Light-work

Twenty Plus Years of Prayer In the Making

This last Saturday, I officiated at a wedding. Not an unusual occurrence, by itself, but there were some special circumstances. The groom was my son. And his bride was someone for whom I have prayed for years but only met a few months ago.

Here is an excerpt of my words from the ceremony:

Lauren, when Alex was born, Mom and I began praying for his future wife. I did not know you then, but God did. I have prayed to God consistently for over twenty years for three things, protection, growth, and a ministry perspective:

(1) God, please protect her and put as much distance as possible from whatever threatens her spiritual welfare. (2) God help her to keep growing in You, to sink her roots deep in Your Word, and to draw close to You. (3) And give her a ministry perspective, a clear and tenacious commitment to spend her life serving Your purposes, to use the gifts and abilities you have given her to advance the work of your kingdom.

It is a genuine delight to meet the first-fruits of that prayer! God is good.

What a beautiful answer to prayer! I look forward to exploring the specifics of how God worked in the years before I met my new daughter.

Church Growth By Intimidation

This was not your usual revival meeting. One man came forward to make an impressive contribution from a real estate deal. Instead of the adulation he envisioned, this man received a thundering rebuke and died on the spot. The guys with the stretcher hardly had time to get his body to the morgue before the man’s wife showed up. She betrayed her complicity in her husband’s scam and promptly joined him in death.

Needless to say, everyone in town was a little rattled! Whispers were heard on the street: “Don’t get too close to those Christian unless you want to put your life on the line.” The whispers were not without warrant. The basic problem with this late couple was an attempt to represent themselves as something they were not. They wanted to LOOK LIKE the real deal without BEING the real deal. Perhaps they actually deluded themselves into thinking they were the real deal. But, God was not fooled by this sham and made His point with double corpses as exclamation points.

Here is Luke’s summary of the reputation of the early church after the “double death revival” meeting:  “But none of the rest dared to associate with them; however, the people held them in high esteem” (Acts 5:13). The average Joe of Jerusalem respected the saints and appreciated their commitment. But he also had enough sense to realize that an insincere association with these folks could prove fatal.

So here is what I find fascinating. Some would say that church growth requires us to present ourselves to the average Joe as unthreatening and undemanding. We should demurely declare, “Hey, come hang with us. We are benign enough to be safe and unintimidating. You’ll feel perfectly at ease.”

But look at Acts 5:14!  When the church was respected but intimidating, that's when growth kicked into high gear!  Luke reports, “And all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number” (Acts 5:14).  The word “and” at the beginning of the verse tells us that when the church was frighteningly  real, that is when its growth went into overdrive! 

Suppose someone comes among us and says, “I respect your devotion and dedication, but I’m not ready to make this kind of commitment.”  Don’t interpret that comment as a call for us to become less committed or to hide our devotion to Jesus under a bushel basket.  It’s an affirmation we are following the lead of one of the fastest growing churches in history.  We may be scary to an average Joe when we are the real deal, but that is also when he sees that in Jesus you don’t have to live a life that’s just average.

Can Bad News Come From Grace?

God had something to say and wanted Jeremiah to get His message through. When God revealed the contents of this message, it gave the prophet reason to pause. God was asking him to deliver the kind of bad news that makes people want to kill the messenger: "Amend your ways or Jerusalem is going to be turned into rubble." His previous experience with national leadership told him not to expect a warm reception.

The beauty of being a pessimist is you're either right or your expectations are exceeded. In this case, after talking straight with Israel, Jeremiah was the former: Then the priests and the prophets spoke to the officials and to all the people, saying, “A death sentence for this man! For he has prophesied against this city as you have heard in your hearing” (Jer. 26:11).

Despite the accusations, Jeremiah did not flinch: Then Jeremiah spoke to all the officials and to all the people, saying, “The Lord sent me to prophesy against this house and against this city all the words that you have heard” (Jer. 26:12).

The skewed  reasoning of the religious bigwigs went like this: “We don’t agree with Jeremiah’s message, and that’s all we need to know. Jeremiah deserves death for the audacity of telling us we need to change.” It is remarkable that the priests and prophets did not debate the merits of Jeremiah’s case. They did not ask, “Could it be true that we must either change or be punished?” Had they done so, they might have seen that Jeremiah’s preaching was a benefit not a bane.

What if someone could have provided rock-solid intelligence about what was planned for 9/11 (and how to prevent it) before it happened? Who wouldn’t find receipt of such information an incredible benefit?  That is precisely what Jeremiah did. But, the power trip the priests and prophets were on blinded them to the value of what they were receiving. The general populace did get it right, saying, “No death sentence of this man! For he has spoken to us in the name of the Lord our God” (Jer. 26:16).   

An unfavorable message, if it comes from God, is evidence of grace not grumpiness. God does not have to warn us. He could easily give us a taste of “shock and awe” without warning.  But that is not how our Father operates. Even when we are walking in disobedience, His love moves Him to tell us what we NEED to hear even when it is not what we WANT to hear. So if you want to receive the full benefits of God’s grace, ask Him to help you hear and take to heart whatever He wants to tell you, even when He has some bad news.

More Memory Tricks

Yesterday, I showed you how Scripture memory can be enhanced when you tap into auditory, visual, and motion memory. This method can be used with other content besides Bible verses. The clip above is a sample of the "Basic Old Testament Survey" we use with our younger elementary age children at CBC. We call it the basic OT survey, because we add numerous supplementary data sets once the children have mastered these basics. For example, we introduce the seven days of creation and the names of the twelve sons of Jacob. I have attached a print copy of the Basic OT Survey for your reference.

It is important for children to understand this basic historical framework and how the books of the Old Testament fit in this sequence. But our investment in children must go beyond this level of learning. All Scripture is designed to change how we think, speak, and act. So we also show them how to draw valid applications for their personal lives from the Bible's account of God's dealings with Israel.

Bible Memory With Motions

Children are way smarter than you think. For example, using the method depicted above, we can tap into auditory, visual, and motor memory to make memorizing the Bible a snap, even for young children. This video, featuring Rochelle Fleming, shows you the motions that go with a NASB version of Ephesians 6:10-18. Our class of four and five year olds has mastered way more than simply reciting "Jesus loves me" when our teachers use this technique.

Now Where Did I Put That Rapture?

