Fellowhelpers to the Truth

Today we're going to read about Gaius in a letter written to Gaius by you guessed it... the apostle John. The book of III John is where we will turn, but first a little bit of background.

We know from different texts of the New Testament that Gaius was baptized of Paul, that he travelled with Paul and was caught in the riot at Ephesus, and that he had since that time often shown great hospitality to Paul. So Gaius is a disciple of Paul through and through. But this epistle is not written by Paul, which I do find to be intriguing.

John wants to focus upon one element of this background as he writes to Gaius. He wants to commend him for his generosity and encourage him to continue to be a fellowhelper to the truth. Due to time, let's start with verses 5-8,

"Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the brethren, and to strangers; Which have borne witness of thy charity before the church: whom if thou bring forward on their journey after a godly sort, thou shalt do well: Because that for his name's sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles. We therefore ought to receive such, that we might be fellowhelpers to the truth."

So here John makes it clear that Gaius has done faithfully with his giving, not to the church as an institution, but to Christians and unbelievers alike when they are in need. Gaius is helpful and an encouragement to several people.

But his attitude is not universal. John continues by saying in verses 9-11,

"I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church. Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God."

Diotrephes is the counter-example to Gaius. He has influence and power over the church at Corinth. And instead of using that power to help people, like Gaius did, he uses that power to thwart the help that people give. He is not content with just not providing kindness to those around him, but he will threaten those who attempt to provide generosity.

It is in this context, that John encourages Gaius to continue to follow that which is good and not that which is evil. The easy way out for Gaius would be to succumb to the will of Diotrephes. But John asks that he does not.

John also makes the case that he that does good is of God while he that does evil has not seen God. This verse needs to be understood the way it was written in the Greek. In Greek, verb tense indicates the type of action that is being portrayed. And these verbs are in the present tense, which conveys an ongoing process. The idea is that if one habitually does good then they are of God, while he that habitually does evil has not seen God.

John adds in verse 12 these words,

"Demetrius hath good report of all men, and of the truth itself: yea, and we also bear record; and ye know that our record is true."

This example of Demetrius I think is written so as to encourage Gaius. It may seem that all is lost and that he is the only one who is actually serving God by serving others, but he's not. There is still Demetrius.

It reminds me of the story of Elijah when hunted by Queen Jezebel, when he thought there wasn't a single person serving God alongside him. This is a topic we have looked at before.  Yet the Lord assures him,

"Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him."

So, Christian friend, continue like Gaius and Demetrius in being generous and meeting the needs of those around you.

Legitimacy of Iraqi Bombing

Last political post, I used the situation in Ukraine to demonstrate that the United States should intervene in foreign conflicts only to protect national security. Had I not already laid this groundwork then, I would not likely be bold enough to write this post today. It's time to use those principles as it pertains to President Obama's decision to bomb Iraq.

The situation in Iraq is depressing. A full out civil war is in place as radical muslims begin to persecute Christians and other non-muslim minorities in Iraq. This situation changed President Obama's typical hands-off approach to a more interventionist mentality as he ordered bombing on these radical rebels in Iraq.

Naturally, all Christians need to have compassion for the plight of these Christians that are being persecuted there in Iraq. Compassion is a great motivation for individual action in the world, such as the action taken by the Catholic Near East Welfare Association. However, compassion should not impact foreign policy decisions.

I know, I sound like a heartless jerk. But governments are amoral entities which need to follow the contracts that they are created for, and charity is not one of those purposes. Last political post, you all probably agreed with my rationale as it pertained to the situation in Russia and Ukraine, but now because Christians are being persecuted, things begin to change.

I get it. I hate what is happening in Iraq as much as you do. But if there is one thing I've learned, it's this - it does no good to have principles if you don't follow them universally. Otherwise, you follow them only when you deem it convenient, and you mise well not have principles at all.

So we can't change the way we view politics just because we have more compassion for the situation that is brought in before it. Indeed if you remember back to Davy Crockett's "Not Yours to Give" speech, you will find that that is the very argument he uses to say that all charity is outside the bounds of the Constitution. It would be far too easy to declare that some crony cause is necessary for humanitarian purposes. It becomes far too easy to manipulate the system to serve your own interests.

That's why despite my sympathy for this situation, I have to stand by and say that United States actions in Iraq are not legitimate.

Please join me in praying for the Christians in Iraq, and the continued United States involvement that I'm sure will come despite my feelings of illegitimacy.

Ukraine, Moral Agents, and the Justification of United States Intervention

About 5 months ago, I wrote a post about how speculation about where the situation in Ukraine is going might be a bit premature. That is very quickly changing at the moment. As more and more developments occur, and more blood is shed, a serious discussion of what the United States should do is in order.

I think we should make one thing clear. Despite how the President misspoke last Thursday, a tragedy has occurred and is occurring in Ukraine. Forget geopolitics - there is not anything that could be said that could write off the loss of human life that has been experienced in Ukraine.

Still a tragedy is not the only necessary ingredient to justify United States involvement in an international conflict. Sure, if we were talking about people, a tragedy would instill an obligation for anyone with the capacity to help to assist in every way they can.

But government is not a person. Further, government is not accountable as a moral agent, the same way that we as human beings are. So we cannot necessarily use the same logic and moral rationale that we would for people when we are discussing government decisionmaking.

