Menu

49 Sermon Illustrations on Blame

49 illustrations

Blame in Christian preaching often addresses the human tendency to avoid responsibility by shifting fault onto others or circumstances, contrasting this with the biblical call to personal accountability (Ezekiel 18:2-4). Illustrations commonly use everyday scenarios, historical events, and cultural examples to depict the futility and destructiveness of blame, urging believers to embrace maturity and integrity instead (Galatians 6:5).

The Blame Game

Ezekiel 18:2

Sermon on passing blame and accepting responsibility for our lives.

Ezekiel 18:2-4

==============

THE BLAME GAME

==============

I. Someone else is always to blame.

A. Our families.

B. Our chromosomes.

C. Our society.

D. Lop-sided values result.

II. Someone else must get me out of this mess.

A. Parents are to bail us out, no questions asked.

B. Technology is a great cure-all.

C. God will do in a pinch. He becomes a fire department.

III. Take charge of your life.

A. We believe people are accountable for their actions.

B. Ezekiel makes this point.

C. Move beyond victimhood.

IV. It is possible to change.

A. The good news from Jesus is all about how we can change.

B. Brain structure and genetics are not destiny.

C. If the Gospel doesn't have power to change us, it is false.

#3354

*

Don't Punish Every Mistake

Job 4:4

A true-life story by General Colin Powell:

In one of my assignments as a young infantry officer, I was sent to the 48th Infantry near Frankfurt, Germany. In those days our prize weapon was a huge 280-mm atomic cannon. Guarded by infantry platoons, these guns were hauled around the forests on trucks to keep the Soviets from guessing their location.

One day Captain Tom Miller assigned my platoon to guard a 280. I alerted my men, loaded my .45 caliber pistol and jumped into my jeep. I had not gone far when I realized that my .45 was gone.

I was petrified. In the army, losing a weapon is serious business. I had no choice but to radio Captain Miller and tell him. “You what?” he said in disbelief. He paused a few seconds, then added, “All right, continue the mission.”

When I returned, uneasily contemplating my fate, Miller called me over. “I’ve got something for you,” he said, handing me the pistol. “Some kids in the village found it where it fell out of your holster.”

“Kids found it?” I felt a cold chill.

“Yeah,” he said. “Luckily they only got off one round before we heard the shot and took the gun away.” The disastrous possibilities left me limp. “For God’s sake, son, don’t let that happen again.”

He drove off. I checked the magazine and found it was full. The gun had not been fired. Later I learned that I had dropped it in my tent before I ever got started. Miller had fabricated the scene about the kids to give me a good scare.

