Posts Tagged ‘Hypocrisy’

Martin Luther – The movie, some background and the 95 Theses

Saturday, March 13th, 2010

Last night I watched the movie Luther with my family.  I knew a little of the history of Martin Luther prior to watching, but the movie helped set the historical context  and exposed many more of the issues that were going on in the church and in politics at that time.  I was also amazed to learn that Luther translated the Bible into German by himself because he wanted people to have direct access to the scriptures in their native language.  After watching the movie I wondered what was in the 95 Theses that ticked the Catholic church off so bad and unraveled that part of the world in such a way that over 100,000 people died in the Peasant’s War.  I always thought what upset the Catholic church the most was the loss in revenue they received when people no longer placed value on indulgences, but the movie and Wikipedia seem to support that the Catholic church was equally bothered by Luther providing people with personal access to a Bible they could understand and for the theological claims he made about grace and relationship with Christ.

I highly recommend the movie.  Based on the historical details of the account as captured on Wikipedia, the movie appears to have stayed true to history, down to some pretty specific details.  For example, the speech that Luther gives at the Diet of Worms is quoted verbatim from historical accounts.  If you have never read the 95 Theses, they are pasted below.  As you read through each point, if you confidently and adamantly disagree with anything Luther wrote, please reply with a comment stating the # of the item you disagree with and why.

Before you read the 95 Theses, you need to understand what an ‘indulgence’ was/is…here is a brief explanation for those who don’t know:

Indulgence - The practice by which a person could pay money to the church or do a good deed and obtain remission of the temporal punishment due to sin. (often this meant purchasing forgiveness of sins for a dead relative so they would spend less time in purgatory)

Also, here is a quick recap on Martin Luther, also found on Wikipedia:

Martin Luther (10 November 1483 – 18 February 1546) initiated the Protestant Reformation.[1] As a priest and theology professor, he confronted indulgence salesman Johann Tetzel with his The Ninety-Five Theses in 1517. Luther strongly disputed their claim that freedom from God’s punishment of sin could be purchased with money. His refusal to retract all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms in 1521 resulted in his excommunication by the pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the emperor. Martin Luther taught that salvation is not from good works, but a free gift of God, received only by grace through faith in Jesus as redeemer from sin. His theology challenged the authority of the pope of the Roman Catholic Church by teaching that the Bible is the only source of divinely revealed knowledge[2] and opposed sacerdotalism by considering all baptised Christians to be a holy priesthood.[3] Those who identify with Luther’s teachings are called Lutherans.

The first two pages of the 95 Theses in German

Below is the English translation of the 95 Theses Luther posted on the doors of the castle church in Wittenberg Germany in 1517:

1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.

2. This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.

3. Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh.

4. The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self (that is, true inner repentance), namely till our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

5. The pope neither desires nor is able to remit any penalties except those imposed by his own authority or that of the canons.

6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring and showing that it has been remitted by God; or, to be sure, by remitting guilt in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in these cases were disregarded, the guilt would certainly remain unforgiven.

7. God remits guilt to no one unless at the same time he humbles him in all things and makes him submissive to the vicar, the priest.

8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to the canons themselves, nothing should be imposed on the dying.

9. Therefore the Holy Spirit through the pope is kind to us insofar as the pope in his decrees always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.

10. Those priests act ignorantly and wickedly who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penalties for purgatory.

11. Those tares of changing the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory were evidently sown while the bishops slept (Mt 13:25).

12. In former times canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.

13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties, are already dead as far as the canon laws are concerned, and have a right to be released from them.

14. Imperfect piety or love on the part of the dying person necessarily brings with it great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater the fear.

15. This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, to say nothing of other things, to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.

16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ the same as despair, fear, and assurance of salvation.

17. It seems as though for the souls in purgatory fear should necessarily decrease and love increase.

18. Furthermore, it does not seem proved, either by reason or by Scripture, that souls in purgatory are outside the state of merit, that is, unable to grow in love.

19. Nor does it seem proved that souls in purgatory, at least not all of them, are certain and assured of their own salvation, even if we ourselves may be entirely certain of it.

20. Therefore the pope, when he uses the words “plenary remission of all penalties,” does not actually mean “all penalties,” but only those imposed by himself.

21. Thus those indulgence preachers are in error who say that a man is absolved from every penalty and saved by papal indulgences.

22. As a matter of fact, the pope remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to canon law, they should have paid in this life.

23. If remission of all penalties whatsoever could be granted to anyone at all, certainly it would be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to very few.

24. For this reason most people are necessarily deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalty.

25. That power which the pope has in general over purgatory corresponds to the power which any bishop or curate has in a particular way in his own diocese and parish.

