I was reading the account of Jesus healing a woman on the Sabbath and how indignant it made the leaders of the synagogue. When he pointed out how it could be said that they also “broke” the Sabbath, “they were embarrassed.” But “the crowd, that’s another story, they were “overjoyed at all the wonderful things that Jesus was doing” (Luke 13:10-17). Seems like it was the people who had a corner on what actually worked and what was a bit phony. We would say that they had “common sense.” Got to wondering about that. Why, in so many issues of life, is the opinion of the people (“the masses’) apparently better than that of the experts. Of course we’re not talking about specific technical things in various professional fields, but of the every day decisions that face us all. In these areas, it appears that the judgment of the people is consistently better than that of the experts.
       We smile at the absent-minded professor caught in a revolving door because he didn’t know whether he was coming or going. But as a nation we are committed to the decisions of our citizens at large as to who, for instance, will be our next president (and this is a nation’s most important decision!). Historians tell us that on a consistent basis it has been “the people” who have made the better decisions. By way of comparison, the committees of congress continue to make “decisions” like using our hard earned money to kill babies and to rack up a national debt that would bankrupt the average citizen.
       The learned are not stupid so why the unevenness when it comes to common decisions in everyday life? I suspect that part of the problem lies in the nature of advanced learning. It takes you further and further away from the issues with which the public works ever day. The wonderful thing about having a profession in the area of theory is that a wrong decision costs you essentially nothing. I’m not saying that research in the realm of possibilities is of no value, only that it tends to remove a person from the world in which we actually live. It just struck me as amusing that the clerics of Jesus day – and they were definitely the social elite – hadn’t seen that if untying an ox on the Sabbath to take it to water is okay, how could it possible that on the same day it would be wrong to set free a woman crippled by an evil spirit. The Pharisees were embarrassed but the crowd was overjoyed. It would appear that common sense is rejected when some personal benefit enters the picture. In the clerics’ case it was prominence in the community based on ones position in the religious hierarchy. How bad is that!
 
 

Most people, as they grow older, spend an increasing amount of time thinking about years now gone past. It isn't necessarily that they have given up on the future, but that the past provides such a rich store of experiences that call for some sort of organiza­tion. Having reached my ninth decade, I find myself with one eye (the good one) on the future and the other on years gone past. My life has been spent primarily in higher education with research and writing in New Testament studies (since "retirement" it has been biblical translation.) While this has been highly rewarding, I sometimes wish I could have spent an equal amount of time be­coming an expert in generalities. There is something about a good quote that pleases me. It brings clarity to confusion. It gives voice to an awareness I might have in some area but could never bring it quite into focus.
       I had a colleague at the University, widely known for his ex­pertise in genetics. The way he described advance in his area of science was something like this. Science begins with the accumu­lation of data. Upon observation, a common thread emerges that seems to make sense – we call it a "law." Then additional data accumulates and our "law" enables us work more efficiently at a higher level and develop additional laws.” Or, as he put it, science is a process of simplifying complexity. But isn't that exactly what a good quotation does?
       In the process of expanding our understanding we need a number of relatively secure generalities. No single one is without exception, but that doesn't mean they are false. A generality that does not measure up to the test of time drops by the wayside. Why not have a division of advanced study dedicated to general statements rather than dedicating so much of our attention to find­ing out more and more about things that matter less and less?
       Now the quote that got me started thinking along this line was Aristotle's observation that "tolerance is the last virtue of a dy­ing society." As I apply this to the world in which I find myself, it strikes me as remarkably insightful. Certainly, as a nation, we are far more tolerant with the entertainment industry. I can still remember the shock of hearing Clark Gable's "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." Tolerance has given us gyrations on a recent TV show that went beyond the burlesque of the thirties. Are we a "dying society?"

