OSAS Does Not Justify Abounding In Sin

I recently picked up the book entitled Green Zone (aka Imperial Life in the Emerald City) by Rajiv Chandrasekaran. In chapter 3, You’re in Charge!, I came across the following, which caused me to ponder the comparative thought many seem to believe when it comes to Once Saved Always Saved (aka OSAS).

“My driver, an English-speaking law student who had not dared to flout a traffic rule before the war, now coolly drove on the wrong side of the street, into opposing traffic at times, to avoid traffic jams. When I asked him what he was doing, he turned to me, smiled, and said, ‘Mr. Rajiv, democracy is wonderful. Now we can do whatever we want.’” (p. 52)

Paul tells us in Romans 5:20b-21 and 6:1-2, ‘But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?’

Although scripture declares we are not to abound any longer in sin, but have been ordained to walk in good works by the workmanship of God (Ephesians 2:8-10), all too often many professing Christians find ourselves (whether consciously or subconsciously) gravitating to wickedness rather than righteousness. And even though we may not declare such outwardly, within our hearts we almost (or sadly even outright) seem to try to justify our lack of obedience.

Many times in our lost state we may have moments of fear, genuine worry, about where we may spend eternity based on our acknowledgment of poor morality or measuring up to God’s standard of holy perfection. Then we profess Christ with our mouth at our doorstep, a local event (concert, tent meeting, stadium, crusade, etc.), or local church; claiming we realize we are a sinner who needs the forgiveness of Christ, to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. So, we ask Christ to come into our hearts, possibly get baptized (but there be some who do not even make it to this step of obedience), and then we are all but done with our Christian walk and fellowship with our Savior.

We have done what we have been told must be done to give us a clear conscious and free eternal access to heaven, NO MATTER WHAT WE DO HEREAFTER. We allow sin to abound in our life, expecting, almost demanding, grace must also abound to cover whatever our flesh desires to do; even if is in total opposition to God and His Word, for we have prayed the prayer. As the taxi driver above, we smile, ‘Once Saved Always Saved (salvation) is wonderful. Now we can do whatever we want.’

With our backs pressed hard against the wall we may not claim this, but our actions declare it loud and clear both to God and man. When asked, we quickly mimic, ‘I am a Christian’, though we have no desire to attend church, pray, read or study scripture, speak or ponder the things of God, nor has there been any change in our thoughts and actions since the day we claim to have put faith in Christ.

No, Christians are not perfect, but there is more to Christianity than simply stating ‘I am a Christian’. James tells us (ch. 2) ‘Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.’

Now, let me make it fully clear, I am an advocate who believes scripture teaches once a person is truly saved, they cannot lose salvation; for we are in Christ (Romans 8). Yet, grace is not a license to sin, nor is profession of faith without works WHICH MUST FOLLOW (because of the spiritual quickening and indwelling of the Holy Spirit within us) a proof one is forgiven and bound for heaven. Anyone who claims salvation, yet has no desire for a personal relationship with Christ, needs desperately to examine themselves and seek repentance; for a truly repentant heart does as Christ: gives themselves over to the will of God rather than their own will.

Full or Half-Hearted Repentance

I was reading an article today at Challies.com, entitled Real Guilt and Sinfulness, and the following words of the writer just stood out to me:

I have met countless people who consider themselves Christians and who admit to sin in their lives and feel guilt and remorse for individual sins, but who seem unable or unwilling to admit the incontrovertible fact that their hearts are in rebellion against God.

This statement really made me think about my life before Christ, but also my life after Christ.

I have personally known persons who would not outright claim they were perfect, yet at the same time have difficulty confessing they were at fault for a particular act; lest they could somehow limit or nullify their part of the blame, by focusing more attention on the action(s) of another who surely is more than or just as guilty as they. This can be easily seen in children, whether between siblings or friends, but is rather easily found in the lives of adults as well. I suppose this shows our tendency away from true repentance; for although we may inwardly feel guilt or remorse for personal sins (for whatever one may name as sin in their life), we still have a difficult, almost impossible, time testifying of our guilt before God without casting some or all of the guilt upon another.