26. The pope does very well when he grants remission to souls in purgatory, not by the power of the keys, which he does not have, but by way of intercession for them.

27. They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory.

28. It is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and avarice can be increased; but when the church intercedes, the result is in the hands of God alone.

29. Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed, since we have exceptions in St. Severinus and St. Paschal, as related in a legend.

30. No one is sure of the integrity of his own contrition, much less of having received plenary remission.

31. The man who actually buys indulgences is as rare as he who is really penitent; indeed, he is exceedingly rare.

32. Those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.

33. Men must especially be on guard against those who say that the pope’s pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to him.

34. For the graces of indulgences are concerned only with the penalties of sacramental satisfaction established by man.

35. They who teach that contrition is not necessary on the part of those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessional privileges preach unchristian doctrine.

36. Any truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without indulgence letters.

37. Any true Christian, whether living or dead, participates in all the blessings of Christ and the church; and this is granted him by God, even without indulgence letters.

38. Nevertheless, papal remission and blessing are by no means to be disregarded, for they are, as I have said (Thesis 6), the proclamation of the divine remission.

39. It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the bounty of indulgences and the need of true contrition.

40. A Christian who is truly contrite seeks and loves to pay penalties for his sins; the bounty of indulgences, however, relaxes penalties and causes men to hate them — at least it furnishes occasion for hating them.

41. Papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest people erroneously think that they are preferable to other good works of love.

42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend that the buying of indulgences should in any way be compared with works of mercy.

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences.

44. Because love grows by works of love, man thereby becomes better. Man does not, however, become better by means of indulgences but is merely freed from penalties.

45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but God’s wrath.

46. Christians are to be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they must reserve enough for their family needs and by no means squander it on indulgences.

47. Christians are to be taught that they buying of indulgences is a matter of free choice, not commanded.

48 Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting indulgences, needs and thus desires their devout prayer more than their money.

49. Christians are to be taught that papal indulgences are useful only if they do not put their trust in them, but very harmful if they lose their fear of God because of them.

50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the indulgence preachers, he would rather that the basilica of St. Peter were burned to ashes than built up with the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep.

51. Christians are to be taught that the pope would and should wish to give of his own money, even though he had to sell the basilica of St. Peter, to many of those from whom certain hawkers of indulgences cajole money.

52. It is vain to trust in salvation by indulgence letters, even though the indulgence commissary, or even the pope, were to offer his soul as security.

53. They are the enemies of Christ and the pope who forbid altogether the preaching of the Word of God in some churches in order that indulgences may be preached in others.

54. Injury is done to the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or larger amount of time is devoted to indulgences than to the Word.

55. It is certainly the pope’s sentiment that if indulgences, which are a very insignificant thing, are celebrated with one bell, one procession, and one ceremony, then the gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.

56. The true treasures of the church, out of which the pope distributes indulgences, are not sufficiently discussed or known among the people of Christ.

57. That indulgences are not temporal treasures is certainly clear, for many indulgence sellers do not distribute them freely but only gather them.

58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, for, even without the pope, the latter always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outer man.

59. St. Lawrence said that the poor of the church were the treasures of the church, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.

60. Without want of consideration we say that the keys of the church, given by the merits of Christ, are that treasure.

61. For it is clear that the pope’s power is of itself sufficient for the remission of penalties and cases reserved by himself.

62. The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and grace of God.

63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last (Mt. 20:16).

64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.

65. Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets with which one formerly fished for men of wealth.

66. The treasures of indulgences are nets with which one now fishes for the wealth of men.

67. The indulgences which the demagogues acclaim as the greatest graces are actually understood to be such only insofar as they promote gain.

68. They are nevertheless in truth the most insignificant graces when compared with the grace of God and the piety of the cross.

69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of papal indulgences with all reverence.

70. But they are much more bound to strain their eyes and ears lest these men preach their own dreams instead of what the pope has commissioned.

71. Let him who speaks against the truth concerning papal indulgences be anathema and accursed.

72. But let him who guards against the lust and license of the indulgence preachers be blessed.

73. Just as the pope justly thunders against those who by any means whatever contrive harm to the sale of indulgences.

74. Much more does he intend to thunder against those who use indulgences as a pretext to contrive harm to holy love and truth.

75. To consider papal indulgences so great that they could absolve a man even if he had done the impossible and had violated the mother of God is madness.

76. We say on the contrary that papal indulgences cannot remove the very least of venial sins as far as guilt is concerned.

77. To say that even St. Peter if he were now pope, could not grant greater graces is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope.

