day testimony, Georgetown law professor Mike Seidman, an avowed liberal, said: "I was completely disgusted by Judge Sotomayor's testimony today. If she was not perjuring herself, she is intellectually unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she was perjuring herself, she is morally unqualified." In this instance, he was reacting to one of her answers that obviously contradicted a core belief and practice, that a judge cannot just simply apply the law to the facts of a case—in other words, that a judge must use his or her beliefs, background, and presuppositions to come to a conclusion on a matter. In essence, this is the "empathy" argument that has been so hotly debated since Obama announced her nomination. She went so far in her denial as to say, "I wouldn't approach the issue of judging in the way the President does."

Even early supporters like the Washington Post's Eva Rodrigues wrote: "I'm surprised and disturbed by how many times today Sonia Sotomayor has backed off of or provided less-than-convincing explanations for some of her more controversial speeches about the role of gender and ethnicity in judicial decision-making." She even claimed that she had never read—more, was unaware of—the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund legal arguments in Ricci v. DeStefano, otherwise known as the New Haven, Connecticut, firefighters case. From 1980 to 1992, Sotomayor sat on the board of directors of this nonprofit law group, where she was a top policy maker. Since she had herself ruled on the case—and was later overturned by the Supreme Court—it is almost impossible to believe that she was unaware of what her former organization had argued about it.

This particular case has become the poster child, as it were, for the brand of political and judicial activism that Sonia Sotomayor endorses and practices: identity politics. The case involved a test given to firefighters who wished to be promoted. As it turned out, only whites and one Hispanic achieved the required grades to earn promotion, so New Haven's powers that be decided not to certify the results, claiming that the test was unfair to blacks and other minorities. The lawsuit, by the firemen who passed the test, claimed that New Haven had discriminated against them racially—what is commonly called reverse racism. Sotomayor, along with a small panel of other Second Circuit judges, upheld a lower court ruling that found for the city. Her ruling is one among many in which she decisively favors minorities regardless of the merits of the case.

In another case, Gant v. Wallingford Board of Education (1999), the parents of a black student sued, claiming that their son had been harassed due to his race and that the school had discriminated against him by demoting him from first grade to kindergarten without their consent. The parents maintained that white students in the same situation were treated differently. Due to the lack of evidence of harassment, Sotomayor was forced to agree with the dismissal of that claim, but wrote that she would have allowed the discrimination claim to go forward because the grade-demotion was "contrary to the school's established policies." This, she said in her dissent, along with the school's typical treatment of white students, "supports the inference that race discrimination played a role."

In testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, columnist Linda Chavez urged the Senators not to confirm Sotomayor, saying, "It is clear from her record that she has drunk deep from the well of identity politics." Later in her testimony, she said:

Judge Sotomayor's offensive words [the "wise Latina" statements] are a reflection of her much greater body of work as an ethnic activist and judge. Identity politics is at the core of who this woman is. And let me be clear here, I am not talking about the understandable pride in one's ancestry or ethnic roots, which is both common and natural in a country as diverse and pluralistic as ours. Identity politics involves a sense of grievance against the majority, a feeling that racism permeates American society and its institutions, and the belief that members of one's own group are victims in a perpetual power struggle with the majority.

Chavez went on to cite many instances of Sotomayor's involvement in identity politics, from her undergraduate days to her time with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund and to her well-known views that the death penalty and English-language requirements are racist. She concluded her remarks with:

Although she has attempted this week to back away from her own words—and has accused her critics of taking them out of context—the record is clear: Identity politics is at the core of Judge Sotomayor's self-definition. It has guided her involvement in advocacy groups, been the topic of much of her public writing and speeches, and influenced her interpretation of law.

There is no reason to believe that her elevation to the Supreme Court will temper this inclination, and much reason to fear that it will play an important role in how she approaches the cases that will come before her if she is confirmed.