As I look at the statement above, I can’t help but ponder the idea of whether or not we as Christians have kept some of our pre-Christian ideas or excuses. I would assume most professing Christians would acknowledge in our pre-quickening state, many, if not all, seldom saw themselves in outright rebellion against God, but merely making mistakes, doing bad things, and just messing up – like everybody does. We would do better next time. The reality is, I fear, we as professing Christians do not see our hearts as we really are when we presently act in rebellion against God. We may humbly shake our heads in agreement with the pastor that scripture teaches there are sins of omission and commission, but do we confess any act we do contrary to the truth of God is done in outright rebellion?

We know better, yet do it anyway! Is this not our heart in rebellion against God? How do we repent of such, when we are confronted with such a truth by the Holy Spirit or spiritual brother/sister in Christ? Do we confess the act, but digress from repentance of the fullness of our sin? Our act of sin is not simply a mistake, but a willful disobedience in outright rebellion against the Holy One we claim to have redeemed us from the very bondage of transgression we so eagerly return to embrace (for whatever cause)! We cannot simply wink at sin, as if it is merely a mistake done in ignorance, or slide it under the rug with our light consideration of it; for all too often we know we are in disobedience, and follow through with the act with a heart and mind steadfast against God!

May God help us to see sin as it truly is, and give us a desire for true full repentance from it!

Technology: The Gradual Time Thief

I happened upon a blog/website today, while doing a quick search to look for a review of a book I was questioned about by a friend of mine but have not read myself. At Challies’ site, I found an interesting article regarding what could be termed Technology: The Gradual Time Thief.

The writer spends a few minutes discussing how he ‘recently came to the realization that email owns me. A good technology that should be at my disposal has instead taken over and put me at its disposal.’ He further shares, ‘When I find myself compulsively glancing at my screen every time I walk by, hoping to see an icon telling me I've got a new message, when I unthinkingly pull out my iPhone to check to see if I've got any new email, I realize I've got a problem. When I sit in meetings with email open, glancing as often to the screen as to the person speaking, I understand that something has gone wrong.’ He goes on to explain, ‘Hear me when I say that email is not a bad thing. It's not a good thing either, really; it's just a thing.’ Then he notes some ideas of how he plans to continue to allow email to be used as a tool, yet not as a controlling factor of his life.

I know personally, this has brought some awareness of my own actions regarding email, blogs, groups, and even Facebook. How much time have I spent checking email, reading blogs, participating in groups, and skimming Facebook feeds, and what percentage of my time has been fruitful in gleaning instructive, important, and productive info worth the hours exhausted in doing so?

As a Christian, I cannot help but ask myself, have I allowed at least equal time for God and my family, in the study of His Word and prayer, along with communication and interaction with my love ones? I scarcely wish to compare.

As the writer notes, I too do not believe interaction with the use of email, blogs, groups, Facebook, etc. to be bad or should be totally denied, for they serve their purpose; but I do believe we need to ensure we are in control of the technology, rather than it being in control of us. We must beware, because it does not necessarily overcome us at the onset, but seemingly gradually over a time of habit till it becomes our norm.

Atheist Presents Gospel, Christian Exposes Unbelief

Apparently, the known atheists Christopher Hitchens sat down with the former ‘minister’ of the First Unitarian Church of Portland, Marilyn Sewell, for an interview. The discussion was based around Hitchens book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

Interestingly, Hitchens describes himself through the words of Pascal, ‘in his Pensées, his great apology for Christianity—“so made that they cannot believe”,’ declaring he is one of the ‘10 percent of us (who) just never can bring themselves to take religion seriously.’ Though, he does not deny ‘religion as natural to humans’ or that ‘we do seem in the majority to have a tendency to worship, and to look for patterns that lead to supernatural conclusions,’ it would seem that he apparently believes he was created (or evolved) without equal proneness to such things within his own being. He notes, it’s not because of intellect, so must it be natural selection? I jest.

In question #4, Hitchens not only presents the gospel, but also exposes Sewell’s unbelief all in one sentence:

The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make and distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?

I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.