78. We say on the contrary that even the present pope, or any pope whatsoever, has greater graces at his disposal, that is, the gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written, 1 Co 12[:28].

79. To say that the cross emblazoned with the papal coat of arms, and set up by the indulgence preachers is equal in worth to the cross of Christ is blasphemy.

80. The bishops, curates, and theologians who permit such talk to be spread among the people will have to answer for this.

81. This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult even for learned men to rescue the reverence which is due the pope from slander or from the shrewd questions of the laity.

82. Such as: “Why does not the pope empty purgatory for the sake of holy love and the dire need of the souls that are there if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a church? The former reason would be most just; the latter is most trivial.

83. Again, “Why are funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continued and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded for them, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?”

84. Again, “What is this new piety of God and the pope that for a consideration of money they permit a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God and do not rather, because of the need of that pious and beloved soul, free it for pure love’s sake?”

85. Again, “Why are the penitential canons, long since abrogated and dead in actual fact and through disuse, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences as though they were still alive and in force?”

86. Again, “Why does not the pope, whose wealth is today greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build this one basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers?”

87. Again, “What does the pope remit or grant to those who by perfect contrition already have a right to full remission and blessings?”

88. Again, “What greater blessing could come to the church than if the pope were to bestow these remissions and blessings on every believer a hundred times a day, as he now does but once?”

89. “Since the pope seeks the salvation of souls rather than money by his indulgences, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons previously granted when they have equal efficacy?”

90. To repress these very sharp arguments of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies and to make Christians unhappy.

91. If, therefore, indulgences were preached according to the spirit and intention of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved. Indeed, they would not exist.

92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Peace, peace,” and there is no peace! (Jer 6:14)

93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Cross, cross,” and there is no cross!

94. Christians should be exhorted to be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, death and hell.

95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven through many tribulations rather than through the false security of peace (Acts 14:22).

Here is a brief scene from the movie during Luther’s speech at the Diet of Worms:

  • Share/Bookmark

Constructive Discussions about Truth

Friday, November 6th, 2009
Constructring our "worldview"

Putting together the pieces of our "world view"

I had a conversation with a dear friend of mine the other night…a friend that is struggling in his pursuit of truth.   I value his opinion and his passion for  truth but I frequently find myself worried about him and what conclusions he will come to as he redefines his world view.  I am worried because I know the importance of our worldviews in determining the decisions we make and the outcomes we experience.

So what does that have to do with “constructive discussions about truth”?   Everything!!

Currently “Our Search for Truth” is slanted heavily towards a Christian worldview because  the current participating authors happen to be various varieties of Christians.  However, the goal of this site is not to sit around talking in Christianese.  The goal of this site is pursuing truth by sharing our different perspectives and worldviews.  It is my belief that when multiple people’s perspectives rub against each other the friction that is created by their differences exposes misperceptions and the truth is ultimately revealed.  The Truth is what remains when all options are explored and all lies are exposed.

As a Christian I am frequently a witness to conversations where fellow Christians seem threatened or irritated by a non-Christian’s disbelief or their differing world view.  Instead of responding with understanding and patience they judge, belittle, preach, or otherwise offend the nonbeliever.

Now before the “anti-Christians” get too excited about pointing their fingers in agreement with my last statement they need to be honest with themselves and admit that they are often just as guilty of destroying any opportunity for rational discussion.

Constructive Discussion?

What do you mean you think Halloween is evil?

For example, go to YouTube and find a “Christian” or an “Atheist” video.  You won’t have to look far before you find an Atheist writing horrible, aggressive expletives meant to demean and ridicule the Christian.  Then, right above or below their comment will be the immature Christian saying something like “You’ll burn in hell for that” or maybe something slightly nicer like “Repent and God may have mercy on your soul” (as if they know God is on their side in the discussion) – here are 32,000 examples.

For Christians:

ixoye_fishWhere does God stand on this issue?  The Bible says that God did not send his son into this world to condemn the world but to save the world through Him.  The Bible also says that God loved us while we were yet sinners….meaning God loved us before we liked Him, acted like Him, or thought like Him.  The Bible portrays a Jesus that hung out with sinners, went to social events with “non-believers”, encouraged prostitutes to start over and give life another try, and as someone who always befriended the poor, down-trodden, and even the people that most everyone hated (like tax collectors).  Where are the Christians that serve that Jesus?  Where are the Christians that welcome uncomfortable conversations filled with opposing truth claims?