The U.S. Constitution, along with its amendments, is a document that recognizes certain rights as granted to Americans regardless of race, origin, religion, creed, gender, and social station. Although it has been used as one, it is not a club by which minorities can beat concessions out of the majority. In both its wording and its intent, every citizen is supposed to receive equal treatment under the law. And the nation's judges all the way up to the Supreme Court are to rule under this principle, taken directly from the Bible:

Hear the cases between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the stranger who is with him. You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small as well as the great; you shall not be afraid in any man's presence, for the judgment is God's. (Deuteronomy 1:16-17, emphasis ours)

It is curious that this "wise Latina" cannot understand that, if she fought for impartiality, we would truly have a "color-blind" society, the purported goal of intellectual progressives for decades. Yet, it is naïve to say so, since that is not what they want at all; they want power, not equality. And Sotomayor, the new face of identity politics, will now be in a position to wield it.

The Sermon

A reading of some of the modern literature about Jesus Christ and His ministry gives the impression that He was some sort of itinerant Jewish peasant, wandering aimlessly about the hills of Judea and Galilee, stopping to preach whenever a crowd of any size formed to listen. One imagines a scruffy and unkempt band of men seated on a hillside and the white-robed rabbi Jesus standing above them on a rock, speaking to a smattering of equally ragged people down the slope. From the looks of them, a collection plate passed among them would gather nary a farthing!

A close reading of Scripture, however, paints a different picture. Jesus' "wanderings," for example, are not haphazard but calculated itineraries. He goes where crowds are already formed—at festivals, in markets and synagogues, at the Temple on the Sabbath, etc. Moreover, Judas carries a money box (John 12:6), and it collected enough coin to entice him to steal from it. Luke 8:2-3 says that many women supported Jesus, and at least one of them had links to the moneyed classes. This is not to say that Jesus lived like a modern televangelist, but He was in no way destitute.

In addition, at times in His ministry, Jesus is followed by "great multitudes" of people from every rank of society and every nearby region. He comes in contact with Roman centurions, aristocrats, merchants, lawyers, religious leaders, Greeks, Sidonians, as well as the common fishermen, farmers, craftsmen, lepers, and tax collectors (many of which were fabulously wealthy). Jesus helps and preaches to them all.

In His famous Sermon on the Mount, we see what Jesus preached to them. This extended oration is found only in Matthew 5-7 and in a more truncated form in Luke 6. There are enough differences between the two passages to conclude that they may be accounts of different sermons. For instance, Matthew 5:1 says the Sermon took place when Jesus and His disciples "went up on a mountain." Luke 6:17, however, describes Jesus coming down with His disciples to "a level place" to speak before "a great multitude of people."

Perhaps what we call the "Sermon on the Mount" is the core of what He said many times and in different locales throughout His ministry. In fact, a quick scan of Mark and Luke reveals that sections of what Matthew includes in the Sermon are scattered throughout their narratives. From this evidence, some scholars believe that the Sermon on the Mount never actually happened as reported in Matthew's gospel, but that Matthew simply gathered snippets of Jesus' various teachings into a neat, easily digested package.

However, like the parables of Matthew 13 and the Olivet Prophecy of Matthew 24, the apostle presents the Sermon as private teaching to the disciples. It is logical to believe that Jesus would give extended, detailed instruction to His disciples in a straightforward, unbroken manner as He does in the Sermon on the Mount. Later, He would preach on the same things to sundry audiences in different places, when circumstances might dictate the subjects He addressed. The differences between Matthew's and Luke's versions of the Sermon follow their differing audiences and purposes in writing their gospels.

Matthew's version is better organized, being divided into several major sections. It begins with the famous beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12), a list of eight character traits that please God and bring great satisfaction and reward to the disciple who demonstrates them. It has been said that Jesus opens up with an unmatched salvo of godly standards of character—the righteous attitudes of those who will enter the Kingdom of God.

The beatitudes are followed by a short passage on the disciple's responsibility to be a witness for God (Matthew 5:13-16). A disciple must not only believe what God says, but he must also openly practice it in his life. Others, seeing God's way of life in action in a fellow human being, may be attracted to it and give God glory by believing and living it as well.