In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, we encounter Paul's description of an event which has come to be called "The Rapture." The verses in Thessalonians are fairly straightforward in their description of a reunion in which the saints, both the living and "those who have fallen asleep," will meet the Lord "in the air" at His coming. The controversy surrounding this event has more to do with where to put it in a prophetic framework.

Among those who believe that the present age will culminate in a time of great turmoil ("The Great Tribulation") that is concluded by the return of Jesus to establish His Kingdom on earth ("The Millennial Kingdom"), the possible options are noted above. [A] represents the pre-tribulation view, that the rapture will be a relatively quiet event in which saints mysteriously disappear from the earth to meet the Lord in the air. [B] denotes the view that the rapture will occur in the middle of the tribulation. [C] positions the rapture at the end of the tribulation. Some prefer to label [C] the "pre-wrath rapture" because they believe it will be synchronized with an intense outpouring of divine wrath: The saints will hit to the skies right as all hell breaks loose on the earth.

Hal Lindsey's book, "The Late Great Planet Earth," popularized the pre-trib view as did the "Left Behind" series by Jenkins/LaHaye. This view has a compelling natural appeal. If I had to pick a view that I like best, this would be it. Descriptions of the tribulation are sobering, even frightening. View [A] proposes that the saints can avoid all the trauma of living through the Tribulation and go immediately into the presence of the Lord. No pain, all gain! What an encouraging prospect!!

Alas, liking view [A] does not make it true. So we must weigh the merits of each option to get at the truth. Three Views on the Rapture was published in 1996, is currently available from Amazon, and closely examines all three positions. The scholars who represent each view (Feinberg, Archer, and Moo) are not light-weights, so waxing dogmatic about whatever view we espouse is unjustified. Don't get cocky, kid!

Here are a few preliminary thoughts to assist you in your quest for the truth. First, let's make some observations about the nature of the Rapture based upon its description in 1 Thess. 4:13-18.

1. The key question that prompted this section is, "Have the dead somehow missed out?"
2. The terms, "shout," "voice of the archangel," "trumpet of God," all suggest that this is a very public event with a lot of fanfare.
3. There is evidence (albeit disputed) that the word translated "to meet" is a formal expression used of a delegation that receives an arriving magistrate. The other two places where this term is used in the New Testament (Matt. 25:6; Acts 28:15) show some correspondence to this idea.
4. Paul's key point is that death makes no difference in one's participation in the "coming of the Lord."
5. Paul's intention was for the believers to use this information as the basis of mutual encouragement.

Whatever view one takes, it must align with these observations. So, when the pre-trib view posits a secret rapture, the equivalent of an alien abduction en masse, there are questions about how well this fits with observation two. For the post trib view, I have to ask: How it is encouraging to be sentenced to seven of the worst years earth has ever known, even if those who survive till the end will be rescued before the final curtain falls?

Could You Be Convicted?

In Revelation, the Overcomer is presented as a model of authentic Christianity. In the future, he will overcome three intimidating threats, a “smart idol,” “the beast” and “his number.” This victory will be won despite considerable cost, including market exclusion, and in some cases, death. So how will the overcomer pull this off? What’s his secret?

One of the overcomer’s victory strategies is based on understanding the concept of “deed forwarding.” Here is John’s explanation: “Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus. And I heard a voice from heaven, saying, “Write, ‘Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on!’” “Yes,” says the Spirit, “so that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow with them” (Rev. 14:12-13).

In this verse, a special blessing is extended to those who pay the ultimate price for their allegiance to the Lord. But the phrase, “from now on,” suggests that, at a certain point, the difficulty of maintaining one’s allegiance to the Lord will increase (as will the blessedness of doing do).

This blessed condition has two results: The overcomer/martyrs will rest from their labors and their “deeds follow with them.” For those who have been about fighting the good fight, “rest” seems a fitting reward. The second phrase describes those whose deeds provide strong evidence of their faith. By the way, their deeds do not go “before” them as the basis of their salvation. They “follow” as a trail of evidence left by those who are the real thing. “Their deeds go with them and speak for them” would be the idea. On earth, there is no shortage of evidence by which to CONVICT them as followers of the Lord. In heaven, there is no shortage of evidence by which to REWARD them as genuine followers of the Lord. Their deeds make it clear beyond all reasonable doubt who they are.

So what about you? If a Jesus-hater were to follow you around today, would there be enough evidence to convict you of being a follower of Jesus?

Bible Sea Salt

Sea salt is all the rage. Surely you have seen some of the Campbell Soup ads that boast lower sodium levels because they now use sea salt. The claim that sea salt gives you more salty flavor from less salt sounds great - lower sodium, better taste. For a basic fact check, here's a relevant link to Dr. Gourmet.

The science behind the claims may be weak, but I am struck by a similarity to a trend in preaching. The typical "teaching time" in the American church appears to be about "improving flavor with less doctrine." We rate sermons by how interesting the speaker is, not so much by how well his/her message is connected to what the Bible teaches. We like sermons with lots of stories, relevant examples, pithy principles, humor, and transparency. How often does a sermon that get's a "10" in all of the above categories get a rotten tomato for its failure to teach what the Bible itself teaches about a topic?

I decry the view that the Bible is boring and that we must jazz it up with other stuff in order to avoid boring people with it. I profoundly disagree with the mantra, "Don't teach 'em theology or you'll put them to sleep." I am not proposing that we bore people with the Bible. God forbid! But the science behind the claim, "we avoid boring people with the Bible by using it less," is flat wrong.

A doctrine is simply a compilation of what the whole Bible teaches on a subject. I like doctrine! Here's why. First, the Bible majors in the majors. If the Bible doesn't have anything to say on a topic, then its not that important. But when the Bible has a lot to say about a subject, pay attention! Doctrine, what the Bible teaches on a subject, shows me what matters.

Second, no one verse gives the whole picture on any given topic. When I identify all the verses that relate to a topic, determine what they teach about that topic, and then compile that teaching into a logical and cohesive summary, I have really got something. This sum of what the Bible teaches on a topic will allow me to answer relevant questions with a complete information packet.

Third, the ultimate author behind the Bible is God. So I have every motivation to get it right when it comes to understanding what He wants me to know. Sure, I can take a verse and run with it. But how sure can I be that He will someday say "well done!" if I ran with one verse while neglecting twenty others? On any given topic, I want to understand everything that God says matters because HE matters.