From here, the interview seems to turn from Sewell asking Hitchens of his unbelief (atheism), to Hitchens further exposing Sewell’s unbelief of Christian theology and doctrine. Hitchens declares, ‘Paul says, very clearly, that if it is not true that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, then we the Christians are of all people the most unhappy. If none of that’s true, and you seem to say it isn’t, I have no quarrel with you.’ Later, Sewell even shares, ‘I don’t know whether or not God exists in the first place, let me just say that…I choose to believe because—and this is a very practical thing for me—I seem to live with more integrity when I find myself accountable to something larger than myself.’

Hitchens does make a valid point regarding works, in that he says: ‘any good action by a religious person could be duplicated or matched, if not surpassed, by someone who didn’t believe in god,’ which focuses on the ‘works based salvation’ presented by many professing Christians. People, both of the saved and unsaved, do both good and bad works in the flesh, but the differences is that God also judges the motives (the heart) behind the works, and the faith and unbelief associated with them. So, although we can see persons do good deeds, even marvelous selfless acts of kindness, it does not, in and of itself, ensure them the immortality of heaven. Repentance of sin and faith in Christ does; though good deeds should not be absent, but flow forth from such quickening of the spirit (Ephesians 2:8-10).

In the interview, I can’t determine who deserves more remorse. The atheist who declares he was created without the ability to believe, or the professing Christian who claims she agrees not only with ‘almost everything’ the atheist says but while stating she takes the Scriptures seriously (and even reads her grandmother’s Bible), she isn’t sober enough to take it literally nor any of the teachings.

F- Biology Confusion

The Bing search posted the other day on the front page of MSN read, Another Pregnant Man.

It further states, ‘The man is Scott Moore, who grew up as Jessica. His parents helped him make the transition to being male at a young age.’ According to the New York Daily News, Scott (aka Jessica) apparently told his/her parents that (s)he ‘realized he wanted to be a man’ around 11 years old. But, because (s)he is actually a female, (s)he had to start taking male hormones when (s)he was 16 years old. Although they did remove some female anatomy, the cost of surgery meant (s)he could not have the ‘full sex reassignment surgery’; therefore, (s)he ‘still has female reproductive organs’.

Moore’s partner Thomas, was born as the female named Laura, but ‘underwent sex reassignment surgery last year’. Thomas has two children ‘from a previous relationship with a woman who has since passed away.’

This story is just so bizarre, and apparently is not the only one of its kind. Just looking at the facts presented, how can one claim such is natural, normal, or suggest it should be considered even remotely similar to marriage or the proper natural relationship of a man and a woman according to nature (not to mention the Holy Word of God)?

We have, according to the articles, two people born female who desired to be likened unto males. The one (Thomas, aka Laura) that was able to have the sex reassignment was once already in a relationship with a woman. That by definition is homosexuality. The other (Scott, aka Jessica) was born female, did not have sex reassignment, and is now using her female reproductive organs to carry a child, all the while claiming to desire to be male. This too is homosexuality, with even a more perverted twist. Being both females, they could not biology produce a child, so (s)he ‘got pregnant using the sperm of a friend in June 2009, the Daily Mail reports.’

But, yet there is even more confusion to the story. Not only do we have (1) two females wanting to be males; (2) with one female wanting to be male, yet carry a baby as a female; (3) they are ‘legally married’ because Scott (aka Jessica) still uses her female birth certificate to do so.

It is amazing at what lenghts people will go to try to justify their love of sin, and not only with such cases as these, but with many other sins we have and are guilty of committing ourselves. May we be moved by the Holy Spirit unto conviction to repent of sin, and put our faith in Jesus Christ. Pray for your children and those you know, for such stories may surely become the 'norm' should those who despise the Light have their way...

Parents Know Your Children - Church Know Their Parents

Granted, I haven’t really stayed up-to-date with all the news surrounding Rifqa Bary, who has seemingly been labeled the Christian Convert in more than a few articles, but in reading a few reports today of her apparent runaway with the help of church leadership, I couldn’t help but consider a few thoughts in regards to the situation.

1. One article states that Rifqa met the persons of Global Revolution Church through Facebook. This brings up the question; do we know what our children are doing on the internet, and who they may be conversing with online? What are they searching for or being presented with, and what types of topics or activities are they taking part in? Are they beneficial or harmful to the mental, physical, and spiritual wellbeing of our children? We can’t and won’t know, unless we take an active role in the personal lives of our sons and daughters. This is not limited to just the internet or cell phone contacts, but also such communication with others from family, church, school, and the neighborhood.