Verse 17 through the end of the chapter contains an explanation of God's law that most nominal Christians fail to understand. Jesus proclaims immediately that He did not come to destroy God's law but to fulfill it, meaning not to keep it completely in our stead, but to show by His example how it applies to the Christian life. Jesus' life is the perfect model of the law of God in action. The ensuing examples that He provides show how, for a Christian, the application of the law goes beyond the mere letter to the spiritual intents and principles of the law. These illustrations explain how a Christian's righteousness is to exceed that of the Pharisees', whose keeping of the law never went beyond its face value. Jesus concludes the section with an exhortation to His disciples to become "perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." A high standard indeed!

Matthew 6 elucidates Jesus' positions on various religious works: charitable deeds (verses 1-4), prayer (verses 5-15), and fasting (verses 16-18). In His treatment of each subtopic, He emphasizes that each act is private and personal, something to be seen only by the doer and God Himself. The Christian religion, then, is not to be a matter of hypocritical public recognition—as Pharisaic practice had devolved to—but of humble private practice. In the lengthy passage on prayer, He instructs the disciple in how to approach God with reverent familiarity, as one would a beloved father.

The next section, Matthew 6:19-34, concentrates on the place of money and possessions in the Christian life. Jesus' disciples are not to worry about their sustenance, for God loves us and will take care of us. Instead, we are to focus on the Kingdom of God and becoming righteous. If our goal is clear before us and we do not waver from it, we will stay safely on the right path.

Chapter 7 is comprised of six pearls of wisdom that a Christian needs to master in his walk with God, all of which center on the subject of judgment. They cover such areas as hypocrisy, persistence in seeking God and His good things, walking the straight and narrow path revealed only through Christ, avoiding false teachers and their lies, discerning true Christians from false ones, and building a stable and enduring life on God's truth. A Christian who makes these points part of his daily life will be able to handle the inevitable vicissitudes and trials of life.

The Sermon on the Mount is a Christian manifesto par excellence. A person who takes it as his or her own and follows its dictates will be a son or daughter in whom God is well pleased.

Evaluating Culture

Listen (RealAudio)

In listening to a series of 48 lectures by University of California at Berkeley Professor Robert Greenberg titled "How to Listen to and Understand Great Music" (one of the Great Courses offered by The Teaching Company), I have come to a greater realization of the evolving tastes among consumers of Western music. We ignorantly call all orchestral music "classical," when in fact there are a handful of long periods in which such music took quite different forms, for instance, Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, etc. It does not take a specially trained ear to distinguish the differences between works from these periods. A Bach fugue sounds nothing like a Chopin mazurka.

As one would expect, between eras were transition periods of varying lengths due to the fact that audiences took time to accept new forms. Younger composers, feeling constrained by the strictures of their elders, experimented with new, then-cutting-edge musical styles, and when their works premiered, the critics and most of their audiences were aghast at their progressive, offensive music. Such was the reaction to what are now much-loved favorites as Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, Berlioz's First Symphony (Fantastíque), and Brahms' First Symphony. These three masters were criticized roundly for their "grotesque" and "incomprehensible" themes. Even the universally admired Haydn incurred the wrath of the public and critics when his "Surprise" Symphony was too startling for his audience. To us, the "surprise" is just a loud, sudden chord, but to the audience of his day, it was as shocking as the jarring clatter of a jackhammer.

We would probably have a similar reaction at the cinema if we had bought a ticket to see Bambi, were comfortably ensconced in our seats, bag of popcorn and drink in hand, and suddenly were assaulted by the opening blare of a Star Wars movie. If our tastes had been trained to enjoy benign, pastoral, gentle films like Benji or Black Beauty, the dynamics and themes of a dramatic space adventure—not to mention the brassy music—would be jolting and uncomfortable. We might learn to enjoy it over time, but our initial reaction would be negative.

