The biblical definition of faith is found in Hebrews 11:1:
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
From this definition, we learn several characteristics of faith. First, one who has faith possesses assurance , or confidence. This is different than hope, because faith is the “assurance of things hoped for.” Hope always leaves room for doubt. Hope always says “maybe.” For example, I might say, “I sure hope it rains today so that my garden will be watered.” I desire rain, but I’m not sure if it will rain. Faith, on the other hand, is always certain, the “assurance of things hoped for.”
Have you ever observed a fly trapped behind your car’s windshield, futilely fighting to find an escape? All of your car’s side windows might be wide open, but it never occurs to that frustrated fly to try anything different than continuing to search for a way through an invisible, impenetrable barrier.
You can’t help but feel sorry for such a fly and, if you are bent towards mercy, you might try to swish him towards an open side window. Most flies, however, will resist your effort to help them, and your attempts only make them more determined to do the impossible. Eventually, they’re lying dead on your dashboard.
The pity we all feel for such frustrated flies is analogous to what followers of Christ feel every day for everyone else. We observe people’s recurring misery and frustration, and we know full well that so many of their problems could be resolved if they would only submit to Jesus. He would forgive them, open their eyes and set them free, fill them with His Spirit, and teach them His ways.
Notice that Jesus would save His people “from their sins,” implying not only the forgiveness of sins, but also deliverance from sinning. – David Servant
There is nothing like politics to expose sin. First, politicians who run for office are mercilessly vetted (as they should be, of course). Their opponents and the media search for any dirt they can find, and skeletons are dragged, kicking and screaming, out of closets for the world to see.
Beyond that, candidates boast about themselves and rail against their opponents, competing, it seems, for who can take the lowest ground. Not only is their pride exposed, but also their hypocrisy, as they violate the simple moral principle of “let him who is without sin cast the first stone,” and “why do you point out the speck in another’s eye when you have a log hanging out of your eye?” They often seem like rats who point their fingers at other rats and call them rats.
At the end of last month’s e-teaching, I mentioned the fact that only 2.6% of all American workers earn the federal minimum wage and that minimum wage workers are typically young, single people who have just entered the work force work and who only want to work part time. They are earning the minimum wage only temporarily, and are on their way up and out.
I knew as I wrote those statistics that they would be little consolation to breadwinners who are only earning the minimum wage (or slightly higher) and who are struggling to meet the needs of their families. Thankfully, one compassionate reader, whom I will refer to as “Glenn,” wrote to provoke me to consider their plight. I asked if I could use his words as the starting point in my next e-teaching, and he gave me permission:
“Sermon on The Mount”
by David Servant
Sorry, listening to the audio on this website requires Flash support in your browser. You can try playing the MP3 file directly by clicking here.
In this third article in my series on voting, I would like to address some of the thoughtful feedback I’ve received. If you haven’t read part 1 and part 2 of this series, I ask that you would. One thing that I dislike about publishing series of teachings is that inevitably, some readers read only part of what I’ve written on a particular subject, and then they judge my argument to be deficient in some way, not realizing that I’ve already addressed their objection in an earlier article.
Also, there is no need to be concerned that, because of three articles on the biblical rationale for Christians voting and voting morally, the ministry of Heaven’s Family is “turning political.” Heaven’s Family is and always will be focused on advancing Jesus’ kingdom. And if you’ve read my first article in this series (or Romans 13:1-7), you understand that the authority to vote is God-given. Voting morally is one of many things that Christians do to love their neighbors as themselves.
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing (Rom. 13:1-6).
I wonder if you are like me. When I read this passage from the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans, I think to myself, “Paul, what were you thinking?” Because what Paul wrote obviously isn’t always true. Some rulers don’t seem to be “ministers of God” in any sense. Many practice and promote what God says is evil. Paul himself suffered under corrupt rulers. According to early church historian Eusebius, Paul’s martyrdom by decapitation was due to the decree of one of those corrupt governmental leaders, Roman emperor Nero.
It is said the wise avoid discussions about religion and politics. The reason is because people can be passionate, and thus unbending, about religious and political convictions, and the inevitable consequence of heated discussions is broken friendships. So if you want to preserve your relationships with friends who might differ on religion or politics, avoid those subjects we are told.
That piece of advice, I think, contains some truth. Obviously, however, mature and gracious people can discuss topics of disagreement without harming their relationships. It is only the immature who can’t respectfully disagree. Moreover, humble people love to have their personal convictions challenged, as they realize that they could be wrong. To thus avoid any and all discussions about religion and politics betrays that I think that all people, including myself, are immature and ungracious.