What follows is the National Proclamation of Thanksgiving penned by Secretary of State William Seward and issued by President Lincoln on October 3, 1863. Considering the historical setting of this document (i.e. during the midst of the Civil War) its words are quite stirring. At the same time, considering the growing pluralism of our culture, the proclamation’s open references to Almighty God and Most High God, His Providence, and our Nation’s sin stand in stark contrast to our present culture’s efforts to remove all references to the God of the Bible from public discourse:

By the President of the United States of America.

A Proclamation.

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consiousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the Unites States the Eighty-eighth.

By the President: Abraham Lincoln

William H. Seward,
Secretary of State

We saw that each character has their own individual strengths and weaknesses, but the way they carry out their lives shows complete disregard for their own true needs and the needs of others. Martin Luther King said that “All that is needed for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.” Well, in the final episode of the show, we see how much damage these characters have done by not looking at their own selves and working on a positive growth goal. As my friend put it, “It’s funny to see all those other people have their day in court.” So in the spirit of the Chris Rice song, “What if Cartoons Got Saved?”, I will offer up this light-hearted look at what the issues might be if they were to get in a growth group.

Jerry

We’ll start with Jerry. He is very funny, aware, observant, and not overly concerned with the little details of life. He doesn’t get bent out of shape about vain things like money, career ambition, or showing off his success. His humor is not used as a malicious weapon as it could be. Once, when George turns down a pilot offer because it was too low and therefore insulting and Jerry could be totally enraged, he simply says, “Well, I think you’re wrong!” instead of something much, much worse that could be said. It was a very diplomatic thing to say.

However, he is unable to make a commitment to a woman in the show. He dates around with multiple women but always finds something about them that he cannot tolerate, a little thing that gets on his nerves (like her big hands, the way she eats her peas, that she likes meat). This eventually forces the break-up of the relationship. All of this is related to his childishness, which is manifested by his requirement for cereal and his fawning love of Superman. His growth goal is simply he needs to grow up. This childishness is also manifested in his fear of conflict. He runs from people on the street or from childhood bullies. He never enters into conflict or deals with it straightforwardly. He typically tries to come up with a plan to get out of it as painlessly to him as possible. He has found out that he comes out “even” in life, and thus has no real desire or motivation to work through conflict.

Elaine

Elaine also is a very amusing woman, charming and intelligent. She shows her aptitude and intelligence by acquiring good jobs in publishing. She is also capable in other areas as well. She can hold her own around guys, which she is required to do on nearly every occasion. (This may say something about her in her inability to relate to women.) She is on the whole a very likeable person. Even the way she has managed to be a successful person in the shadow of her famous but distant and rigid father is admirable.

Her particular issue seems to come up with how she handles people who think differently than her. On a number of occasions, she forces conflict that is totally self-centered with those who she perceives as threatening to her rights. The Soup Nazi, the restaurant owner who doesn’t believe in pro-choice, a woman who wears fur, the list goes on and on. This is where people who fight for “causes” need to wake up. Elaine is a classic bit-city liberal woman, who values all of the typical liberal causes. But all she ends up doing is causing trouble. She simply directs her hatred to all the people doing these “horrible offenses” and never even begins to affect meaningful change in either that person or anyone else. She is simply out to air her own opinions, doing a lot of people innumerable harm in the process. Wake up, environmental idiots. You’re not doing the world any good. If a person doesn’t deal with the stuff in their own hearts, all they end up doing is hurting people from that woundedness. Why don’t you work on your own self rather than focusing your rancor on everyone else??

Elaine sleeps with hundreds of men. She has a selfish relationship with David Putty just out of convenience, because they don’t want to leave each other and have to keep pursuing the sexual end of the relationship.

She needs to figure out a way to actually help people with her talents and do right by them, rather than selfishly advancing her own rights and causes.

Kramer

Kramer is totally absorbed with himself. He is a complete moocher. He doesn’t work, he doesn’t do anything, he just mooches off other people’s stuff. Kramer is a man entirely devoted to the sensual gratifications of his flesh. His particular immaturity is reflected in how he starts on projects (Kramerica Industries, hosting the Cubans, doing the “levels” in his apartment), but he never finishes them. He starts one and then immediately quits to do something else.