Is something Paul said a justification for a lot of feel-good talk with a little Bible sprinkled in? "Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person"(Col 4:6). Note this: Without an understanding of grace that affects what you say, your speech won't be seasoned with salt. The doctrine of grace, the sum of what the whole Bible teaches on this core topic, is the wellspring of speech that aptly answers to opportunity. The only way to minister Bible Sea Salt is to understand doctrine. So seek doctrine, learn doctrine, preach doctrine. That's what believers do who are worth their salt!

Farewell, Faithful Servant!

Toyota is having a run of bad press lately. So I thought I might put in a good word to help balance the equation. Yesterday, we bid a tearful adieu to our faithful servant, a 1999 Toyota Avalon. Even in the brief moments before our parting, she was still smiling with her trademark grin (pictured above), declaring with playful smile, "Where would you like to go?" Dubbed "The Grey" (same name as Gandolf before his promotion), she was (like Gandolf) dependable to the end.

We bought this Avalon from a cricket rancher (farmer?) in Mississippi who just "had to have" a new PT Cruiser when they first came out. The Grey was in immaculate condition and had about 30,000 miles on it. Yesterday the odometer read 191,237! We have never owned a car that ran as well, as long, and as comfortably as The Grey. I don't know if it was produced in some exceptional moment when the factory got everything right, but it stands as undeniable evidence that Toyota can make a GREAT car. We used it as a trade-in so Puddin could get a new ride. Because the Avalon was in great shape, the dealer seemed pleased to get it and gave me more than I thought for it, despite it's high mileage.

So now as I stare at the bare spot in the driveway that was its berth, I wonder. What does the next chapter hold? Will the new owner appreciate The Grey and give her the kind of care that allows her to reach the next milestone? But without knowing the specifics of the plot, I know with certainty how the story will end. Perhaps suddenly in a brutal collision, perhaps while abandoned to a ditch beside a country lane, perhaps in rusting repose as her frame perches on concrete blocks, the days of faithful service will end. There will be no celebrations, no fanfare, no congratulations for a race well run. She will simply slip softly into the night.

I am struck by a contrast. The Apostle Paul explains, Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve (Col. 3:23-24). Servants of the Lord will never be consigned to the scrap-yard. Their faithfulness may be forgotten among men, but not in the least by the Lord, who will personally give them the greatest reward any man could receive, a heavenly inheritance.

Our bodies, on the other hand, will follow The Grey. They are mere vehicles, transports for the human spirit. They can be damaged; they wear out. Mine is already showing the miles. And I know how the story will end. But Jesus has got things under control. One part of that heavenly inheritance is the provision of a new body, one suited to heavenly existence. On the day I die (or the day the Lord returns, whichever comes first), I will trade in an aging clunker for a new model that is not subject to rust, or aging, or decay. I am so ready to trade up.

Dead Guru Thinks Jesus "Gets" Hinduism

Evangelical Christians are considered the purveyors of a Politically Incorrect Gospel (PIG). This Gospel views John 14:6 as a clear claim by Jesus to be the exclusive way of salvation. Considerable pressure has been applied on those viewed as PIG mongers to repent of their intolerant ways and embrace an inclusivism that celebrates, "All religions merely represent different paths to the same place."

Rabi R. Maharaj was born the son of a great Yogi. He sought to follow his father in the pursuit of enlightenment. Despite being a promising young guru, his search for truth and disillusionment with Hinduism provoked an intense inner struggle. The struggle ended when he renounced his religious heritage and embraced Jesus Christ. Rabi Maharaj, the guru, died in that moment. His amazing story is chronicled in the autobiography, "Death of a Guru." It should be required reading for anyone planning a trip to India.

Chapter seventeen recounts the reaction of Rabi's mother to her son's decision. A poignant paragraph therein speaks to the PIG issue:

Philosophically it seems right to many people to claim that Hinduism accepts all religions and that everyone is going to the same place but by different roads. Those who plead for mutual tolerance and the syncretism of all religions fail to realize that there are grave differences which affect one's life. Such basic realities cannot be dismissed by ecumenical agreements. Mother was committed to the Hindu philosophy that there is only one Reality - Brahman - and that the law of karma demands future payment for past sins. The rest of us [Rabi and other family members who came to Christ] were convinced that good and evil and different, and that the Creator is not the same as his creation. We had come to know the forgiveness that Jesus brings, and we no longer believed in reincarnation. Between these opposite beliefs there was no possible meeting ground, no compromise without denying all meaning to language and ideas.[Emphasis mine]

Here is a former guru declaring that both Hinduism and Jesus teach what "tolerant man" refuses to admit: One must choose between Jesus and Hinduism - they cannot both be right.

Who Dat Serpent?

In Genesis 3:1 we are abruptly introduced to a talking snake with a hidden agenda: Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” No passage in the Old Testament explicitly connects this "serpent" with Satan, although the behavior of "Satan" in Job 1-2 is skin in which the serpent in Genesis 3 would feel quite comfortable.

In the New Testament, the two names are explicitly matched up: And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him (Rev. 12:9). Regardless of whether he is called "Great Dragon," "Serpent of Old," "Devil," "Satan," or "Deceiver," these are all names for the same person. Because of this connection between the tempter in Genesis 3 and "Satan," some have suggested that "the serpent" is a metaphorical expression. In this view, the individual who spoke to Eve was not an actual reptile but merely someone whose manner is low, oily, crafty, and deceptive.

Because these adjectives aptly describe Satan, there is some truth to this view. But there are clear indicators in the text that "the serpent" is real. First, the serpent is positively identified as a member of a larger group, "beasts of the field." Satan is an angelic being, not a beast of the field. Second, the locomotive curse in Gen. 3:14 only makes sense if the serpent is an actual reptile. Prior to the fall, the serpent got around by means other than crawling. Did it walk like a dinosaur?  Maybe! But "belly crawling" became the serpent's normal mode of travel because of its role in the fall of man.

Taken together, these observations suggest that the temptation of Eve involved a dual source, a talking reptile and Satan. An actual reptile did the talking, but that reptile got its script from Satan. I cannot improve on Martin Luther's summary: “The devil was permitted to enter beasts, as he here entered the serpent. For there is no doubt that it was a real serpent in which Satan was and in which he conversed with Eve.”