2. There is also the mentioning that Rifqa was apparently previously baptized without the knowledge or consent of her parents. As one who is a member and attends a local Baptist church, I believe we need to remember the biblical God-given leadership of the home as being to the father, as the legal given to the parents, and not try to usurp authority over such. I believe it is more important to try and reach the parents, rather than create animosity or separation between the parent and the child (especially under 18). Conversion takes place in the heart/spirit/soul of an individual and the Holy Spirit, through repentance of sin and faith in Christ; whereas baptism is merely the outward act of obedience of a good conscience toward that faith, and could be delayed if necessary.

3. It appears that the church leadership based their judgments of coercing or helping the girl to run away from home on the words of Rifqa herself, but I can’t help but wonder if possibly preconceived ideas from the mass resources on negative Islamic faith and practices from the news media and elsewhere played a part in their reasoning also. Again, are we not to at least attempt to contact the parents of a child of whom we have confiding in us, or try our best to investigate the claims to see if there is any merit to them? There have been plenty of stories children have told to only later find out they were somewhat misunderstanding the complete story and some outright lying, so should we not be hesitant in making judgments regarding children and their parents till we searched out the truth and find support for the claims we are given?

4. Rifqa’s father claims he loves her, and that she is free to practice any religions she wants. He also states that she has been labeling herself as a Christian since 14 years old, so why would Rifqa now believe or declare a fear of physical harm from her father? As a father, it would break my heart to hear my daughter claim she feared for her safety or life because of me. We are supposed to be the protectors of our children, with our homes a safe haven for them to run to when the whole world seems to be falling down around them. If our children feel they have been rejected by all, they should know we as their fathers (and mothers) are here for them. Even in poor judgment and at times they need correction, they should know it is done in love and for their benefit.

My points here have less to do specifically about the situation with Rifqa (for I am far lacking in information to judge all the factors of such a case), and more as a thinking process of what would/should we do if we were presented with a similar situation within our home or at our church. Parents – we should know our children! And church members – we need to know the parents of the children that may come to our church or contact us without their dad or mom. We are to be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves; therefore let us pray and act upon intelligent decisions.

Haiti Earthquake: Judgment or Prophecy

In the wake of the recent tragedy in Haiti, namely the enormous earthquake which has sent many a souls out into eternity, the notable Rev. Pat Robertson made the following comments according to CBS News.

"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it," Robertson said. "They were under the heel of the French ... and they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, 'We will serve you if you'll get us free from the French.'"

The article then quotes Rev. Paul Raushenbush's words directed at Rev. Pat Robertson: "Go to Hell, Pat Robertson -- and the sooner the better," he wrote. "Your 'theological' nonsense is revolting. Don't speak for Haiti, and don't speak for God. Haiti is suffering a catastrophe and you offer silliness at best, and racism at the worst."

So, we have a professing Christian declaring the judgment of God upon a nation he believes is reaping what they have sown by making ‘a pact to the devil’, while another Christian declares the judgment of God upon the first to send him to hell for his comments. Do we see that each of these individuals, while claiming Christianity, take the same ideals, with both having a seemingly lack of compassion? So, who is the better role model, declaring the ideals of Christ they both profess to believe and exercise? Is it the one who condemns the Haiti people to hell, or the one who condemns a fellow believer to hell? I scarcely can choose…

The scriptures are pretty clear about reaping and sowing, both in the positive and negative sense, regarding sin and good works. Yet, the scriptures equally reveal in the latter times there will be wars, rumors of wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, etc. Scripture also speaks (in John 9) of a man born blind, whereby the disciples questioned Christ as to whether the meaning of the man’s blindness was due to the sin of himself or his parents. In this passage the disciples (i.e. believers) specifically asked Christ was the reason for the man being born blind due to the judgment of sin (whether his own or his parents). Christ’s answer was, ‘Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.’ Christ’s response was not to say that the man nor his parents had never sinned, but that the man’s blindness was based on the sovereignty of God and not sin.