He sees the sole purpose of life as getting enjoyment out of it for himself. He doesn’t have many external relationships where anything is required of him. However, in one situation that he does, he continually violates the trust put in him by the lawyer Jackie Chiles when he takes the first deal that comes along from the parties they are suing. One of his particular moments of ridiculousness is where he objects to the prohibition of cussing in the dental office. He wants complete freedom to express himself in any way at any time in front of any one (no boxers, no jockeys . . .).

Kramer’s positive virtues are a spirit of fun, the ability to have a good time. He also like Jerry doesn’t get too wrapped up in silly things like vain ambition or success at the expense of others, or take himself too seriously. He has ideals and holds values for community that he would like to see. He is actually trying to do a part to make the world a better place.

George

George is very insecure as a person, constantly fretting around in his little battles and paranoias. He gets into conflict with others when he finds himself in a situation where he can’t get out without a little bit of sacrifice or cost. He also has hilarious issues with his parents. Part of this is based on that fact that he is not independent and can’t grow up. One of the comic scenes showing both his and Elaine’s character is what happens when they are forced to be together without Jerry. They can only talk about him and eventually when he comes around they try to hang on to him to give themselves something interesting to talk about.

Like Kramer, George is focused on the flesh and sensual gratification. He uses all of his powers to figure out how to get around problems rather than work through them legitimately. Thus, he has no resources for people that need help (kids or elderly that he pushes out of the way in a fire; an old man who survived the accident of the Andrea Dorra, etc.).

Like the other characters, George has many redeeming virtues as well. Like Jerry, George is very smart and creative. He can analyze things from a number of different angles. He is masculine. He is easily amused and very funny. He is aware of all the maddening circumstances of daily life and can make light of them with humor.

So, we see that all of them just need a little growth group (a little Christ!) and they could be just fine, just like all the rest of us dysfunctional people. They are like me, they are like us. Just thankfully we can work through this growth stuff with other people who can shine the light of day up to us, and we have a Savior who actually cares about us and can help us with whatever grace we need. It’s funny to consider the show in this perspective!!!!

Update:
When I just re-checked this post, I found that the above YouTube video was unavailable. However, it should still be available at espn.com if you are checking this post soon after the post date. Go there and search for “Trinity (TX) Laterals Their Way to Division III Win”.

Second Update:
Alright, now the video should be embedded in this post. Enjoy

[HT: The Schlaaks]

Ryan and I discussed a provocative question in regard to the Law and Jesus this past Sunday. The context was our community group discussion where we talked about the encounter of the woman caught in adultery who is brought before Jesus. The Pharisees ask Jesus, “The law said we should stone . . . what do you say?” (John 8:5)

In the OT, God commands the Israelites to take an adulterer and adulteress and stone them. No hesitancy. Yet, as He walked here on earth, Jesus pardons the woman and does not condemn her and challenges anyone to stone her who is not clean of sin.

This posed the question to us: “when does God ’set aside’ the law and why?”

Jesus of course states that He came not to abolish the law but to fulfill the law, so how does he do that in these cases where there appears to be a sanctioned break of the law? In my initial reflections after this, I thought about the Sabbath. My thoughts were upon National Football League players, that they wouldn’t have the opportunity go to church on Sunday. I know from personal testimony by players that there are a number of Christians in the NFL. Are they breaking God’s law?? And then I thought, “Huh, God wants them there to reach people in that setting for Jesus Christ. To witness.” (The same could be said of retail, which in many cases requires people to work on Sundays.)

So it seemed to me that God would set aside a command or at least not require the outward observance of it in order to show merciful love to someone or some people. (There could be a lot of discussion that this was always the case, but we’ll leave that discussion for another time. For the time being, I will answer that objection by saying that Jesus appeared not to have changed the law - He certainly didn’t. He fulfilled it - But that He offered us the clearest picture of what the Law really was and is.)