Today the army might hold an investigation, call in lawyers and likely enter a bad mark on my record. Miller gave me the chance to learn from my mistake. His example of intelligent leadership was not lost on me. Nobody ever got to the top without slipping up. When someone stumbles, I don’t believe in stomping on him. My philosophy is “Pick ‘em up, dust ‘em off and get ‘em moving again.”

~~~~~~~~~~

By Colin Powell, from A Cup of Chicken Soup for the Soul, Copyright 1996 by Jack Canfield, Mark Victor Hansen & Barry Spilchuk

from Internet: Chicken Soup Of The Day · Gen. Colin Powell via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database mistakesblame

Blaming the Circumstances

"People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don't believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them."

-- George Bernard Shaw, “Mrs. Warren's Profession” (1893) act II

________

Source: Quotes of the Day, http://www.quotationspage.com/qotd.html

*

[Original illustration at this number was deleted for being obsolete]

Baseball Blame

Luke 1:6

In "Discipleship Journal," Don McCullough wrote: "John Killinger tells about the manager of a minor league baseball team who was so disgusted with his center fielder's performance that he ordered him to the dugout and assumed the position himself.

"The first ball that came into center field took a bad hop and hit the manager in the mouth. The next one was a high fly ball, which he lost in the glare of the sun - until it bounced off his forehead. The third was a hard line drive that he charged with outstretched arms; unfortunately, it flew between his hands and smacked his eye.

"Furious, he ran back to the dugout, grabbed the center fielder by the uniform, and shouted, 'You idiot! You've got center field so messed up that even I can't do a thing with it!'"

from Leadership · Don McCullough via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database leadershipbaseball

Ten Biblical Guidelines For Family Communication

James 1:19

Ten Biblical guidelines for family communication:

A. Be a ready listener and do not answer until the other has finished.

Prov 18:13; James 1:19

B. Be slow to speak. Think first. Speak as to be understood.

Prov 15:23,28; 21:23; 29:20; Jam 1:19

C. Speak the truth always but do it in love. Do not exaggerate.

Eph 4:15,25; Col 3:9

D. Do not use silence to frustrate the other person. 1 Sam 25:3

E. Do not become involved in quarrels. It is possible to disagree

without quarreling. Prov 17:14; 20:3; Rom 13:13; Eph 4:31

F. Do not respond in anger. Use a soft and kind response.

Prov 14:29; 15:1; 25:15; 29:11; Eph 4:26,31

G. When you are wrong, admit it and ask for forgiveness. Jam 5:19

H. Avoid nagging. Prov 10:19; 17:9; 20:5

I. Do not blame or criticize the other person.

J. Try to understand the other person's opinion. Phil 2:1-4

from Communication: Key To Your Marriage · Norman Wright via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database familyblamecriticism

What's Your Anger Style?

There are three unhealthy approaches to handling our anger. All three tend to perpetuate anger rather than facing it in a way that leads to growth. (Each is given a checklist of descriptive behaviors.)

1. Suppressing anger.

They hesitate to admit their own anger and stoically put on a good

front. They feel powerful emotions are not acceptable. Or,

perfectionism or a need for approval may prevent you from revealing

any "weakness."

2. Open aggression.

Arises from focusing so strongly on your personal needs that you are

insensitive to the needs of others. This pattern results when (1)

emotional energy is expended on trivial matters and (2) deep

insecurity leads to exaggerated efforts to be heard.

3. Passive aggression.

Caused by a need to have control with the least amount of

vulnerability. Such a person knows they are angry but assumes it is

too risky to be open, so they frustrate others by subtle sabotage.

from Discipleship Journal · Adapted from Dr. Les Carter & Dr. Frank Minirth via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database rageblamecriticismemotions

Currents: Who's the Victim?

Job 4:6

John Leo writes in U.S. News and World Report:

"We are deep into the era of the abuse excuse. The doctrine of victimology -

claiming victim status means you are not responsible for your actions - is

beginning to warp the legal system.... Juries have traditionally been very

open-minded about whether a defendant committed an alleged crime, but very

tough on excuses. Now the trial revolves around excuses. Traditionally,

defense lawyers tried to create doubts. Now they just put the actual victim

on trial. The irony of this seems to escape victimologists. A movement that

began with the slogan, 'Don't blame the victim,' now strives to blame murder

victims for their own deaths."

#3309

*