For non-Christians:

newatheismsymbolBut what if you are an atheist or agnostic (or a believer in some other religion) and don’t really care what the Bible says or what Jesus was like?  Does that give you free liberty to purposely offend (or avoid) Christians every chance you get?  Now I can’t speak to “non-believers” on any particular moral grounds since, as some would argue, they have no moral system to leverage as a foundation.  But, from what I understand of the “new atheists” they believe that there are intrinsic universal values (that have nothing to do with a creator) that tell us right from wrong and that form the basis for a humanistic code of ethics.  Does your personal code of ethics (or conscience) lead you to believe it is better to try to understand others or does it lead you to believe you should drown out all ideas contrary to your own?

For everyone:

I am assuming that most people that have taken the time to read this far would agree with the 5th habit of Steven Covey’s “7 Habits of Highly Effective People”:

Seek First to Understand, Then to be Understood

He calls this concept the Principle of Mutual Understanding.  Here is the summary provided by Wikipedia for Habit 5:

7habitsofhighlyeffectivepeopleHabit 5 – Principle of Mutual Understanding: Covey warns that giving out advice before having empathetically understood a person and their situation will likely result in that advice being rejected. Thoroughly listening to another person’s concerns instead of reading out your own autobiography is purported to increase the chance of establishing a working communication.

The mission of OS4T is to “provide an open forum to share and discuss truth”.  The prerequisite for an effective forum is “working communication”.  I am hoping that as this site matures it will attract people with vast differences in beliefs that all share these four traits in common:

  • A commitment to seek first to understand before you try to be understood
  • Respect for others even when you vehemently disagree (and a willingness to agree to disagree)
  • A commitment to share and discuss with intellectual and emotional honesty.
  • A desire to pursue the truth even if it isn’t leading you where you thought it would

Back to my friend:

What does all this have to do with my friend?  Here is what is going on in my mind that has me concerned:

  1. I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God that equips us for good works and abundant living and that its message of salvation is true.
  2. Most Christians that my friend interacts with are not open to brutally honest dialog with someone who is struggling  with tough questions about God and purpose.
  3. This is good for the Atheists and, if they are right, it helps prevent my friend from wasting time on a non-existent God….but, if the Christian worldview is true, my friend will miss out on an opportunity to experience that truth.  If I am right about the Bible being true, how will my friend arrive at the same conclusion if he comes to despise the hypocrisy, unauthenticness, and defensiveness of Christians?

For Christians:

ixoye_fishGod is not afraid of a lack of faith….He loved us while we were yet sinners….before we had faith.  God “draws us to repentance by His kindness”.  The only hope I have for my friend at this point is that he will experience the kindness of God even if he doesn’t experience the kindness of God’s people.  I am begging you, if you are a Christian reading this post, please respond with gentleness to any anger, bitterness, loneliness, frustration or confusion a person may have that lacks your same faith.  Before you “preach”…listen.  Before you judge…love.  Before you condemn….forgive.  Before you slander…pray.  Before you speak, think.  Think about who you were the moment before you submitted your life to Christ.  Think about the grace and love you experienced from God and from the person who led you to Truth.  Pass that same Grace, and Love, and Truth on to someone else…not by nagging and judging but through understanding and kindness.

We are commanded by Christ to love our enemies and to do good to those who hate us.  We don’t have to feel threatened or get defensive when someone thinks or feels differently than us. The Truth is the Truth.  The truth is not afraid of being “found”.  If you are so confident that you know the truth then why not share with others by first hearing them out and understanding them.  Once you understand them you will be better prepared to explain why you think differently (if you still do after hearing them out).

For non-Christians:

newatheismsymbolThe same goes for the Atheist…just for different reasons.  You may not be motivated by devotion to Christ to love your enemies and to respond to them with kindness but if you truly believe you are right then it seems like you would want to share the reasons why you think Atheism is the truth.  If Christians are ignorant and disillusioned in their beliefs then only rational dialog (tempered with kindness) will persuade them to see things your way.  There can’t both be a God and not be a God.  Someone is wrong and someone is right but, no matter who is right, there is no reason we can’t treat each other with respect and agree to disagree as we both pursue the same thing – TRUTH.

Blessings, BoB

PS – This post focuses on Christians and Atheists but the same thing holds true for agnostics, Muslims, Buddists, Hindus, etc.  We can share our experiences and thoughts with respect and understanding….even if we never persuade each other to our way of thinking.

LET THE CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT TRUTH BEGIN

  • Share/Bookmark

One Hypocrite, Coming Right Up!

