Healthy Paranoia

               I’m not paranoid, but I am suspicious. You see ‘paranoid’ means that you falsely believe that ‘someone is out to get you.’ I’m suspicious that someone actually is ‘out to get me.’ And I do have some good reasons to be suspicious… That marks the difference between paranoia and suspicion, the paranoid doesn’t have good reasons to believe he’s in danger, but the suspicious man does have good reasons. It seems to me that the line between the two is pretty thin. It could be that a little healthy paranoia (apparently excessive suspicion) could save a fellow in a tight spot. But then he’s not paranoid, because the sudden appearance of the ‘tight spot,’ proves that his paranoia actually was healthy suspicion. 

               Reading through the book of Daniel for an excellent class in seminary; chapter 2 reveals a restless King Nebuchadnezzar who has had a dream. He calls for his wise men and demands that they tell him both the dream and the interpretation. When reading biblical narrative, paying close attention to details can clue you in to important elements in, or the reason for the story. In verse 8, the king accuses the wise men of bargaining for more time which seems reasonable. But in verse 9, the time reference intensifies as the king accuses the wise men of wanting to lie to him ‘until the times change.’ So perhaps the wise men are stalling… until there’s a new king. Ancient near eastern politics was a contact sport to be sure. Stop watching your back for even a minute and your best friend might decide to become your replacement. As the passage moves on, Daniel receives the dream and its interpretation from God and before reporting to the king he exults that God is the one who ‘changes times’… And the meaning of the dream relates to the changes of kingdoms. I wonder if Nebuchadnezzar’s paranoia was actually a healthy suspicion after all…? In the book of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar comes out okay, after some pretty bizarre and humbling circumstances. It’s worth a close read, and the story got me thinking about when is paranoia healthy for the Christian? 

               It seems to me that a little paranoia can go a long way to help the believer avoid sin. You remember, sin, right? That sneaky little thing just waiting for the moment when you feel like you have it under control and then BAM! It’s got you, again (sigh). It’s out to get you and you know it… because it’s happened before and you’ve been warned about it! My favorite example is when God tells Cain that ‘sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it’ (Gen. 4:7). In this situation, what is true for Cain is true for me and you as well.  Sin is waiting for you; it’s just right over there. And if you’re sitting there thinking that you know someone who needs to be a bit more paranoid when it comes to sin: dear reader it’s you… and me… and everyone. As the saying goes: ‘Just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they’re not after you.’

 Hebrews 12:1-2 “Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance, and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”

Paper(work).

Perhaps my greatest frustration with the new semester comes from the fact that I’m not done with last semester yet... I received an extension to finish my Calvin paper over the break, with a due date of March 1st. As of this writing, it’s coming together with two pages written so far.

My paper explores John Calvin’s view of material goods and how that does or does not solve the problem of political/economic corruption. The interesting answer to the question is Calvin’s own perspective on human nature and the problem of corruption. We’re wrecked by sin. Man, apart from God is completely, utterly, fantastically unable to effect anything good. Even the appearance of good in the unbeliever is only a relative good enabled by the grace of God.

Solving the problem of sin begins with the initiative of God. If you’re not familiar with Calvinism, God in His infinite mercy chose some individuals from the wreckage of humanity and chose them to salvation. Those who are chosen hear and believe the message of Christ and become Christians who then follow God through their entire lives and ultimately live blissfully in heaven with Him. It’s not my purpose in this post to discuss the process of salvation, but to understand the life of a Christian as it relates to solving political/economic corruption. It’s a nuts-and-bolts kind of a question that I am trying to answer. What process can we effect to solve self-interest that exceeds its proper bounds to become corruption?

Calvin’s answer is interesting: his explicit solution is that individual persons must devote themselves fully to the person of God. A person should view him/herself as the very possession of God. I am not my own, I belong to Another. I like that solution, but what the heck does that actually look like? When I am confronted by temptation to sin I should… what? Remember that I am not my own… Calvin actually does go farther in the way he influenced the church and I think this first, internal attitude is pointless without the second part. I am not my own and I am accountable for my actions. And not only that touchy-feely accountable to the Jesus-who-loves-me kind of garbage (French accent) that passes for Christian accountability but also the kind of accountability where you have to actually confess your wrongs to the people whom you have sinned against. Maybe even work to make things right (shock).

This dual principle of ownership (I am not my own) and accountability form twin principles of the human relation to wrongdoing that pertain to all of society. When you sin against your marriage partner, you aren’t hiding anything from God and you need to handle it. The same is true for sins against your friends, your family, your church and your country. You are not your own and you will be held to account.

Sinful sinners sinning sins.

For sinners, sin is a touchy subject... and we are all sinners.

Everyone at some time or another has not only committed a sin, but has also excused wrong behavior as a mere weakness or slight violation. Left unchecked, this becomes a pervasive environment which diminishes moral wrongdoing and cheapens our understanding of the cost of sin to ourselves and to our society. As Christians, we need to stand firm on the wrongness of sin as a violation of natural and Biblical law.

Many people mine the Scriptures to support opinions as to how Christians must act with regard to sin. For some, the commandment to love overrides all judgment about wrongdoing, saying something like: “Christians are called to be a loving presence in the world.” While this is a true statement, it isn’t a complete statement, nor is it a full understanding of what God wants from us. The first part of the greatest commandment is that we love God beyond all else.