God doing this - I’ll call it setting aside man’s law to express God’s law - is abundantly obvious when you see that God is love. (It still doesn’t mean there is not an issue with the issue of justice and compliance to the law. I’ll get back to that.) Jesus makes the same point when the Pharisees challenge him about the Sabbath (which they do on many occasions and which seems to be one of the main things, along with his love for sinners and his claim to be God, that make them want to kill Jesus). He says, essentially, “If someone is in need of help or mercy on the Sabbath, will you not show it?!” Another way we might say it around Fellowship Church is “The time when you can ‘set aside’ the law is in order to boldly love someone.” I put ‘observe’ in quotes, because of course Jesus says, “The real purpose of the law is not the outward observance, but the inward aspect. When you help someone, you fulfill the law in the truest form.” The command behind the command, if you will. So you are not in fact setting it aside but obeying it as it was intended to be obeyed. The law required certain things to be done, but the law was not to be used as a legislative tablet of our goodness and honorable works that obligated favor.

There are other examples in the Scriptures of this apparent “conflict”. One is Jesus speaking about how David went in and ate the consecrated bread of the priests as an illustration to defend his disciples’ plucking and eating of grain from the grain fields as they walked on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23-27). Another is when Jesus healed on the Sabbath, which the Pharisees called “work” (Mark 3:1-6). And there are others.

Ryan and I talked about the terminology of this. Do we look at it as Jesus “changing/setting aside the law” (He states in another place that He is the Son of Man and is Lord of the Sabbath. He’s the Lord and we can’t judge Him or His observance of the law and certainly not in relation to our own standards. And of course He doesn’t circumvent it because it is His law!). Or do we look at it as Jesus fulfilling the law in a different way than what we might say is following it? I think my vote would go for #2.

So, turning back to the adultery case, this still doesn’t fully answer the question. How can Jesus not require this woman (and the man, where’s he?) to be stoned for her adultery. Well, he doesn’t require it in order to boldly love her. The thing about the law and God’s commands that we have to keep in mind is His concern with long-term consequences. As a rule, if adultery or any other sin is allowed to go unfettered or unpunished, then the sin of adultery or whatever it is will infect the whole community. If God prescribed stoning as the punishment for adultery in olden times, then it is reasonable to infer that He had the long-term benefits of punishing that sin on his heart for the people. What are the potential consequences of adultery? Unwanted babies, possible murder as retaliation by an enraged spouse, STDs, the breakdown of family and community, etc. If we would also see God’s commands as prescriptive in addition to prohibitive, we could see more of His heart for sinful people.

God chose the people of the Israelite community to be His agents of discipline and justice in the world for punishing sin. He said, “This is the way I am choosing to handle this . . . right now.” However, this revelation of the law was intended to eventually give way. This is where the lack of understanding of the Pharisees failed to take place. With the advent of Jesus on the scene, could the Pharisees not see that He had done that very thing? Hadn’t they grown up? The law wasn’t the end thing to say about who and what God was. Jesus was, and is. They failed to learn from Him about God and thus see and appreciate Him in a new way. God wanted them to grow up and be mature thinkers, but they were not ready or willing.

God’s way for dealing with sin is different than ours, and He has made His desire for and commitment to justice abundantly clear with the cross - also through Christ. He has punished sin, so we can forgive it. And we can be glad that He “sets aside” the punishment prescribed by the law. Aren’t we glad we are shown mercy when we sin?

There are other reasons we do not need to be agents of wrath. Our lust for punishment often goes astray. As Kevin, our discussion leader said, the Pharisees are responding to an adultery with a desire to murder. They have upped the ante, so to speak. It of course wasn’t about justice to them. Jesus repeatedly challenged them and the teachers of the law about their failure to comply with the law, not understanding that “God desired mercy, not sacrifice.” They didn’t obey the law in bringing the woman to Jesus, nor in sitting in judgment on the One who spoke it.

Perhaps the clearest way for me to think about this is in terms of responding to people who sin is: “The rule is love.” (Paul and James say the same thing.) We are commanded to operate by the spirit of love, and let God judge what happens to someone. This is hard to do when we feel angry at someone for what they have done to us. But the Bible commands forgiveness, and we should be glad. It results in good benefits for them and us.