from Discipleship Journal · John Leo (U. S. News & World Report, Feb 14, 1994) via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database murderexcusesguiltabuse

Menedez brothers

"Wrong" Must Be Explained

Lyle and Erik Menendez brutally killed their mother and father. The evidence is plain; no one denies it. So why is it so hard to find them guilt? Their defense attorneys argued persuasively that the brothers endured a nightmarish childhood of sexual and physical abuse, and that they were thus acting out of a kind of insanity that excuses them from first-degree murder charges. The arguments on both sides reduce to the same basic premise: wrong was committed.

The prosecution accused the brothers of murder and appealed to the public's sense that murder is evil. Likewise the brothers, in claiming they had been mistreated, appealed to a society that abhors child abuse. This was not a matter of arbitrary human laws being violated, it went much deeper. It was a matter of "right and wrong"-- a concept that is universal and unique to humanity.

No matter where people are found, they recognize that some things are wrong. Although human groups differ on what they prohibit, they all censor something. C. S. Lewis articulated this point well: "Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to--whether it was only your own family; or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have

one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked." (Mere Christianity, p. 5).

This is also personal. When I look inside myself I find this moral sense that I did not invent. I can find no explanation for it in the world--it must derive from beyond that realm. If there is nothing but matter in the Universe, and matter is the only eternal reality--then how do you explain this moral sense in humanity? Did it arise from rocks, trees, or animals? No, this moral sense is one of the clearest and most personal reminders that there is a God. --Brad T. Bromling, April 1994 Reason & Revelation--

Responding To Unfair Blame: Lessons From Nero and the Great Fire of Rome

John 16:2

July 19 marks a dark day in Christian history. On this date in A.D. 64, the Great Fire of Rome left two-thirds of the Eternal City in ashes. According to the Roman historian Tacitus, the fire was sparked in a part of town concentrated with flammable goods, quickly spread by high winds, and burned over the course of the next week and a half. This was the stuff of nightmares.

According to Tacitus,

The blaze in its fury ran first through the level portions of the city, then rising to the hills, while it again devastated every place below them; it outstripped all preventive measures, so rapid was the mischief and so completely at its mercy the city, with those narrow winding passages and irregular streets which characterized old Rome.

He went on to describe screaming women, helpless children, and panicked crowds, trampling everything before them.

The end of the blaze was not the end of the terror. On the throne at the time was Emperor Nero, a man notorious for his immorality and hatred of Christians. Suspicious by the way Nero refashioned the charred city into his own image, as well as by rumors that he “fiddled while Rome burned,” many Romans began to wonder if he had started the fire himself.

To forestall the whispers, Nero blamed the Christians. And why not? Christians were weird. They talked about eating flesh and drinking blood. They called their husbands “brother” and their wives “sister.” They denied the gods, like atheists. They thought a dead man had come back to life and was going to return one day in glory and, most pertinently, in vengeance.

Up to this point, believers had mostly been left alone by Roman authorities, but Nero found they were easy to pick on. In the days that followed, the Apostles Peter and Paul met their fates, along with an unknown but great number of other Christians.

If this was the first time Christians took heat for a public disaster, it certainly would not be the last. Christians have found themselves an unpopular minority in many cultural settings and have been consistently blamed for various disasters in various societies. A century and a half after Nero’s attacks, Tertullian, a North African Christian writer, morbidly quipped, “If the Tiber rises too high, or the Nile too low, the remedy is always feeding Christians to the lions.” In 410, pagan writers suggested that the sacking of Rome by German tribes would not have happened had Rome not abandoned her gods for a supposedly immoral Christianity. That accusation led Augustine of Hippo to respond with his magnum opus, The City of God.

One of the most important works in the history of Western civilization, The City of God is still read, centuries later, by pastors, philosophers, and historians alike. In it, Augustine provided a thoroughgoing defense to a shallow trope leveled against Christians. He offered a litany of natural and military disasters and gross moral failings from Rome’s supposedly purer and pagan past. With these examples, he undid the critique that Christians had somehow made life worse. If anything, in fact, the influence of biblical ideals had made things better.