I used to easily cast judgment myself, as similar circumstances such as Hurricane Katrina struck hard the city of New Orleans and elsewhere, but I have come to rather be more cautious in reserving my opinion of what may and may not be the judgment of God upon a person, people, or place. For it is true that individually whosoever ‘soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption’ and that ‘the wages of sin is death’; and though there is forgiveness of sin through Christ, there is still the chastisement of the Lord and consequences of sin which may affect us the rest of our days. And ‘we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together’ because of the sin and death upon the world because of corruption, along with the appointed ‘acts of nature’ the scriptures prophecy shall be and come.

Therefore, I must conclude, that we (as man) cannot so easily judge a person, people, or nation regarding the punishment of God; for it seems to me, there are those things which come upon us because of our sin, and there be those things which come because they must needs be to declare ‘the works of God’. This is not to say that we cannot see sin as sin, whether in ourselves or others, by the principles of the scriptures, but I am doubtful we can judge tragedy and death is always connected to the apparent sin or rejection of God by a certain person, persons, or place.

Case and point is thus: Take the homosexual, along with a faithful pastor. Both find themselves in the hospital, as the doctor declares to them they have inoperable cancer. The church prays fervently for their pastor, while there are no believers who even know the homosexual to pray for. The time comes; whereby the homosexual and the pastor die, and go out into eternity. Judge ye: if thus was judgment upon the one for the sin of homosexuality, what was the reason for the non-healing of the pastor, and how does one determine the difference?

So, in conclusion, if this earthquake is the judgment of God: is that to say that even the non-Haiti and professing Christians who perished, was because they too (or their forefathers) 'swore a pact to the devil'; they were just in the wrong place and the wrong time; they were being punished for helping the Haiti people; or when God judges He doesn't differentiate between the just and the unjust?

Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

Click below to read the full Manhattan Declaration.

Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience

Health: Renew Marriage Commitment Rather Than Divorce

Today, I came across an article at MSN.com, apparently provided by Redbook, entitled ‘Can You Spot the Hidden Heart Dangers?’. What caught my eye was not so much this title, but the included subtopic, ‘3. Your marriage’. They propose, ‘It's normal to have your share of tiffs with your spouse, but if your relationship with your partner is marked by constant stress and strain, your risk of heart attack increases up to 34 percent, according to a 12-year study of more than 9,000 men and women published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.’

This really got me thinking. According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we are approximately at a divorce rate of 3.5 per 1,000 population in the United States. (see data) The Christian Science Monitor claims, ‘The divorce rate fell 4 percent in 2008 to 16.9 divorces per 1,000 married women, according to Census Bureau data. It had previously been on an upward path, rising from 16.4 divorces per 1,000 married women in 2005 to 17.5 in 2007.’

By some sources, we boast over 50% in our divorce rate here in the United States. I say boast, because I don’t see much (if any) remorse or humility with such a standing in the world from us. Even with the cry over the ‘Sanctity of Marriage’, according to The Christian Post, ‘Among all born again Christians, which includes evangelicals, the divorce figure is 32 percent, which is statistically identical to the 33 percent figure among non-born again adults, the research group noted.’

Today, there are many reasons people give to justify divorce. Even as Christians, we tend to bend, twist, and even ignore the very Word of God we claimed to be our source of Truth, just to allow ourselves, family, or friends to escape the feelings of remorse or guilt for desiring to leave their spouse. I am fully aware of the few (and I stress a couple, realizing opinions vary with this topic) Biblical reasons for divorce, but far too often we as Christians are merely grasping at straws trying to pull God into our corner to justify our sinful lusts and covetousness. God is not fooled, nor does/will He excuse our sin.

What this article caused me to ponder is will this be yet a new reason for Christians (or others) to give to try and validate their wish to divorce their spouse? ‘We need to divorce, because my health is being affected.’

I am grateful the article actually posed a positive solution, by stating, ‘To avoid a heart attack—not to mention improve your marriage—consider going for counseling, says Georgiades.’ Now, I am not suggesting every couple that is having problems needs to run out and see a counselor. What I do agree with, is every marriage should seek reconciliation rather than separation, a reason to work at renewing the marriage commitment rather than seeking divorce.