 

 

The book of Proverbs is a remarkable collection of quotations with wisdom as its central theme. The picture that “wisdom” often brings to mind is that of an elderly scholar at his desk surrounded by piles of books and papers everywhere and him dealing with some complex subject. Well, there are a few people like that, but there is a significant difference between accumulating information and exercising wisdom. An educated person may well have gathered a lot of information, but that by itself doesn’t make a person wise. Wisdom is the ability to use that information effectively in the decisions of life. To say that a person is wise is a more refined way of saying that they are “street smart.” Immanuel Kant put it this way: “Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life.”
         Solomon, a long time ago, insisted that wisdom was not something out of reach for the every day person. Quite to the contrary, he said that she “raises her voice in the public square, cries out from the top of the wall, and stands at the city gate trying to catch the attention of those who pass by” (Prov. 1:20-21).
       Knowledge may be for the erudite, but wisdom is for everyone. However, Solomon writes that the majority “refuse to listen;” they “pay no attention” when she “stretches out her hands” (1:24). There are various reasons why the highly informed are not necessarily the wisest. One is that intellectual achievement leads quickly to personal pride. To know is important; to know you know, however, is fertile ground for sprouting arrogance.
         I imagine that you have known the kind of educated people that Solomon calls “fools” (v. 22), as well as the simple, who understand the nature of life and approach it wisely. This following example doesn’t illustrate exactly the kind of wisdom we’ve been talking about, but it does show the difference between “knowing” by gathering information and “knowing” by insight into the nature of the problem. The problem I shared with two older men was a complex one about two cars leaving two towns at differing speeds, reaching their destinations and meeting on their way back. Where did they meet? George was a university professor in Physics who applied all the known formulas and concluded that the problem was unsolvable without addition information. Sam was an 8th grade dropout who had done very well in the financial world. He leaned back, stared at the ceiling, and after a rather long and suspenseful moment or two, said, ”2.5 miles west of Town A.” And he was right. How did he do it? It was by an innate awareness of certain principles that had nothing to do with mathematical formulas. He was “wise” in the sense of knowing how to see the problem in connection with everything that was relevant.  
         In the broader setting, the “wise” person may not have a college degree in Decision Making, but has learned from life itself to see everything in its appropriate context, especially in terms of its consequences. Solomon would call that person wise! It comes down to this: Wisdom has to do with living right, not simply thinking right. Or, we could say that while knowledge is passive, wisdom is active.
 

My dad was of the opinion that boys belong on the farm, so every summer during my early teens I was "farmed out" to some rancher in northern North Dakota. My pay was board and room. Several years later I earned $1 a day during harvest. Wow! In col­lege I washed and waxed floors in several small stores down town Seattle. What did I make? I haven't the faintest idea. In any case it helped me make it through and get a degree from the university. I'm a Husky.
       But did I, by any chance, get anything else for hours in the hot sun and for working on my knees at night? Charles F Kettering would say, Yes. He writes, "The highest reward for a person's toil is not what they get for it, but what they become by it" Well, I'm glad that $1 a day or proportionately more later on was not the full benefit. There were additional benefits that can be evaluated only over time. Here are a few:
       I found that I could finish a job. Shocking grain is hard but shocking corn is even worse. The bundles are heavier and don't want to be moved. A cornfield looks awfully big to a boy of 14 re­sponsible to shock the whole field. And the strings cut into young hands more used to playing the piano than dragging bundles around. But the farmer said, "Shock it" and the corn called out, "Come and get me," so there was nothing to do but go ahead and get it done. Fun ? Of course not. High monetary reward? Silly question. Any advantage for the boy? Yes. He learns that some things in this life simply need to be done and there is no easy way to get around it. Valuable lesson for a life still to be lived.
       Here's another benefit for simply going ahead and doing it. You'll find it isn't as difficult as you thought it would be. How many pleasant experiences are missed by backing off just because something looked tedious? How refreshing to discover that there is an unexpected pleasure in doing what is necessary. A task is rarely as hard as you thought it would be (except shocking corn perhaps!). What is difficult is to get going. So don't judge how difficult something is until you've done it.
       One more observation. As you take on the tasks of life you are building character. I know that sounds like a lousy reward, but it's true. A person is the sum total of all his decisions. Character is the final score – the only thing you take with you into the next world. You may have thought you had some things, but where are they now? "No pockets in a shroud” they say. But you do take with you what you really are, your character. That is "the highest reward for a person's toil." Ruskin is right.
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