Christians today face analogous accusations. We aren’t being cast to the lions (at least not here in the West, anyway), but there’s a clear and growing undercurrent of hostility toward Christians that often resembles the tropes used in ancient days. Christians have been blamed for the prevalence of poverty, natural disasters due to climate change, the degradation of science and technology, and all kinds of social and political oppression.

Our reply can be much the same as Augustine’s. Oppression, poverty, military, and natural disasters are the common lot of humanity. They are common in times and places where the Gospel has never gone. However, in those places where Christianity has gone there are hospitals, universities, technological innovation, freedom, and an unusual insistence on human dignity.

The good that Christianity brought to the world has been described in books like Dominion by the non-Christian historian, Tom Holland, and The Air We Breathe, by Anglican evangelist Glen Scrivener. These works remind us how bad the world was before Christ came, and how much of what we think of as good and valuable has come, not despite Christianity, but because of it. Any Christian who faces an unfair accusation today should read these books and be encouraged. Christianity is just as true and good today, as it was then.

________

Copyright (c) 2022 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Credit and Responsibility

"Hold yourself responsible for a higher standard than anybody else expects of you." — Henry Ward Beecher (1813-1887), Clergyman and writer, Cited in BITS & PIECES

Someone once said that good leaders take a little more than their share of the blame and a little less than their share of the credit.

That’s clear in this Civil War story about Abraham Lincoln.

After the Battle of Gettysburg, General Robert E. Lee and his Confederate forces were withdrawing to Virginia, and Lincoln felt that they were vulnerable. Eager to get the agony of the war over with, President Lincoln sent word to General George Meade to attack. With his message, Lincoln also sent a personal note. “The order I enclose is not on record,” said the note. “If you succeed, you need not publish it. Then, if you succeed, you will have all the credit of the movement. If not, I’ll take the responsibility.”

[Holwick: Meade didn't even try...]

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #18660]

from Source not recorded via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database responsibility

Is alcoholism A disease?

1 Corinthians 6:9

Is alcoholism a disease? If so:

1) It is the only disease contracted by an act of the will;

2) It is the only disease that requires a license to propagate it;

3) It is the only disease that is bottled and sold;

4) It is the only disease that requires outlets to spread it;

5) It is the only disease that produces a revenue for the government;

6) It is the only disease that provokes crime;

7) It is the only disease that is habit-forming;

8) It is the only disease that is spread by advertising;

9) It is the only disease without a germ or virus cause, and for which

there is no human corrective medicine; and

10) It is the only disease that bars the patient from heaven.

(cf. 1 Cor. 6:9-11)

Taken from the Evangelical Christian, Toronto, Canada, June, 1962.

Blame is easier

"The reason people blame things on previous generations is that there's only one other choice."

-- Doug Larson

________

Instead of "previous" one could insert "other"--RKC

Blame Is Easier

Calvin & Hobbes are riding a wagon. Calvin philosophizes: "When I grow up, I'm not going to read the newspaper and I'm not going to follow complex stories and I'm not going to vote. That way I can complain that the government doesn't represent me. Then when everything goes down the tubes, I can say the system doesn't work and justify my lack of participation."

Hobbes: "An ingeniously self-fulfilling plan."

Calvin: "It's a lot more fun to blame things than to fix them."

Forgotten How To Blush

Jeremiah 6:14

REMEMBERING HOW TO BLUSH: “They dress my people’s wounds without concern: ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, but there is no peace. They should be ashamed of their abominable deeds, But not they! They feel no shame, they have forgotten how to blush.” (Jeremiah 6:14-15, Jerusalem Bible)

A people who have forgotten how to blush are in big trouble. When our greatest embarrassment is over being embarrassed. When no word is too rude, no humor too degrading, no entertainment too low, to cause us to get red in the face any more. When we’ve seen so much outrageous and irresponsible behavior that we are numb to it. When we have lost the vital ability to feel shame, to experience pain for having committed a wrong.