Angels Using Amazing DNA Scanners

In Revelation 7:1-8, we are introduced to a group popularly called the "144,000." Just to get some perspective, here is a picture of Neyland Stadium where the UT Vols consistently bring in crowds of 100,000+ on home game Saturdays. The group identified in Revelation 7 would fill Neyland and need another 44,000 overflow seats. This is not a trifling group!

It is common to ask, "Who are they?" Your answer depends a lot on your view of the Book of Revelation. If you are like me, you consider Revelation a straight-forward description of actual future events using normal descriptive language. There are those who would claim otherwise. Some of them see the number, "144,000," as a symbol for completeness or fullness. But this number is not introduced as a symbol (using the customary phrase "which is" - see 1:20 for two examples).

God is good with numbers. He knows the number of hairs on my head, which is a moving target, I can assure you. When Elijah threw a pity party (So typical of pity parties, no one else came!) because he believed "I alone am left" (1 Kings 19:14), God corrected the prophet's math by declaring that He had marked out  7,000 others in Israel who love God and despise Baal. It seems perfectly reasonable for the Lord to do something similar (but involving bigger numbers) in the future. If God wanted to say that this group is a vast multitude, he could easily have employed just such language as He does in Rev. 7:9 which introduces another distinct group.

Others who see the church as the "New Israel" see the 144,000 as a description of all living believers. There are two problems with this view. First, there is no clear example of the church being called "Israel" in the NT. Second, the breakdown of this group into tribal units associated with sons of Jacob provides no meaningful connection to the church. If the 144,000 are all believers on earth at the time, what in the world does it mean for them to be broken into 12 equal groups each associated with a certain son of Jacob?

I prefer a very simple and straight-forward understanding of Rev. 7:1-8. Please bear in mind that angels have access to technology that goes way beyond ours. Prior to unleashing the seven trumpet judgments, an angelic team equipped with amazing DNA scanners will mark out a group of descendants from Jacob. The angel's search criteria will also include a second variable. Those receiving a seal must also be "bond-servants of our God." It is implied that this sealing provides a measure of protection against the coming judgments. This is made explicit in Rev. 9:4.

Here is a great question: Since these 144,000 are a select group of Jewish believers, are they the only ones to receive this protective sealing? Are Gentile bond-servants in these days vulnerable to the trumpet judgments in a way that Jewish bond-servants are not? These 144,000 will not be the only bond-servants living on earth in these days. The protection promises for bond-servants and overcomers are relevant to all, both Jewish and Gentile. Note that these promises do not offer protection from persecution, but from God's wrath. All believers will not experience God's wrath!

Note this! The formation of the 144,000 will represent a remarkable development. Even as life on planet earth is going from bad to worse, an incredible number of Jews will be coming to Christ and dedicating themselves to live for His pleasure. Imagine a stadium with twelve separate sections that can each seat 12,000. The seventh seal will not be broken until every seat in the house has been occupied by a Jew for Jesus! This has got to be one of the more dazzling sights to be seen in what will otherwise be oppressively dark days.

Can't We Just Talk?

 LD has been struggling with how to have a positive conversation with relatives whose words drip with venom. Maybe you've had some similar experiences: Parents who have nothing positive to say about you; coworkers who constantly fixate on the negative, especially your shortcomings; "friends" whose insatiable ego feels compelled to douse you with a bucket of cold water whenever you receive some token of praise.

The best way to avoid getting bit is to stop having conversations with snakes. So I have encouraged LD to simply excuse herself from the conversation when it has taken a turn for the worse. Alas, there are times when a silent retreat is not possible.

So let me suggest a second strategy that can be employed when "refusing to engage" is out of the question. Jesus taught, “But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you” (Luke 6:27-28). To bless those who curse you means to speak well of those who are spitting venom at you. This will take some pre-planning and creativity. It will require great restraint and strength of character. But when someone lobs a verbal grenade your way, figure out how to lob flowers back.

Someone came to me a number of years ago profoundly disturbed by something I had said. Their words stung, particularly because they assumed the worst of my motives. After they had said their piece, I replied, "Thank you so much for honoring me by coming to me directly. I truly do want to please the Lord and your insight can help me do a better job of it." In essence, I blessed them for speaking to me even though what they said was painful to hear.

So LD and others in similar situations, you are going to have to ask the Lord to show you some scrap of nobility that you can verbally affirm. It can't be a back-handed complement like, "I can always count on you to see the hole in my donut."  Don't try faking it - It must be something genuine. Perhaps the negative parent needs to hear, "I am grateful for your love even though you see so clearly all my faults." Maybe your friend with a big ego would be encouraged to hear you say, "I appreciate your reminders that 'It's not all about me.' That is so true." (This last one works on two levels: It IS a good reminder for you but ALSO for your friend who struggles against the pull of me-centered living.)

It is EASY to speak kindly to those who have spoken kindly toward us. But it is a rare thing when someone returns good for evil. This is precisely the kind of response that can grab the attention of those caught in the web of negative speech patterns and provide them with indisputable evidence that there is a better way. This is precisely Paul's point when he says, "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Rom. 12:21). When you bless those who curse you, you achieve a small but significant victory. Good will have prevailed by having the last word.

Forgotten God in Seven Sentences

I recommend Forgotten God: Reversing Our Tragic Neglect of the Holy Spirit, by Francis Chan. Chan wagers, “I bet you’d agree that a group of talented, charismatic leaders can draw a crowd. Find the right creative team, musicians, and speakers, and you can grow any church. It doesn’t even have to be a Christian church. ...My point is that a growing and energetic gathering is not necessarily evidence of the Holy Spirit’s work” (p. 141).

I suspect Pastor Chan would agree when I say I am interested in seeing a church that defies explanation, a church where God’s presence and power are obvious, a church where resources that look like a brown-bag lunch are used of God to feed 5,000.

Here is my executive book summary in seven sentences. (Granted they are not all simple sentences - but what do you expect for a book report that is only seven sentences long!)