                

Everyone knows that in the days of Jesus the Jewish people lived by a very strict set of rules. Some people belonged to a sect called the Pharisees, which means “separated.” The idea was to be completely separated from sin by strict obedience to a massive collection of legal instructions designed to keep members from breaking any one of the cardinal laws of Scripture. The outcome of a repressive religious system like this was pride and hypocrisy. Since perfection is unattainable, the practice couldn’t help but lead to hypocrisy. 
       One Sabbath Jesus was teaching in a synagogue when a woman, crippled for eighteen years by a demon, came in. Jesus called her over and touched her bent back. Instantly she stood erect and began to praise God. The synagogue leader was indignant and pontificated that it was improper for Jesus to have healed on the Sabbath – plenty of weekdays for things like that! Jesus denounced them as hypocrites, pointing out that, since they watered their animals on the Sabbath, surely he could set a daughter of Abraham free on that day. The Pharisees were embarrassed but the crowd was overjoyed.
       So the question is, How are we to live like that? Granted, we are not in the business of expelling demons on Sunday (or on any other day for that matter) but what can we learn from the way Jesus conducted himself? One thing is that he called hypocrisy for what it is. Understanding the duplicity of human nature he pointed out the hypocrisy of those who abuse their power. I believe followers of Christ should not grow insensitive to social maladies. There are congressmen to write to and marches to join. Our home may be in heaven but it is this present world in which are living for now. Another thing is that Jesus argued quite convincingly to make his case. Can we not give thought to the inequities of today’s world and think how we can effectively enter the public discussion? And finally, he cared about a woman crippled for life and did something about it. Yes, I think we can follow his example. 

I think it Is fair to say that some people seem always to be look­ing at what was, others at what is, and others do not look. Charles F Kettering, American inventor and businessman (he held 186 patents, founded Delco, and headed research at GM) definitely belongs in the second category. Without any desire to impress, he simply said, "My interest is in the future because I am going to spend the rest of my life there."
       No one denies the reality of death. It's as certain as taxes, as the old saying has it. Not many, however, spend much time talking about it. After all, it is a rather gloomy subject, sinister, and shrouded in darkness. But the future is not simply about death; it's about all the incredibly valuable time between now and then. And that was what Kettering was talking about. To each individual has been allotted a certain amount of time to live and use for the benefit of others. The idea that life is for oneself is the plague of narcissism that has retarded the progress of civilization from the beginning. Even in the bounty of Eden's garden, the first inhabitants decided that they knew better than God and that they should be the ones to reap any benefit there might be in an act of bold disobedience.
       Time marches ahead with steady step and cannot be reversed. It refuses to go back. It lays out the framework for all that is yet to happen and invites us to invest our share of time in projects that reflect the goodness of the Creator and benefit the human race. I'm not talking about big enterprises in which the dil­igence of one generation enhances the life of the next. I am talking about little acts of kindness and concern that mirror in daily life the grace and goodness of the One who made it all possible. His­tory has shown the value of altruism and the personal rewards of social concern. Like it or not we were meant for relationships and to allow selfishness to cheat us out of those rewards is a tragedy.
       So, it is wise to use time carefully. Unlike a computer it doesn't "refresh," and once in "trash" it cannot be retrieved. Demonstrate by an other-oriented life the truth of Jesus' claim that to lose one's life is to save it (Luke 9:24).
 