In a recent Newsweek article (12/12/94) entitled, “The Name of the Game is Shame,” Jonathan Alter dares to suggest that it is morally wrong for unmarried women (specifically, teens) to bear children. Voices that protest, “You’re making them feel guilty. You’re blaming the victim. Who are you to judge someone else’s choices?” only reinforce a terrible reality: America has the highest percentage of out-of-wedlock births in the world (30.5%).

Jeremiah looked around Jerusalem and surrounding Judah in the late sixth century B.C., and said, incredulously, “You people aren’t ashamed of any immoral behavior any more, are you? You’ve forgotten how to blush! And what are your preachers preaching? ‘Everything’s just fine. We’re okay. Smile, God loves you,’ and in so doing put a bandaid on a cancer.”

It is right to lift guilt from the backs of sin-burdened people. Jesus did a lot of that (see John 8:1-11). It is right to be compassionate toward single mothers; social policy without compassion and concern, especially for the disenfranchised, is sub-Christian (see all the prophets). But removing all stigmas along with all moral absolutes is neither compassionate nor a solution to guilt. Sin buried beneath assurances of “There, there, it’s nobody’s (or everybody’s) fault” only grows more destructive.

Alter writes, “The challenge is to combine shame and empathy, to shape the parents without rendering the babies ‘illegitimate,’ to draw a line between right and wrong so bright it can be seen forever.” Amen. That is the challenge to the Church, to you and me, to keep our compassion and our consciences keen. Oh, and by the way, when Jeremiah was indicting the Israelites for their shamelessness, the subject wasn’t teenage pregnancy. It was greed.

— Ken Durham; Falls Church (VA)

from Source not recorded · Ken Durham via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database responsibilityshame

Hillary Clinton & scandal

BAIL TO THE CHIEF: Hillary Clinton, desperate to find something external to blame for her husband's political problems, now says bigotry against people from Arkansas is behind the ongoing attacks on the president. "I think a lot of this is prejudice against our state," she complained in an interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette newspaper. "They wouldn't do this if we were from some other state." The first lady previously claimed a "vast right-wing conspiracy" was behind Clinton's legal and political problems. (UPI) ...Face it, Hillary: the only outside thing to blame is Bill's zipper.

Mayor Koch tells truth

In 1980 New York City Mayor Ed Koch appeared on a local news program in the middle of the city's financial crisis. Koch had spent over a quarter of a million dollars to put up bike lanes in Manhattan, and they turned out to be a disaster. Cars were driving in the bike lanes, pedestrians were walking in the them, and bikers were getting crowded out. It was a mess and many people in New York were irate about it. Koch was coming up for re-election, so a handful of journalists cornered him on this show, planning to tear him to pieces for spending money foolishly when the city was nearly broke. One reporter said, "Mayor, in light of the financial difficulties New York City is facing, how could you possibly justify wasting $300,000 on bike lanes?" The stage was set for a half-hour confrontation. Instead, Koch said, "It was a terrible idea. I thought it would work, but it didn't. It was one of the worst mistakes I ever made." Then he stopped. None of the other journalists knew what to say or do. They were expecting him to squirm and make excuses, but he didn't even try. The next journalist stammered and said, "But Mayor Koch, how could you do this?" Koch said, "I already told you. It was a stupid idea. It didn't work." Then he stopped. There was still 26 minutes left to go on the news show, and the reporters had to find something else to talk about. The last thing they expected that day was for the mayor take responsibility for his actions. Ultimately, of course, Koch went on to receive both the Democratic and the Republican endorsements for re-election.

Procrastination syndrome

A fired Northwestern University professor was arrested for collecting his mother's social security checks for six years after her death. He blamed "extreme procrastination behavior" caused by depression!

from Source not recorded via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database responsibility

Reaching maturity

Someone has said, "The man who blames others for his problems hasn't begun his education. The man who blames himself has begun his education. And the man who blames no one has finished his education." (Jim Carlson, TRULY ALIVE, Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1973 and 1984, p. 43)

from Source not recorded via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database responsibility