1. Those who see the Spirit through Jesus’ eyes understand that the indwelling Spirit’s ministry is more advantageous to God’s people than if Jesus had personally remained present on earth after His resurrection.
2. The desire to be led by the Spirit is diminished when we fear what men think, or what the Spirit may ask of us, more than we fear disappointing Him.
3. The Holy Spirit is not a second or third class member of the trinity - He is a distinct person who is no less deity than the Father or the Son.
4. Some desire to be led by the Spirit for the wrong reasons - the right motive is a surpassing desire to be more like Jesus.
5. Our lives can become so comfortable, or so distracted, that we fail to enjoy the intimacy with God that is produced by the Spirit.
6. The ministry of the Holy Spirit does not eliminate the need for us to do our part and work at our salvation.
7. When we build churches in the strength of the Spirit, not merely by our own efforts, we experience church that defies explanation.

I appreciate the overall message of the book. Evangelical, Bible teaching pastors (like me) need to listen to what the author is saying. But the book reads like a transcribed sermon series that makes seven key points, and leaves out a lot of biblical truth that could help make this book more "practice-able."

Here are two suggestions. It would have been helpful to have a chapter that discusses two lists: Observable characteristics of the Spirit’s presence / observable characteristics of His absence. This chapter could help us to self-diagnose the nature and extent of our "tragic neglect." Another chapter could build off statement six and answer these questions, “What, specifically, is my role? What should I do or think that affects the degree to which the Spirit works in and through me and my church?”

Bottom line: This is a good primer that makes a great case for a book that goes beyond it. Francis Chan is telling us things we need to know. But we need to know more if we are going to "reverse our tragic neglect of the Holy Spirit."

Some Serious Bling

 

This weekend, the Memphis area was hit by an ice-storm that caused a lot of damage, power-outs, and what-not. But when the sun finally came out, the view was stunning. Tree branches were bathed in light from above while the snow on the ground reflected the sunlight upward. The trees were cast in crystal, sparkling and glinting in flashes that made it hard on the eyes to stare. But their beauty made it hard not to. The human eye processes light far better than a camera, so these pictures hardly do the morning justice. But perhaps they will help you appreciate something of the glory of the morning and the beauty which the Lord is capable of creating with mere water.

Why Get Stressed If Hell Has a Thermostat?

In yesterday's post, we noted that Hell can be understood as a realm of existence wholly apart from God. This observation is grounded in 2 Thessalonians 1:9: "These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power" (NASB). This description of a decidedly negative after-life experience should be associated with a range of other terms and expressions. Here is a NT sampler:

1. Gehenna: “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28).
2. Hades: “And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will be brought down to Hades” (Luke 10:15)!
3. Outer darkness: "But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 8:12).
4. Eternal Fire: “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels'”(Matthew 25:41).
5. Lake of fire and second death: “But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death”(Revelation 21:8).

While it is possible that "Hades" may, in a context like Luke 10:15, simply be a synonym for "death," the other terms are unmistakably descriptive of "life AFTER death" for those with abysmal prospects. Taken together, the composite picture these descriptions present is beyond sobering. When a man prefers life wholly apart from God, he is choosing to exist in a place completely devoid of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, or self restraint. Here is a realm shrouded in utter darkness. Despite some men's boasts, they will not be with their friends, because friendship will cease to exist. A man will live without purpose and without rest since these only come from God. Every good thing comes from God so there will be NO GOOD THING in a place that has cast off all associations with Him.

True enough, hell may have a thermostat. In Matthew 11:24, Jesus declares, “Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you [Capernaum].” But this suggestion that some parts of hell may be worse than others must not diminish our apprehension that every level of hell will be pure hell!

As Paul considers the lostness of his countrymen, he confesses great sorrow and unceasing anguish of heart (Romans 9:2). God feels the same way, declaring, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked" (Ezekiel 33:11). Jesus weeps as He crests the eastern ascent of the Mount of Olives and considers the city of Jerusalem, bathed in morning light but slipping into darkness: "How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not" (Matt. 23:38)!  

It can be beneficial to stare into the flames. Get a good look at what a life wholly apart from God looks like. Allow the view to sober you, to unsettle you, perhaps even to disturb you. Then speak up about what you see to anyone who is deluded enough to find life without God attractive.

For Christians Pleading the Fifth

It was quite entertaining a few days ago to watch the White House Party Crashers "plead the fifth" (a lot!) during their testimony before the House. I have been tempted to do likewise when a critic suggests, "So, you think I'm going to hell if I don't believe in Jesus, right?" For Christians who take John 14:6 seriously, answering such a question seems a choice between betraying Jesus and incriminating oneself as a bigot. Reminds me of the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" There's no good answer. Or is there?

The critic's inquiry uses some terms that need to be defined: What is meant by "hell?" And, what does "believe in Jesus" mean? Is believing in Jesus a binary condition, you either do or you don't? Or is it a variable that must pass a certain threshold before it "saves?" Both thieves believed that Jesus was a real person and that he was crucified, but only one thief was promised entrance into Paradise. In their case, only one had a faith that rose to the level of saving faith. So when someone wants me to respond to his accusation, "You think I'm going to hell because I don't believe in Jesus," it's perfectly appropriate to ask, "What do you mean by 'hell' and 'believe in Jesus'?"

Note that the critic has not asked a simple question. He is asking me to affirm a logical construct. Here is the critic's logic: "A" - I do not believe in Jesus; "B" - I am going to Hell; and "A" is the cause of "B." In which case, it is entirely reasonable for me to remind my critic that I must examine all three elements in order to affirm what "I think" is true.

I would start with the first one by posing, "What do you believe (and not believe) about Jesus, and why? Have you always believed this or is this something you have recently come to?"

Isn't this nifty! You can use the critic's cold water question to open a lively discussion. If the critic gets all cranky and says, "Just answer my question," you can respond, "That's exactly what I'm trying to do, beginning with statement A!"

There is more, something implicit, in the critic's question. His inquiry has been phrased in a way that rings of threat language. God is depicted as the petulant despot who dispatches any detractor, who consigns good folks to a cosmic dungeon for daring to entertain an independent thought. If this is what the critic contends by His question, then the only right response is, "I couldn't disagree with you more!"

I understand "hell" to describe a realm of existence in which everything associated with God has been extracted. I also believe that Jesus gives men what they choose, even when what they want is a life wholly apart from Himself. In this life, God allows men the time to lock in their choice. He takes no pleasure in their foolish direction and is disappointed in their rejection of Himself. However, He shows them both continued patience and kindness to give them a reason to change their minds. But once a man has made his choice, Jesus will give that man what he has requested.