Government instead is an entity created by people of a nation for a specific purpose. Generally considered the social contract theory, the people of a nation come together to form an entity designed to protect them from natural disasters (not to help clean up the damage from a natural disaster though), external threats to national security, and internal threats to the rights of the citizens (i.e. criminals). Any action taken outside this purpose is a violation of a contract.

Consider this analogy, quoted here from my prior post "Not Yours to Give: Unconstitutionality and Injustice of Redistribution," 

"When we hire a business to put in a home security system, we would be much annoyed to say the least if we heard the company had decided instead to use our money to redecorate our house, as they considered that a wiser use of our money."

I daresay it wouldn't matter to us nary a bit if we still got our home security system if they took more money from our bank accounts to buy us new furniture or generally use for purposes other than that which we have contracted them. With that in mind, we ought to consider whether the situation in Ukraine is actually considered a part of  our contract.

I think it is not too much of a stretch to say that the situation in Ukraine is not likely to affect our national security. If the situation proves that it will escalate from a simple border conflict and actually harm United States situation, then obviously we must act.

That is actually what I believe President Obama was trying to say when he said that a "tragedy may have occurred." And I must give him credit that he understands that not every geopolitical conflict requires his involvement (I obviously don't have to give him credit for his skills in communication).

But that might raise a question in your minds. Why should it matter that the security of our nation isn't at stake? Why can't our government act in charity to assist other nations in their struggles? Is not Ukrainian life worth as much as American life?

The answer to the latter question is obviously yes. But we must once again realize that governments are not moral agents, and should never participate in charity, especially on an international level. Let me remind you of the words of Horatio Bunce summarized by Davy Crockett in his speech "Not Yours To Give," Note that while this specifically pertains to money, the same principle would refer to any type of military involvement.

"The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted [sic] to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be... So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity."

So yes, a tragedy has happened, but no, the United States government, since it is not a moral agent is under no obligation to act. Indeed, it is under a strict obligation to remain neutral in this particular affair.

The Here and Now

Last week, I mentioned that Wednesday 7-post series would be no more. I expressed a desire that it would be the first and only casualty of my soon to be less flexible (though not necessarily busier) schedule upcoming my college career. What I said and what I meant were not entirely the same principle.

You see, I had more information about what this particular change meant, and despite all my communication experience, I committed the cardinal sin of forgetting that the audience may not (in this case definitely did not) know the information you do.

This particular change isn't just an end of Wednesday series posts, but a end of Wednesday posts altogether. This post (which will involve substance more than planning shortly) will be the final Wednesday blog post for a long while.

But that is only the half of it. I created Wednesday posts to be a more intellectual, abstract type of Christian teaching in contrast to the simpler, practical-based devotional posts that herald the Friday chain. I am not willing to eliminate these types of discussions.

So there has been a change to Monday posts as well. Instead of heralding a new political post every Monday, I will alternate between politics and Christian ethics.

Ethics is defined by the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, as,

"The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior."

What I specifically mean by ethics is systematizing, defending, and recommending correct behaviour for Christians here and now in this world. This can include stewardship (as we will briefly discuss today), the purpose of man, whether it is always wrong to lie (I kinda snuck this into a couple of devotional posts. Shhhh...), and how elements of Old Testament law apply to us today.

I hope you will stick with me in the coming weeks as we evaluate these areas of ethics. Of course, some may question with as much as I had been presenting that our focus needs to be on eternity, what exactly are we to be responsible for in this world? (This is my smooth transition into that stewardship discussion I promised you.)

Well, for starters, that indicates that we as Christians have a responsibility and are stewards of lost souls and trying to prepare them for eternity and advance the cause of Christ in eternity.

But that's not the end of the story. Indeed we as Christians are not just called to work with problems of eternity. That is to be our focus, but we are not to turn a blind eye to the problems that exist in our world today.

James 1:27 specifically explains,

"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

We are called to care for and visit the sick, poor, and destitute. We have a responsibility to provide for the material and temporal needs of others.

But that of course is not the end of our stewardship obligations. We also must work strongly to care for the environment that has been placed under our care (this doesn't mean we need to stop using the environment altogether).

And of course, I believe that we as Christians have an obligation to be good citizens of our nation, and watch our government to ensure that our freedoms (especially the freedom of religion) are not threatened by the ever-growing governmental bureaucracy.

Let us try our best not to be too heavenly-minded to be any earthly good. After all, we are in this world with specific areas of stewardship available to us. Let us remember well the parable of the talents. 

In this oft-cited parable, we learn of a master who gives talents to his three servants, fully expecting that when he returns to them, they will have increased his possessions. All three knew he was returning and they all were focused upon that fact.

Two of them of course used this knowledge to be good stewards of that which had been presented to them. One decided he would just make sure that he didn't lose his talent. Simply not losing a talent was not enough for this master. He punished the servant greatly for his irresponsibility.

Similarly in our days, we all know that Jesus is returning, but that knowledge and that focus isn't enough to make sure we make the right decisions. We have been given things we need to be stewards of in the current world, and we need not be so concerned with Jesus' return that we don't adequately prepare for it.

That is why we must worry about the stewardship responsibilities that God has placed upon us in the here and now.