Salem witch trials

Blame thrives in an atmosphere of desperation. In Massachusetts the harvest of 1691 had been poor. The Winter of 1691-92 had been severe. Farm animals were dying and there was always the threat of an Indian raid. When a dozen bored girls started making up stories about witches it launched the Salem Witch Trials. People were looking for someone to blame.

from Source not recorded via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

What blame does

Blame never affirms, it assaults.

Blame never restores, it wounds.

Blame never solves, it complicates.

Blame never unites, it separates.

Blame never smiles, it frowns.

Blame never forgives, it rejects.

Blame never forgets, it remembers.

Blame never builds, it destroys.

Let's admit it - not until we stop blaming will we start enjoying health and happiness again!

from Source not recorded via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Facing the obvious

Barry Bryson writes: "I had a friend in High School who wanted desperately to be a hurdler on the track team. He could negotiate the low hurdles fairly well, but he couldn't seem to get across the high hurdles. He tried lifting weights to improve his strength, jumping rope to improve his vertical leap, and new shoes to give him an extra edge, but he couldn't seem to get across the high hurdles. finally I said to him, "Bill, you are 5 foot 2 inches tall and weigh 212 pounds. You won't ever be able to run the high hurdles unless you lose weight or grow a foot taller."

British comedian Dave Allen tells the story of his mother being unable to get her car to start. So she cleaned out the ash trays, the glove box, and cleaned off the windshield. To her amazement the car still would not start.

It never ceases to amaze me how easily we humans become oblivious to the obvious.

Ring around the collar

Wives feel resentment when it is assumed that they are responsible for everything that goes wrong around the house. This is epitomized in the television ad in which the husband is upset because there's a 'ring around the collar.' The wife breaks into tears because her detergent has not removed the dirt from her husband's shirt. The ring around the collar is seen as telltale evidence of her failure. The ad never asks the obvious question -- why didn't he wash his neck? Tony Compolo, the Power Delusion (Victor Books, SP Publications, 1983) page 137.

from Source not recorded via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database blame

How to have victim mentality

To be a victim ...

1) You have to think of yourself as a victim;

2) You have to view yourself as a FEELING person rather than a

THINKING person;

3) You have to view yourself as a social critic and on a moral crusade;

4) You must assume an identity by merging with a larger group.

(From a Bible Class taught by Fred Zumwalt, Stafford, VA in June 1994)

from Source not recorded via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database blame

(untitled)

Luke 15

SPEECHWRITING IN THE FAR COUNTRY (By Ken Durham)

Home is still afar off, but you need to get on with it. You have a speech to compose. And it had better be good, if you are going to get out of this royal mess you have made. The question is, what strategy are you going to employ in this speech?

Perhaps a good alibi. "Dad, you wouldn't believe the recent downturn in the Far Country economy. Not long after I got there this famine hit and people started going bankrupt all over. Lots of unemployment. I was sort of involved in pork bellies work for a time, but that didn't work out ... "

Or maybe the victim approach, sure to arouse sympathy. "Dad, I've become so disenchanted with people. When I got to the Far Country, I made some friends ... at least, I thought they were my friends. But what did they do? They used me, Dad, took advantage of my generosity ... "

How about the reversal-of-blame tactic. "You know, Dad, you really shouldn't have let me leave home that way, with my share of the estate. I know I was pretty insistent, but I had no idea what a cruel place that Far Country is. If you had only made it clear to me...

Then again, a straight coverup might work. "Hi Dad, I'm home. No, everything's fine. The Far Country was great. What a wild and crazy place! But, I just decided to come home and see how everybody's doing. All I need is a shower and a good night's sleep. Otherwise I'm okay, really ... "

No, this is no good. Blaming everything and everybody else. That's just not the truth of it. You messed up big-time, and you know it. And your father deserves something better than your lame fictions; he deserves to know the truth. Sure, he might send you out to work with the hired hands (if you're lucky), but better to be home near him than living a lie in the Far Country, right?