So I would pose these words to my critic: "Your question implies a threat. But if you understand 'hell' to be a term that describes existence wholly apart from God, aren't there some who would consider this a blessing? Don't some individuals think that life would be easier without the God of the Bible? So which are you? Would you consider living wholly apart from God a good thing or a bad thing?"

If my critic thinks living apart from God is bad (a conclusion the Bible would affirm), then I have some Really Good News we can talk about. If he thinks living apart from God sounds like a good idea, then his original question is both confusing and misleading. He is labeling what he desires as a penalty and blaming God for giving him what he wants. Makes me want to ask, "Have you stopped misrepresenting God, yet?"

Too Much Airport!

I have returned from two weeks in India, Singapore, and Bangkok. Getting there involved fifty-eight hours in the air and another twenty-five hours of waiting for airplanes, getting on airplanes, sitting on airplanes, and getting off airplanes. The four other members of the CBC ministry team and I averaged more than forty hours a week at or between airports. So it seemed only fitting to capture the essence of the experience in a suitable shot. I have clocked in enough time, why not look the part of "dedicated" airline employee?

That being said, this was a great trip and a great way to start off 2010. It was encouraging to follow-up on our May, 2009,conference by training fifty Banjara disciple-makers in Hyderabad. We were able to see Aletheia Banjara School in action - breath-taking! We also got a taste of what life is like for CBC missionaries, Doug and Melissa Matthews in Singapore, and Bob and Lori Johnson in Bangkok. I'll tell you more in some upcoming posts.

In the meantime, be assured that my "two-week" hiatus is over, my brain has just about rejoined me in Memphis, and there are plenty of situations where we've got to throw some biblical light on the subject. Any suggestions?

Into the Desert

We are headed to the deserts of Southern Cal for a little respite with family. We will not be far from the home of Bill Keyes, one of the few "successful" homesteaders to have lived in what is now Joshua Tree National Monument. On a previous trip, I took a tour of Bill's place and it was stunning to see the remarkable evidence of a hard-scrabble existence he carved out for himself, his wife, and his children in this inhospitable place. Talk about living "off the grid." If you ever have a chance to take the tour, it will inspire you with all that one man accomplished without what we consider the "necessities" of life.

Unlike Bill who made do without electricity, we plan to turn the lights back on at Light-work in two weeks - see you then.

An "Unusual" Ultimatum?

I read about a curious conversation from the life of King David. To appreciate what caught my ear, ponder the art of the ultimatum. Presidents and Kings need to be masters of the art when declaring a final demand, one whose rejection will end negotiations and be followed by a resort to force. There are lots of ways to mess up.

• The Petulant: Provoke a fight that's not worth fighting.
• The Pacifist: Fail to issue an ultimatum when vital interests are threatened.
• QuickDraw McGraw: Issue an ultimatum when there are viable alternatives still on the table.
• Johnny-Come-Lately: Issue an ultimatum after a "point of no return" has already been passed.
• Mr. Hollow Threat: Draw an appropriate line in the sand, but attach it to a threat you have no intention of using.
• The Cream-Puff: Make a reasonable demand, but attach it to a threat of insufficient force.

The above possibilities are enough (there are plenty more) to illustrate how easy it is to get it wrong and singularly daunting it is to get it right. David understood this art well. While Saul was still alive and seeking David's death, a group from the tribe of Benjamin came to his stronghold. Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin, so David had good reason to be suspicious of the intentions of these new recruits. He delivered a "choose-whom-you-will-serve" ultimatum: Then some of the sons of Benjamin and Judah came to the stronghold to David. David went out to meet them, and said to them, “If you come peacefully to me to help me, my heart shall be united with you; but if to betray me to my adversaries, since there is no wrong in my hands, may the God of our fathers look on it and decide” (1 Chron. 12:16-17).

What kind of ultimatum is this? The first half makes perfect sense: Help me and we will become a great team. But in the second half, David's "threat" would strike a "modern man of enlightenment" as the words of the cream-puff: Mess with me and you'll have to deal with God. In a day when life is defined with God factored out of the equation, a threat has no "teeth" when it invokes God.

To get an appreciation for the modern irony of David's ultimatum, imagine saying this to a robber who has you at gun point: "Walk away. If you don't, you will answer to God for whatever you have done to me." How many thieves would find this compelling? How many would flee in terror for their fear of God?

David's ultimatum is a window into a value system profoundly different from modernity. David knew how to wield a big stick, but the verdict of heaven's opinion was of far greater consequence. The worst possible outcome, from David's perspective, was for a man to be on God's bad side. The poverty of modern "threat making" stands in such stark contrast. Where there is no respect for God, men are left to issue ultimatums that depend entirely upon their own efforts. Such ultimatums only carry as much force as the stick one is able and willing to wield.

Do we believe that men will answer to God for their actions? Is this the worst that could happen to those who act on their intentions against us? Is this what leaks out when we utter a threat? If not, our value system may fit the times but not the heart of David, a "man after God's own heart."

Out With The Bad, In With The Good

In a recent sermon, I stated that fearing God (used in a positive sense) is synonymous with "fearing God's disapproval."  JP has a question: "You say we should fear God's displeasure, but is that the only way we should fear Him?" GREAT QUESTION! Let me answer by first laying some groundwork.

Our English word, "fear," is most often used to denote panic, terror, and dread, so it seems decidedly ill-suited to describe a positive response to the God whom we are also encouraged to "love." How does one love God AND fear Him? It seems like it should be one or the other. Indeed, the Apostle John seems to say that fear and love are polar opposites: There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love (1 John 4:18).

The Greek word phobos (used by John and elsewhere by almost every other New Testament writer) has a broader range of meaning than the English word "fear." In some contexts, phobos is a positive virtue that is translated by words like "awe," "respect," and "reverence." In others, phobos is something to be avoided. Compare these two passages: "On some have mercy with fear" (Jude 23); "And all the people . . . asked Him to leave them, for they were gripped with great fear" (Luke 8:37). In Jude, "fear" assists one to show mercy - this phobos is good; In Luke, "fear" drives a people to put distance between themselves and Jesus - this phobos is bad. Notice another thing about this passage in Luke. The "bad fear" of the people in Luke 8:37 is fear OF the Lord! Here are a people who really "fear the Lord" but this fear produces a disaster: They compel Him to leave the scene!