“And He said to him, “'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'
This is the great and foremost commandment.” (Mat 22:37-38 NASB)

One simple misunderstanding of this passage stems from the word ‘love.’ In our modern cultural context, we view love as an emotional attachment, reading the passage as an admonition to be passionately attached to the divine Person. Do you love God? Of course you do; even if you have no idea of whom I am speaking. But love is much more in Biblical context. This passage wants more than your emotional attachment to a Deity that lives in a far away happy place where everyone gets to go when they die. This passage is about absolute commitment to the Judeo-Christian God and His standards for life.

When we understand love as commitment, our first responsibility is toward the person of God: to know who He is and what He has spoken in His word, the Bible. When we commit ourselves to Him, then we start the journey of understanding Him more and more and representing Him to other people. This ambassadorship has at least two aspects: compassion and honesty. Without either of these, we are not truly caring for others. Without compassion, our honesty smacks of hypocrisy and unjust judgment. Without honesty, our compassion is hollow and lacks substance.

Perhaps no issue raises the ire of sinners, Christian and non-Christian alike, more than the issue of homosexuality. The pro-homosexual community has done an effective job of pushing the debate into the realm of genetics, claiming that sexual orientation is determined at birth and, as such, an issue which is not subject to moral rules. Objectors are admonished to ‘just love’ the homosexual person, because that’s what Jesus would do. The fallacy here is that genetic orientation never justifies moral behavior. If someone is born with a tendency toward alcoholism or racism or hatred this does not excuse drunkenness, acts of discrimination or violence. In fact, we commend people who overcome accidents of birth or environment and become functional persons. We recognize good behavior and bad behavior in our common humanity as either sinners who have become Christians or as sinners who haven’t. The Bible clearly condemns homosexual practice (and a whole host of other things), but that isn’t the only standard by which the practice can be judged. The standards of the natural world demonstrate that male and female partners produce offspring. This natural law communicates a standard; the normal, productive relationship is between male and female.

Sinners who have become Christians would do well to seek a balance between loving all people and condemning all sins.

Exploding the Sin Scale

The latest weekly installment on John Calvin. The close observer may note that it's posted at a decent hour of the day and two whole days before my prof sees it. I seem to have caught up on short-term projects and can devote some time to the long-term projects... Oh, balance you elude me.

Two years ago we experienced a fire that completely consumed my personal library. Over three thousand volumes perished in the blaze and ever since I’ve been carefully re-building my ‘precious,’ taking careful note of the recommendations of friends and professors. Each volume on the shelf, from the weighty tomes to the small handbooks represents not only the treasure of its content, but also the story of its acquisition. Every time I devote financial resources for the sake of literary expansion, I consider the loss of one well worth the gain of the other.

One of my most recent acquisitions occupies a place of honor on the reference section of my bookshelf. It even has an impressive title; it’s the ‘Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains’. I can be a bit of a snob about my books and I began my quest for this particular gem looking for a new copy. I found one online for the low, low bargain price of 480.00. Choking and spitting, I laid my snobbery aside and began perusing the used copies from various resellers. Descending from three hundred into the two hundreds I began to despair of finding an affordable copy of this must-have resource. Digging deep, I finally found a copy for sixty bucks, shipping included! In my mind, I saved a bundle of money, got the book and preserved a happy marriage.

Everyone uses comparisons to judge the value or cost of economic items. We compare every item we consider purchasing against an internal scale of value, often set by an ‘anchor,’ which can be quite arbitrary. In the case of my dictionary purchase, the new price set the anchor by which to compare other copies. Choosing one thing over another, we decide that possessing it brings us greater utility (value) than retaining the money we use to buy it. Billions of times every day, purchases and trades occur according to that internal value scale.

Comparing the cost of my book to other prices convinced my internal value scale that I had found a bargain, but the scale doesn’t only work for economic costs. We determine the cost of moral behavior in much the same way. As we compare ourselves to others around us, we pleasantly evaluate our good behaviors and decry our weaknesses, the few that we actually find. We even use the Ten Commandments as a set of moral guidelines by which we measure our success or failure. Reading “you shall not murder” leads us to a positive evaluation of our character. This positive evaluation assumes, of course, that we have not taken the life of another human being. John Calvin points out that the negative command also assumes a positive character; and the degree of the command extends in proportion to the prohibition. Wordy, I know, but the meaning is this: If I must not kill, then I must do my utmost to promote life. This expansion of the value scale places comparatively minor sins on the losing side of the equation. Calvin says this:

"In considering vices we are often deceived because we reduce their importance if they are a a little bit hidden; so the Lord draws us back from this deception and accustoms us to putting each fault under a category by which we can better understand how we ought to loath it."

The question for us all is not, “Have I killed anyone today?” nor is it “Have I hated anyone?” These may not be exactly equal, but they exist on the same side of the value scale: the bad side. The real question is, “have I done my utmost to love my fellow man today?” Against this standard, we deeply feel our need for God’s grace and enablement to fulfill the absolute opposite of killing, namely, love our fellow man or woman so much that we do all we can to promote life.