Literature has suffered similar periods of great change, in which venerable authors—from our point of view—broke new ground and faced vilification for it. Even today, Mark Twain is excoriated for his realistic portrayal of relations between whites and blacks in Huckleberry Finn. William Wordsworth's poetry was considered by some to be essentially unreadable when first published. Edgar Allen Poe's works, most of them macabre, were—in some cases, literally—on the bleeding-edge of acceptability during his lifetime. Several great works of literature (by esteemed authors like Geoffrey Chaucer, James Joyce, Daniel Defoe, Thomas Hardy, Voltaire—even Hans Christian Andersen!), thought to be tame by modern standards, were condemned as obscene when they first went on sale.

However, things changed drastically in the twentieth century, especially after World War I. Artistic standards began to stretch beyond the suggestive to the explicit, and not just in sexual terms. While there had always been composers, authors, and graphic artists who strayed into pornographic, occult, or other taboo areas, their works had remained essentially private, for society as a whole maintained respectable limits on what it considered to be proper. Yet, after the First World War, these limits began to crumble in one area after another until today, when anything goes. While society still uses ratings of one sort or another to inform the public about artistic content, there are few societal impediments to restrict either their creation or consumption. Really, how vigilant is the local theater in keeping young teens from seeing R-rated movies? Or the local merchant in keeping them from buying M-rated video games?

In the end, the answer to this problem of down-spiraling artistic and cultural standards is a spiritual one, of course. The prevalent philosophy in the Western world—one that has been dominant since at least the Enlightenment—is humanistic liberalism. This is the intersection of two major ideas: 1) that man is the center and height of all that is, and 2) all men should be free to do as their conscience dictates. From this, it is easy to trace a direct line to today's general consensus that there are no real absolutes, so each person is free to believe and do whatever satisfies him.

This obviously flies in the face of biblical morality. These two philosophies are incompatible, and thus the more pleasing to mankind's nature has become dominant, leaving God's standards behind as "outmoded," "archaic," and "unrealistic." Under humanistic liberalism, cultural standards exist on a sliding scale, depending on the tastes of the individual. In the end, this means that there are no standards.

To Christians, however, the exact opposite is true: We have a set of absolute, eternal standards, which are provided to us in the form of principles in God's Word. By them, we can judge artistic achievements on their true merits. In music, we can judge more accurately if a piece is uplifting, hopeful, harmonious, helpful, etc., applying the principles of the fruit of God's Spirit. We can judge literature by these same principles, plus those found in God's commandments. (And by the way, just because a piece of literature contains, say, a murder does not mean that it is immoral. We have to go beyond this to see how the work resolves the sinful act and the circumstances it causes. If we were to do otherwise, we would have to condemn the Bible itself, as it contains murders, adulteries, incest, lying, stealing, coveting—you name it!) These same standards can be applied to the graphic arts too.

Learning godly judgment is no easy thing. It is an acquired skill. But God has called us to learn how to judge righteously. As our Savior commands, "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment" (John 7:24). How do we do this? Jesus answers, "My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me" (John 5:30). As we strengthen and deepen our relationship with God, our judgment of these cultural phenomena will improve—we will be able to discern what is truly classic.

Judging Life and Death

Many Protestants and Catholics probably recognized the irony in the fact that the Terri Schiavo "right to life" case came to a head during their "Holy Week," in which the faithful contemplate the death and life of Jesus Christ. Schiavo's parents' wishes regarding her fate, pitted against her husband's—and purportedly hers—were argued in courtrooms in Florida, Georgia, and Washington, DC, and in the paneled halls of Congress, which took the unprecedented step of writing a bill for the benefit of one individual. President Bush obliged by signing it into law after midnight, hurriedly flying in from his Texas ranch to seal the deal.

It is no wonder that Terri Schiavo's case has sparked such debate across America, as two opposing values collide within it: the right to life, championed in the Declaration of Independence and by a host of devout advocates, and for lack of a better term, the right to a natural death, the desire of many not to prolong their lives artificially and pointlessly. Also in this case, religious beliefs square off against legal ethics, just as it sets medical ethics against parental love for their child. Surely, this is a case for the wisdom of Solomon!