For Paul, the fear of the Lord is a powerful and positive motivator (2 Cor. 5:11). But for the residents of Gerasene country, their fear of the Lord motivated an aversion to Him. Think about what they had witnessed. Prior to Jesus' arrival, a man had become the unrestrained terror of the neighborhood through demonic power. Yet, at the man's first meeting with Jesus, the Lord merely used words to accomplish what neither chains nor posse's had here-to-for been able. Again through mere words, Jesus provoked a local shortage of ham and bacon when the demonic horde was promptly dispatched to a herd of swine. Obviously, everything about "life as normal" was subject to change with Jesus around.

Jesus was the enemy of the status quo and the Gerasenes liked their status quo. They had their own agenda, their own plan for what their lives should look like. So when Jesus flashed some muscle, it threatened their comfortable little existence. To see how even the demons were subject to Him made it hard to assert that they themselves were not. When men who resent the Lord are confronted by His power and faced with their accountability, their fear is about consequences. They fear the Lord, not because they love Him, but because they despise Him, despise His power and authority, despise His right to call them to account for their opposition, despise Him for administering punishment. This is fear borne by hate.

1 John 4:18 tells us what happens when this kind of fear has a close encounter with God's love. If a man's eyes are opened and he grasps what actually happened when Jesus died for him on the cross, he sees that the one he has hated loves him with a perfect love. How can he not love Him back? As he does, the fear borne by hate evaporates in the face of His perfect love. This is John's point in 1 John 4:18.

But there is more to the story. The awareness of accountability to God is transformed by love from being a penalty to a privilege. It is an honor to live in a way that pleases the God who loves us with perfect love. This is fear borne by love. An image that helps to capture what this kind of love looks like is discerned in the newlyweds' first meal. By love, the bride has prepared her table. But as "the first bite" approaches, she is anxious and apprehensive. She longs to see her beloved's face beam with pleasure and his approving gaze turn toward her. Here is fear borne by love.

Yes, JP, there are other ways to fear God. But this is the best way.

Some Perspective on Journalistic Objectivity

Fox News has become the brunt of censure from the White House with President Obama weighing in today. Alas, the president said nothing to counter the broadsides lobbed at Fox. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has announced that Fox News is  “not a news organization so much as it has a perspective.” David Axelrod went on ABC's "This Week" and called for a proper shunning of Fox by the "good" news organizations.

Is anyone in doubt about what is REALLY going on here? The king’s wrath is like the roaring of a lion, But his favor is like dew on the grass (Prov. 19:12). The President and his administration define a respectable news organization as one that aids and agrees with them. An illegitimate one hinders and questions. The former will receive praise and benefits, the latter will hear the lion roar. President Nixon had his "enemies list" and Lamar Alexander (see clip above) sees the beginnings of something similarly unproductive in this dustup.

Journalistic objectivity, the notion that news can be reported from some value-free neutrality, is a fiction. The optimist and the pessimist report the same fact about their glass of water. But declaring it "half full" or "half empty" ascribes to this fact meaning that comports with their decidedly different outlooks. All news organizations attempt to give meaning to the facts they report; they use them to tell a story drawn from what is seen and heard. Their selection of what video clips to show (and which to reject), how it should be edited, and which sound bites to play will reflect their sense of what is important.

So I find it more than a little ridiculous for Fox to be impugned for offering "perspective," when every news organization does no less. In fact, I appreciate Fox for regularly bringing together proponents of opposing views, a practice rarely seen on the "good" news networks. Which is worse, the news organization that is clear about its "perspective," or one which peddles "perspective" no less while pretending it doesn't?

I am not objective. I am unashamed, even proud, to view my world through the lens of the Bible. Where someone might celebrate the latest victory for a "woman's right to choose," I will weep for the innocents. The goal is not to jettison perspective, but to adopt the right perspective, which, from my perspective, will be God's.

Cambria's Dirty Little Secret

 
The "Cambrian Explosion" poses something of an evolutionary conundrum. Darwin's Dilemma, a DVD produced by Illustra Media, was released last month and provides an intelligent assessment of the problem.

The Cambrian period, dated from 542 to 488 million years ago (give or take a few million), presents a remarkable paleontological panorama. Prior to the Cambrian, the fossil evidence shows the presence of some sponges and what-not. But then in a geological flash, numerous phyla (distinguishable, defined, and developed body plans) burst onto the scene - hence the term, the "Cambrian Explosion."

The resultant problem for Neo-Darwinism is manifold. Certainly the absence of any fossil record of transitional forms is an obvious and perplexing issue. But there are some profound and no less troubling matters arising from our current understanding of data processing.

I watched the DVD last night, including the 60 minutes of bonus material. It's all good! It is well-suited to home-schooling (but is not going to hold the interest of most elementary and many middle school student), adult discussion groups, and for sharing with friends who are open and interested in "Intelligent Design." The militant Darwinist will dismiss it. But anyone who wants to be allowed to consider the evidence will appreciate the producer's focus on the fossil record itself and his restraint in posing solutions.

There is a great nugget tucked away in the bonus material. On the page for "Signature in the Cell" is a menu tab titled, "Interview with Stephen Meyer." His story about the programmer who said, "Someone has been here before," will prompt you to think about life and our Creator in new ways.

Want to spark some intelligent discussion with science minded friends? The decision about purchasing this DVD is no dilemma.

Introducing FlemCare

Countless noble evergreens have given their lives for the cause of health care - the various mega bills that have been littering congressional committee rooms are but the last vestiges of the pulp they sacrificially yielded to the cause. Would that a spirited lawyer would represent these silent giants of wood and dell in their struggles against the ravages of health care.

Alas, no champion has stepped forth: We must save them by throwing a wrench of simplicity into the gear-works of bureaucracy. After much deep thought (for about 5 minutes), I have come to my eureka moment. I hereby propose for your consideration "FlemCare: Health Insurance for Everyman." It doesn't require two reams of paper per copy; it operates on a very simple premise that can be captured in a single sentence - Allow every individual to enjoy the full benefits of the health-care he reckons worth having.

I will parse this principle, the FlemCare Prime Directive, momentarily. First note two operational requirements for FlemCare to work well. (1) "Group health insurance" premiums would be considered income and subject to income tax. (2) Individual health insurance premiums would be exempt from income tax (up to a certain amount). This would give everyone with income a "tax discount" for purchasing individual health insurance. By giving a tax advantage to individual health insurance plans, FlemCare creates an environment conducive to individual choice, where every individual gets Goldilocks insurance - "just right!"