So how do you say this? "Father, mistakes were made." No. "It seems that I have mismanaged my income." No. "In spite of good intentions, I fear that I have been led astray by my misguided youthful exuberance." No, no, no! Come clean, man, it's the only way.

Okay, here goes: "Father, I have sinned, against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men."

T'here it is. Now, was that so hard? Yes, as a matter of fact, it was. But it's the only way to make a fresh start at things. - Be- accountable Own up. Say it straight. Your father always treasured a few honest and forthright words over long speeches of self-justification. And he is, as everyone. knows, a father of extraordinary compassion. Who knows, he might even be glad to see you come home.

from Falls Church Church of Christ Bulletin · Ken Durham via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database responsibilityrepentance

They're All the Same To Me

A Chinese man and a Jewish man were eating together. Suddenly, without warning the Jew gets up, walks over to the Chinese fellow and smashes him in the mouth, sending him sprawling. The Chinese man picks himself up, rubs his jaw and asks, “What in the world did you do that for?” And the answer comes back: “For Pearl Harbor!”

His response is total astonishment: “Pearl Harbor? I didn't have anything to with Pearl Harbor. It was the Japanese that bombed Pearl Harbor!” The Jew responds, “Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese -- they're all the same to me.

With that they both sit down again, and before too long the Chinese man gets up, walks over to the Jew and sends him flying with a hard slap to the jaw. The Jew yells out, “What did you do that for?” And the answer comes back: “The Titanic.”

“The Titanic? Why, I didn't have anything to do with the Titanic!”

Whereupon the Chinese man replies, “Goldberg, Feinberg, Iceberg -- they're all the same to me!”

from (unknown) via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database racismblame

Blaming Others

. . . One of the most innovative psychologists in this half of the twentieth century . . . said recently that he considers only one kind of counselee relatively hopeless: that person who blames other people for his or her problems. If you can own the mess you're in, he says, there is hope for you and help available. As long as you blame others, you will be a victim for the rest of your life.

________

Bruce Larson, {There's a Lot More to Health Than Not Being Sick} (Waco, TX: Word, 1981) 46

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database personal responsibility

Take Responsibility

1 John 1:8

1 John 1:8-10

TAKE RESPONSIBILITY

===================

I. School teachers see it first-hand.

A. Most have told me teaching is harder than it was years ago.

B. President Truman's motto: The Buck Stops Here.

II. Blame is like margarine - it is easy to spread.

A. Artful dodgers.

B. Roots are in Eden. Genesis 3:12-13

III. Spiritual consequences of blame.

A. We are guilty of hypocrisy. Matthew 7:3,5

B. We deceive ourselves. 1 John 1:8

C. We call God a liar. 1 John 1:10

IV. Moving beyond blame.

A. I need to admit my problem to myself.

B. I need to admit my problem to God.

C. I need to admit my problem to others who are affected.

V. The goal of growth.

A. Personal responsibility goes beyond the negatives.

B. Only you can change you.

C. You don't have to go it alone.

from Condensed sermon outline (handout) by Rev. David Holwick · Rev. David Holwick, Serm01d.pco via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database blamegrowthaccountability

The Instruments Were Taped Over

Amos 7:12

On October 2, 1996, an Aeroperu 757 went down in the Pacific Ocean 50 miles northwest of Lima. Everyone on board was killed. Blame for the accident was laid at the feet of the Peruvian airline's ground crew. The crewmembers performed their assignments flawlessly except for one thing.

Soon after takeoff the pilot radioed the control tower the aircraft was behaving erratically, that the instruments were logically incorrect.

Since the weather was cold the pilot concluded ice had formed on the wings, causing the plane's instruments to malfunction. He decreased altitude in search of warmer air hoping the wings would de-ice. Lower and lower he flew, screaming at helpless controllers for assistance they could not provide - his voice was silenced in mid-sentence as the 757 slammed into the sea in the dark.

In preparing the craft for flight, the plane's outer body was washed with high-pressure hoses. It was standard procedure to duct-tape all sensitive instrument ports; it was also standard procedure to remove the tape following the plane's bath. They failed to do this.

All 186 people on board perished because the very instruments they depended on to keep the craft properly oriented were blocked. The five men of the ground crew were charged with wrongful death of 70 of the plane's passengers - all because someone didn't do his job.