Paul had a way of getting straight to the point. On the subject of   how a believer should live he reminded them that “first of all (they should)  put their religion into practice” (1 Tim.5:4 ).  
There’s no problem with what they believe, only in how it is turned into action. They should know that “a religion that doesn’t change the way you live may be philosophically interesting, but it’s of no earthly good.” Theologians would say, “Justification involves transformation.” Or, as Jesus told his disciples on that last evening together, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). We have no trouble in seeing the hypocrisy of the young lover who told his fair lady, “My love is so great for you that I’d climb the highest mountain or swim the widest sea to be at your side; and I’ll see you tomorrow . . . well, if it doesn’t rain.”
        So, how does Paul’s word to Timothy apply to us today? Does our claim to be a follower of Jesus show up in the way we live? The claim is valid only if it’s producing that change. If we say, “I love Christ Jesus,” but find no time during the day to look into the Bible what does that that say about the seriousness of our claim? A life dedicated to “getting ahead” at the expense of the spiritual raises serious questions. If this sounds like a Sunday sermon I’d like to say again that while it is not our role to judge who goes to heaven, Jesus did say, “By their fruits you will know them” (Matt. 7:20). Normal observation and a judgmental spirit are by no means the same.
       When we consider spiritual growth, there are two things that come immediately to mind. One is the role of Scripture in our life. I don‘t mean something like a secular attempt read through the Bible in a year (although that is commendable), but quiet times with as he speaks to us through his Word. Psalm 34:8 encourages us to “taste and see that the Lord is good.” Something happens when we actually listen to what he is saying to us through his Word. I can assure you that as we go ahead seriously in this direction, we will find that “the Lord is good.”
       Then there is prayer. I don’t think it matters much whether we are on our knees in the closet or out walking on a beautiful day – God is always available and anxious to hear the concerns of our heart. He is the ultimate friend, ever present and understanding of our frailty. I believe that if we follow these two simple practices we will discover once again that God never fails to do what he has promised. So, our role is to “taste,” and his is to show us, as always, that “the Lord, is good.”
   
 

Upon completing his twelve-volume analysis of the rise and fall of civilizations, Arnold Toynbee, the noted British historian concluded, "An autopsy of history would show that all great na­tions commit suicide.” It would be difficult to find a single intel­lectual in the world today whose opinion on the subject would be considered superior.
       Few would question that present day America provides an example of a nation in decline. The once bright spirit of hope for a better future is hard to find. There is general agreement that the next generation will not have it as good as we did. The col­lege graduate no longer expects to move immediately into a well-paying job and a nice house in a pleasant neighborhood. Culture is moving 180 degrees from where we were forty or fifty years ago. Certain behavior that was lawfully judged as unacceptable is now celebrated as a significant moral advance. The time-honored role of marriage as a fundamental principle of organized society is now expanded to include relationships never imagined before. While for some this may be seem to be a step in the right direction, set­ting us free from the restricted environment of our Puritan heri­tage, for most it holds no real hope for the future.
       Toynbee's use of the word "suicide" in this setting is interest­ing. It emphasizes that our descent is self-inflicted, not the result of some force outside our control. A nation rarely allows some other nation to determine its destiny. America is not the victim of China's rise in the economic world. We are not weaker because some other nation is stronger. We are doing it to ourselves. Our debt was not caused by the rising value of the Chinese yen but the unwilling­ness of leadership here at home to address our financial plight with honesty and integrity. Life today is a party on the Titanic!  We seem to believe that since we will soon be struggling in the icy waters of the North Atlantic we might as well finish off the Champaign!
       The only way to prevent one's own suicide is not to do it. It's that simple. I believe that if the people of our great land would un­derstand what is happening, everything could be turned around. Small businesses, freed from unnecessary regulations, could be encouraged to expand. Individuals who have tried the alternative life-style and found it unrewarding could once again embrace the "faith of our fathers?' There is a bright future behind us, but we will never get there if we continue in the wrong direction.
       History has demonstrated the truth of Toynbee's thesis that nations commit suicide. Our responsibility as a nation is to decide, intentionally, whether he is right or wrong, and then take ap­propriate action. There is time, you know.
 