The Pharisees were right in saying, “Hey, there’s a disconnect here. Justice needs to be done.” This discussion doesn’t answer all the questions about “How is this fair?” But for me it starts to at least address my own need for personal mercy, not justice, and see the restorative aspect of how Jesus responds, and to appreciate the benevolent goodness of God. The other considerations will be for another day.

“Though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God for the pulling down of strongholds.” 2 Cor. 10:3,4

Over the past year I have been involved in an outreach project that has brought back to my mind a question that I have wrestled with, in various forms, for a number of years: In doing the work of the Kingdom (of God), to what extend should Christians make use of the methods and insights of the (secular) World? For example, should a church’s budget be planned using the same financial principles that are used in business? Should market research, which shows the most effective ways of attracting various demographics, influence the look and feel of a church’s services? Should public and/or interpersonal relational strategies be used to encourage a desired behavior, for example to “soften people up” to receive the gospel or motivate people to tithe? One could take this to the larger scale and ask questions about a Christian use of politics and media. At the moment I am leaning toward the view that all available tools, as long as they do not violate a principle of scripture, ought to be used, and that we ought to battle the Enemy in all arenas of society. But in practice it seems very hard to discern; one Christian’s faith is another’s foolishness, and one Christian’s cunning is another’s compromise.

[Source: STR]

The very reason for why you will never forget him or why you have never heard of him is one in the same. As the following video shows, Len Bias was one of the greatest college basketball players to ever play the game…

Following his last season at the University of Maryland, on June 17, 1986, Len Bias was drafted number two overall by the Boston Celtics of the NBA. That Fall he was to join Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, and Robert Parrish in what many believed would be the first of many championship seasons.

None of this ever happened. Less than forty-eight hours after the draft, Len Bias was dead. Doctors discovered that he had died of an overdose of cocaine. Many who knew Bias believed that this may have been the first time he had ever taken the drug. One moment he was on top of the world; the next, emergency personnel were trying to resuscitate him.

Many in and outside the world of sports know what I mean when I say that I’m haunted by Len Bias. His life is a tragedy from so many different perspectives. His time here was cut short with everyone left behind saying what if and what could have been. Yet, Len Bias’ story doesn’t haunt me so much for the loss to the sports world. Rather, I think of him, and I come face-to-face with the fleeting nature of our lives. I am reminded of when James writes, “What is your life? You are a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes” (James 4:14).

Len Bias appeared front and center on the grandest stage in our culture, yet it was all taken from him by one careless decision. All that remains is the memory of a twenty-three year old man who drifts into my mind at the oddest of times.

Why is this an important statement to make? I suppose there could be a number of reasons.
So people don’t become spiritually prideful? Perhaps.
To bring a spirit of equality into the Church? Maybe.
To encourage the people to embrace the promises of God? Lord no!

This nonsense about people not being blessed by God in a greater or lesser degree is…..well…..nonsense. When you look around, do you see everyone with the same gifts and the level same spiritual maturity? If so, I fear for your soul. For you have been brought under the work of Satan. This is no joke. This delusion is sweeping through the church of God and taking as many as possible into it’s service. This is also responsible for the destruction of the Spirit’s power working amongst His people. Why? Because no one believes in it! What in the heck is going on with God’s people? Please tell me! If there is one question that consumes me night and day; it is this. I don’t understand it. I can’t comprehend it. Yet, God says to me: “What is it to you? You must follow me!”

Oh, I know, I know. But God has also given me a nearly overbearing concern for His people; as if it rested upon me. Yes, I know, it doesn’t. But what does that matter? God has given me this cross to carry. And I am glad to carry it. And if God so places something on your heart, a cross; don’t you ever listen to those blasphemers who go around spitting their deadly poison. Saying things such as: “That is not your’s to carry. Who do you think you are? God doesn’t expect any man to carry such a load.”

I’m telling you right now, yes He does! You say to that person: “Get behind me Satan”. For any man who tells you such a thing is doing so in service to the devil.