Thursday, October 29th, 2009

Fatburger

(Disclaimer:  For the purposes of this post, I will be making an analogy between a vegetarian hypocrite and a Christian hypocrite.  I in no way mean to imply that vegetarianism equates to Christianity, or that carnivores are carnal.  I am merely trying to draw a parallel between those who are inconsistent in beliefs and behavior.)

I heard about a new kind of sandwich the other day that truly intrigues me.  It is served by a burger joint called “Fatburgers”, and  is apparently a frequently requested order by some of the regulars.  The main two components of the sandwich are a veggie-based burger and . . .  bacon.  That’s right, bacon! It is no wonder the sandwich is affectionately dubbed “The Hypocrite” by all who order it.

Upon hearing about this new concoction in the burger world, I was incredulous!  Why would someone bother ordering a meatless burger patty if they were going to ultimately top it with greasy bacon?  It seemed to me that if one were planning on consuming pork strips anyway, why not go ahead and order a fat-laden red meat burger to go under them?   “The “Hypocrite” burger was obviously being marketed specifically to vegetarians with an identity crisis.   And then it dawned on me that this is how God must see our “hypocrite” souls as well.  Allow me to elaborate.

According to the dictionary, a hypocrite is a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion, or a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.    The way I see it,  the vegetarian who orders  bacon on top of their meatless burger is probably doing so for one of two reasons.  One, he is not fully decided or committed to vegetarianism because he or she is not fully convinced that it is the best way to live.  Or two, the person absolutely believes that vegetarianism is the best way to live and is having a temporary lapse of  resolve.  As odd as ordering a bacon-topped veggie burger may seem, it is not all that different from the Christian hypocrite – that is,  professors of Christ with who have an identity crisis much like the bacon-ordering vegetarian.  We as Christians proclaim this and that, declaring all manner of standards and guidelines publicly, only to fall seriously short of those standards in our private thoughts and actions.   This inconsistency is repulsive to our Lord in several ways.

The first kind of inconsistency is more about the person that has trouble making up their mind about the right way to live.  (i.e. the person who hasn’t decided if they want to fully embrace vegetarianism or not. . . not unlike the man who has not fully made up his mind about the path to be taken).  This reminds me of  a couple of passages from scripture.  The first one speaks of the double-minded man:

2Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. 4Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. 5If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. 6But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; 8he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does (James 1:2-8).

So the double-minded man is one who can not make up his mind or fully commit with all of his heart.   Hmmm . . . Bacon or no bacon?  Do I really want to be a vegetarian?  Or, similarly, should I  fully commit to Christ  and live accordingly or not?  The double- minded man is  a doubter who struggles with full-blown commitment and will often appear inconsistent to those around him.  God has a special category for these types of followers.  These type of people are the “Lukewarm Fence Straddlers”:

15I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou were cold or hot.

16So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth. (Revelation 3:15-16)

“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” (Matthew 6:24

Because the double-minded man is indecisive, he tries to have one foot on God’s side of the fence while keeping one foot grounded in the carnal world.  Or, to keep the analogy going, he orders bacon on his veggieburger

The second kind of inconsistency is the darker of the two, in my opinion.  This kind of  wavering is specifically about the person who wholly knows the right thing to do, and often tells others, while secretly not following through on their own convictions. (i.e. the person who has unreservedly decided to declare vegetarianism as law, and loudly proclaim it to all, but orders bacon on their veggie-burger when they think no one who knows them is watching).

God wants us to be people of integrity – people whose private thoughts and actions must be congruent with what we are teaching and preaching to others.  Jesus’ main beef  (isn’t that a convenient twist on words?)  with the Pharisees was the gap between who they claimed to be and who they actually were.  The key here is that the Pharisees were condemning others of shortcomings while privately sinning themselves:

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:3-5 KJV)

The purpose of this post is not to scream “Hypocrite!” at any of you.  Nor is it to convince anyone to become a vegetarian (which I am not).  When I heard about “The Hypocrite” burger at “Fatburgers” it called my attention to the meaning of the word itself and caused me to reflect on the areas of hypocrisy that rule my life.  I encourage each of you to do the same.  Are there any areas in your life that you are double-minded or straddling the fence about?  Or, are there areas that you are completely decided about and yet willfully violating God’s word and commandments in your life?

5Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test? (2 Corinthians 13:5)

31(AG) But if we judged[h] ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32But when we are judged by the Lord,(AH) we are disciplined[i] so that we may not be(AI) condemned along with the world. (1 Corinthians 11:31-32)

As for Fatburgers, I predict no trouble with double-mindedness on my next visit.  I have already decided what my order will be.  No veggie burgers with sprouts for me. Give me an extra juicy  double cheeseburger.  With bacon, please!


  • Share/Bookmark