 

In chapter 5 of his letter to Timothy, Paul writes an extended section on how members of the church family should relate to one another. He says that older men should be treated as fathers and older women as mothers. Younger men are to be treated as brothers and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity. Additional space is given to widows who are really in need. Those who have children or grandchildren should care for their own family thus repaying their parents or grandparents. If I were writing a commentary, I would go into detail, but for now my comments will deal with the general ideas that run throughout the section.
         Paul quotes the fourth commandment, “Respect your father and mother, and you will live a long and successful life in the land I am giving you” (CEV). He applies the truth expressed in this commandment to the relationship that lies at the heart of the family, but also, by extension, to the entire nation. Respect for one’s parents insures stability for the home and also for civilization at large. Every social group needs an operative principle that enables them to work together as God indicated. Elderly parents aren’t a necessary drag on the family, but a vital unit in every society. In the long run it is respect for parents that serves to maintain social order in every group of people – family, community, and nation. Rather than “rebuke” older men, Paul advises the younger men to “encourage” them. Since ”rebuking” is the opposite of “encouraging,” one could understand it as “discouraging” or “making one feel to be of no importance.” Life has a way of causing the one who has achieved to be easily discouraged or to feel marginalized by an unintended remark that pushes them aside. Keep that in mind, younger men, and watch the light stay on in the older man’s eyes. Remember it is only a few years and that’s where you will be. 
         The admonitions that follow are to treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters. Family relationships serve as a model for community relationships. Since the immediate group to which Paul was referring was the church, we can picture a community of believers existing together as an extended family. When different opinions arise they will be discussed openly with the welfare of every person in mind. This will be no place for gossip, for bitterness or revenge, or lack of genuine concern for the other. I am not sure I know any church quite like that, but I am reminded that biblical ethics provide the ideal toward which every serious church is moving.
         It is interesting, is it not, that should nations adopt this family model, wars up every sort would become a thing of the past. Once again, the family lies at the root of all group relational affairs. Settle the matter at home and watch the effect ripple through society. Of course, peace in the family depends upon peace in the heart of each member. All issues of importance begin in the heart of the individual; they are not handed down by a community.
 

I have always liked a good quotation. It's not so much that it provides some new insight as it is that it captures an idea that has been wandering around in the periphery of my mind and states it with clarity. There is a certain serendipitous quality to a good quote. It suddenly brings into focus what you have wanted to express. It elicits a strong Yes from beneath the surface of life. There is a certain timelessness about a good quote whether it is Patrick Henry's famous, "Give me liberty or give me death" or Woody Allen's farcical, " I am not afraid of death, I just don't want to be there when it happens!” They make their point, there's no question about that.
       Earlier, when I was writing on inspiration, I mentioned that O'Reilly had said that he had felt inspired to write Killing Jesus. I acknowledged that on a certain occasion, sitting at the piano and looking out over a gorgeous western sunset, I sensed that the de­scriptive phrases I wrote (now copyrighted) were not specifically mine. So when I happened to read Andre Gide's observation that "Art is a collaboration between God and the artist, and the less the artist does the better,” I resonated with his observation. Obviously there is a contextual element in our evaluation of a quotation. What strikes us as brilliant in one situation may appear as slightly drab in another.
       So, "Long live the good quote!" It brings focus to our think­ing and often with charm. Quotations don't demand long periods of critical study before venturing a solution. One might say they are brash. But one thing is for certain, if they do not square with life as we experience it, they are quickly discarded. It was some 2,500 years ago that Heraclitus said, "Character is destiny" and not only do we remember this profound observation, but it has been repeated and applied in a myriad of ways from then forward. It is interesting that those issues that are central to the human spe­cies show up in the literature of every age. Technologically we have raced so far ahead that the ancient world is exactly that – ancient. But when we begin to consider such issues as love, hate, ambition, compassion, jealousy, anxiety, or desire, we find ourselves one with our predecessors. There's been little or no progress in that which is of ultimate importance. And that may be where the quotation comes in. A good quote is timeless because where we now are is where we have always been.