Resolve To Better Actions And Reactions

As we wave goodbye to 2009, we are forced to welcome in 2010. I say forced, not that it is a bad thing, but we really do not have a choice whether or not to embrace it. What we do have a choice to embrace is how we will act and react to all the circumstances that may surround us this year.

Quite often each January 1st, we enlist a good number of resolutions which are seldom kept the entire length of our promise. For different reasons, possibly some within our control while others outside of it, we find our commitments lacking as the days stroll by. Even though we frequently choose to spotlight such self improvements as weight loss, eating habits, better job, do more, quitting things, etc., the initial enthusiasm seems to fade with the seasons.

How about this year, we focus to be more resolute in being a better person not only to ourselves, but also to others? Possibly, we could reach out to family and friends we haven’t spoken to in years, whether because of the miles or grievance. Instead of being simply a silent witness or introvert, why not allow ourselves to have fellowship with the church members and co-workers we see on a daily or weekly basis? What if we take the preliminary steps to reestablish torn or struggling relationships, by allowing ourselves to forgive and be kind to others, whether or not they ask or seek our forgiveness or restoration?

May we all be resolved this year to not only desire better actions of ourselves, but also better reactions to the actions of others. It will be difficult, and most assuredly push us uncomfortably from our comfort zone, but through our patience and consideration of what is right (based on Truth and not the actions of others) how can we not arrive at 2011 a better person with more character?

Global Warming or Hot Air

Apparently, among the emails, phone calls, and conferences regarding Climate Research, there is some indistinguishable Hot Air among the Global Warming speculations.

Al Gore recall
Hacked email

The article (above) notes:
But several scientists whose names appear in the e-mail messages said they merely revealed that scientists were human, and did nothing to undercut the body of research on global warming. “Science doesn’t work because we’re all nice,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA whose e-mail exchanges with colleagues over a variety of climate studies were in the cache. “Newton may have been an ass, but the theory of gravity still works.”

What exactly does it mean, ‘scientists [are] human’? That they are capable of hiding evidence that contradicts their theory, that they are capable of falsifying data to promote their job security? I understand, as Schmidt declares, that some persons (scientists or other) may be more difficult to understand or get along with, but outright lying? How can lying and falsifying data NOT at least somewhat ‘undercut the body of research on global warming’?

Interestingly, such accusation, which many scientists (and others) deny should be now used against them and their data, is the very thing they often wish to use against their counters, the Creationists.

So, do I believe in Global Warming? Somewhat, I suppose, based on the reading of The Day of the Lord in 2 Peter 3:

9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

12Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Should We Examine Self Rather Than Chase The Tiger

By now, most everyone has likely heard at least some part of the story(ies) of Tiger Woods, and the numerous allegations of unfaithfulness to his wife Elin Nordegren. I admit, I have not really followed much of this story, but it is quite amazing how quick such articles circulate around the globe in regards to high profile personal lives. There simply seems to be no privacy, no sacred ‘off-limits’ areas, for those who are famed. Even now, it appears that his daily actions, along with those associated with the accusations, are being put under a microscope for all to watch and judge.

I am not saying that break downs in character from one who has become a role model for our children should be simply pushed under the rug, as if to insinuate or ensure an image that they are somehow perfect without fault (sin). Though, if such claims are true, the person would first owe repentance to God, then an apology to his wife and kids, and all without the help or advice of the media and population. And, though as parents, we would like to see an acknowledgment of any wrong doing and the acceptance of responsibility to work at restoration to positively influence our children to do the same, it is neither our right nor our privilege to demand we know everything surrounding the issue within all the personal lives touched by it.

Rather than jump on the bandwagon of chasing down the Tiger, why don’t we take a moment to examine our own hearts and lives? Are we quick to call him a cheat, while we lust and flirt after persons other than our spouse [boyfriend/girlfriend] at work, church, and elsewhere? Do we desire to look upon him as a poor father figure, while we take no time out of our busy lives to spend quality moments with our children? Have we now made him a disgrace of a role model, while we have never done anything to positively influence the next generation? Can we hold ourselves to the same standards we desire to place on others, or do we merely point out their faults to try and justify ourselves?

We should all desire to be a positive role model to those around us. Part of that is striving to live up to the principles we profess to believe, and the other is accepting responsibility and repenting of our actions when we fail to meet those values.