We in the church of God believe that God is preparing us to be kings and priests in His coming Kingdom (Revelation 5:10), and kings and priests both have the function of judges—one in civil matters and the other in religious matters. If this case were brought before us to judge, how would we rule? What laws or principles would we base our decision upon?

Most of the arguments in the media are emotional. These arguments have their place, but a judge must first consider what is just and true before he has any basis for extending mercy. There must be a standard by which he measures the merits of each side in a dispute, and he rules according to the standard—not according to the fervency of one side's line of reasoning or the background, stature, or acumen of the other party's advocate. God lays out a judge's responsibility in Deuteronomy 16:18-20:

You shall appoint judges and officers in all your gates, which the LORD your God gives you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with just judgment. You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality, nor take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous. You shall follow what is altogether just. . . . (see also II Chronicles 19:5-7)

The standard a godly judge must follow is, of course, God's law along with the statutes and the judgments. This is how God says it should be done: "In controversy [the priests] shall stand as judges, and judge it according to My judgments. They shall keep My laws and My statutes in all My appointed meetings, and they shall hallow My Sabbaths" (Ezekiel 44:24). This command, by the way, is given to the Millennial priesthood precisely because the priests of ancient Israel failed to judge as God had directed them. God prophesies, "I will restore your judges as at the first, and your counselors as at the beginning. Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city" (Isaiah 1:26).

Obviously, in the Schiavo case, the sixth commandment comes into play: "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13). For many, the argument ends right here, for they prioritize a person's right to life above all others. Certainly, the value of any life is precious, but does it trump all others? The monkey wrench in this case is that, without the measures modern medicine has taken, including the insertion of a feeding tube, Terri Schiavo would have been dead years ago. On top of this, several doctors have examined her and concluded that she is essentially brain-dead—in a vegetative state—and has no chance to live a "normal" life. Though her heart is beating involuntarily, her brain has shut down. What is the godly definition of "life"?

Does the fifth commandment come into play? Some might say it does, using it to justify following her parents' wishes over her husband's. Those on the other side of the case might counter with Genesis 2:24: "Therefore a man [or woman] shall leave his [or her] father and mother and be joined to his wife [or her husband], and they shall be one flesh." Which is the more important principle? Whose wishes should the court grant?

Another scripture that could be brought forward is Deuteronomy 19:15: ". . . by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established" (see also Deuteronomy 17:6; Matthew 18:16; II Corinthians 13:1; I Timothy 5:19; Hebrews 10:28). Though Terri Schiavo did not have a "Living Will," a document that sets out a person's wishes should he or she continue to live only on life-support equipment, her husband and several friends have testified that she expressed her desire to them to be allowed to die naturally if she ever landed in such a circumstance. Does the lack of a piece of signed and notarized paper trump the testimony of more than the required "two or three witnesses"?

Some advocates might even bring up Paul's statement in II Corinthians 5:8, "We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord." Nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist Neal Boortz, who is also a lawyer, has advanced such an argument. Is Terri Schiavo better off dead, awaiting the judgment of God? Or is she better off living out her physical life, lying on a hospice-care bed, and needing constant medical attention?

Being a judge is not so easy, is it? Nevertheless, these and other thorny questions are what a just judge must face—not only in the "big" cases, but also in the routine ones. It is easy to jump to a conclusion that "he is wrong" or "she is right" (Proverbs 18:13, 17), but as the old saw warns, "The devil is in the details." Matters are not always cut-and-dried, which is why God is taking the time to train us in the skill and art of judgment, allowing us to ponder the questions of our time, great and small, and come to wise and godly conclusions without the pressure of having to make the actual decisions.

Take this opportunity to wrap your head around this case and come to a biblically sound conclusion. You may discover a budding Solomonic wisdom in yourself—or an area of understanding that could use some improvement!