Okay, let's break down the core principle: Allow every individual to enjoy all the benefits of the health-care he reckons worth having. Note first the phrase "reckons worth having." It represents that an individual makes some quantifiable determination of the value of a health-care package. He attaches a number to it, a price he is willing to pay for what he receives. A package is "reckoned worth having" when a man buys it. "To allow every individual to enjoy the full benefits" means to give him free and unhindered access to the services for which he has paid. If a man purchases a "$100 discount on every prescription," he has a contractual right to receive that benefit.

Remove restrictions limiting the number of insurance companies that can compete in any given state. Remove requirements about the types of coverage that have to be included in their products. Allow insurance companies to sell insurance as car companies sell cars. Allow them to develop SUV's, sedans, pickups and sports cars. Allow them to create "options" that can be added to a plan based upon the customer's needs. Allow insurance companies to price plans according to a risk assessment for each individual. If they want to offer a non-smoker a cheaper policy, let them. (As is currently the case with life insurance.) Allow companies to market packages they believe will sell and allow buyers to purchase plans they want.

Under FlemCare, everyone goes out and buys the insurance plan he considers to be a bargain and suited to his needs. As a bonus, he gets a tax break on premiums. This feature of FlemCare accomplishes something important. It requires the government to support health care by a "loss of tax revenue," NOT through an increase in revenue.

So here's what everyone does under FlemCare: Individuals purchase what they want and enjoy a tax break for doing so. Insurance companies compete for the business of individuals by providing superior products at competitive prices. The government requires that insurance providers market their products using some sort of straight-forward and standardized "benefit and cost summary," kind of like a new car sticker or the "Good Faith Estimate" you received when you applied for a home mortgage. The judicial system would make sure that individuals receive the benefits they have purchased and that companies compete fairly. The government would also operate the "FlemCare Reallocation Plan" and "FlemCare Grace" described below.

Under FlemCare, you do not have to be a US citizen to participate. Individuals are free to purchase coverage and companies are free to sell coverage to all US citizens and residents. This solves the "illegal aliens" problem. If they want to buy insurance and get a tax break, let them.

What about those who have a pre-existing condition or some other situation that makes them "uninsurable?" An enterprising insurance provider might establish themselves in this niche market by providing a product line suited to the needs of their customers and priced at a level appropriate to the risk. But, to be sure, there will be some who cannot afford the high rates their risk category would call for. What should be done?

Those who cannot afford or elect not to purchase health care would fall under the FlemCare Reallocation Plan. Here's how it works: Whenever someone without health care receives uncovered care, their medical providers should be paid by drawing from the recipient's government entitlements like welfare, unemployment, and social security. For example, Joe is 59, has no insurance and incurs a bill for $10,000 at the local hospital. The government would pay his bill but recover the expense by delaying his social security eligibility date for about one year. It would be as if Joe got an advance from social security to pay his hospital bill.

Granted, an uninsured cancer patient could easily incur costs that bar him from drawing social security until he is 92. But that was his choice when he elected not to buy insurance. The marvelous advantage of this plan is that it results in a "zero net cost" because money for health costs is offset by corresponding reductions in other government entitlements.

What makes FlemCare so different from all the current proposals is its rigid insistence that individuals receive the benefits and consequences of their choices. This is clearly a biblical notion: "For each one will bear his own load" (Gal 6:5). "Health-care" which insists that everyman has a right to something he has not earned moves all men toward indolence. Not very healthy!

There is one more aspect to FlemCare, "FlemCare Grace." For those who are facing a medical crisis without insurance, the government could maintain a website discretely summarizing their situations. Here is where grace would find a place in FlemCare. Individuals would be encouraged to make donations to these needs. Because of its commitment to "improved health care," the government would treat the donor's gift as tax deductible and the income to the recipient as tax exempt. The lost revenue would be the government's way of saying, "We want to match someone's gift with a nice little bonus. We want you to be taken care of enough to ask for less from you."

Our Senators and Representatives have championed the cause of the uninsured. "FlemCare Grace" would give them (and all who have a heart of genuine compassion) a very direct way to address the need. I would be delighted for our congressmen to lead the way by giving extravagantly toward the grace plan from their own pockets. Now that would be leadership!

Tell your friends and neighbors about Flemcare where every individual enjoys the full benefits of the health-care he reckons worth having! Tell your congressman about FlemCare! Tell me what you think?

Eighty Acres of Cash

(The photo above shows the 11 acre plot on which Collierville Bible Church was built - hold that thought!)

Fox News ran a story today, although the issue hasn't gotten much of a media spotlight. It should! The Congressional Budget Office report on fiscal 2009 shows some serious deficit spending went down. When you compare how much Uncle Sam spent in the last 12 months with how much revenue he received, there is a $1.4 trillion shortfall. We have all gotten used to saying "trillion," perhaps we need a refresher on what this represents.

Let's make a stack of one dollar bills. To give our stack some stability, we will lay 4 bills end to end. We will add 5 more similar rows adjacent to our first row. So now we have completed our first layer that is 4 by 6 bills in size, roughly 2' by 15". Next we will add 41,667 more such layers (and subtract 8 bills from the last layer) to make it an even $1,000,000. This stack will be a few inches shy of 14 feet tall. (A dollar bill is 0.010922 cm thick.) Okay, that's our first stack.

Now let's repeat the same process and create an additional one million four hundred thousand more "one million dollar stacks." If we butt each new stack up against the previous one in a long line, we would create a side of 1,183 stacks. We would then form a second side of 1,183 stacks perpendicular to the first. Now we just fill in the interior defined by our two adjacent sides with 1,397,124 more "one million dollar stacks," and, voila, we have a handy (maybe not so handy) visual representation of what $1.4 trillion dollars looks like.

Our resultant rectangular solid will be 2,366 feet long (almost one half mile), almost 1,479 feet wide (a little over one quarter mile), and slightly under fourteen feet tall. This is the equivalent of an 80 acre parcel of land covered to a depth of fourteen feet with tightly stacked dollar bills. That is over seven parcels just like the one pictured above, cleared of all trees and stacked tightly to a depth of 14 feet with dollar bills.  80 acres of cash with 41,667 layers of dollars bills covering the entirety represents how much more the government spent in the last year than it received in revenue. How encouraging!