In commenting on this tragedy, Ravi Zacharias, the evangelist, drew this parallel: such is our culture today - experts from every discipline in our society complain about our dysfunctional world, writing mountains of books and articles about the dilemma; yet the instruments needed to guide this great ship are taped over. The mouths of God's messengers are virtually taped over, the ears of the world are also being taped over.

If the mouths do not speak and the ears do not hear, the cacophony of many nations crashing will surely continue - death and hell will continue to consume their evil fruit.

Unlike the crew at the airport, not every member of society must perform perfectly in order for this craft to stay in the air. God only requires a faithful remnant, an unknown number of those who day in and day out go about the business of being faithful to Him and His commandments - God's sensitive instruments of navigation.

______________

Source/Attribution: John Gillmartin; SIEW

*

from Gillmartin's Sermon-illustrations-each-week (SIEW) · Rev. John Gillmartin via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database failureblame

It's Not My Fault: A Nation of Victims

Social scientist Charles Sykes tells the story of an FBI agent who embezzled $2,000 and used it for gambling. When he was fired for his crime, the agent did what a lot of folks do today: He began looking around to see whom he could blame.

After he was fired, the FBI agent went to court. He successfully argued that his gambling behavior was a handicap, protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act. And the FBI was forced to reinstate him. It's a classic example of how deeply victim psychology has permeated our culture. How did a country known for its rugged individualism turn into a nation of professional victims? Psychologist Paul Vitz says we can thank the rise of what he calls "selfist psychology."

In his book, Psychology as Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship, Vitz argues that modern psychology has embraced narcissism and self-worship -- or selfism. Selfism's fixation on personal rights has led to a citizenry who pledge allegiance not to family, church, or community, but to "actualizing" themselves.

In view of the many rights Americans now presume themselves to have, Vitz writes, it's inevitable that one of them will eventually be violated. When that happens, too many of us enroll ourselves into the victim-of-the-month club.

There's no shortage of categories: We're victims of racism, sexism, looks-ism, size-ism and age-ism. We're victims of cigarette, alcohol, sex, and gambling addictions. And some people claim to be victims of compulsive gossiping, shopping, eating, and chronic lateness syndrome.

What's happening here? Are these folks being abducted by a deranged shopping cart -- one that snarls: "Take me to Wal-Mart, and nobody gets hurt!"? Do roving gangs of Hershey bars fling themselves into the mouths of helpless victims? It's ridiculous.

As Vitz puts it, "America has become one huge circle in which everyone is pointing the finger of blame at someone else.... We now have so many addictions that the total accounts for well over one hundred percent of the American population."

It would be funny if it weren't so serious. Selfist psychology has deeply infiltrated the political realm as well. Politicians routinely assign Americans to one victim group or another, and pit them against each other. The result is that election campaigns now look more like dogfights than democracy in action.

The obsession with individual rights reveals how deeply selfist psychology conflicts with Christian teachings. Where selfism demands rights, Christianity encourages duty. The selfist says, "What's in it for me?" The Christian wonders, "How can I serve others?" The selfist whines, "I'm a victim." The Christian acknowledges, "I'm a sinner."

One way to fight the temptation to seek our identity in a victim group is to consciously deepen our commitment to communities that selfism has done much to destroy: family, church, and neighborhood. Selfist psychology has sunk deep roots into our culture. And this means we need to be constantly alert to the temptation to play the blame game.

If you catch yourself venturing into the land of victimhood, remind yourself that our commitment should be, not to avoiding responsibility, but to responsibly serving the one who became a sacrificial victim for us all.

For further reference:

Vitz, Paul. Psychology as Religion: The Cult of Self- Worship. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994.

_________________________

Copyright (c) 2001 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

Looking For Reasons: Disaster and A Prophetic Voice

Since the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington last week, BreakPoint commentaries have focused on a Christian worldview response. And we've ignored our schedule -- correctly so. The attacks were of such magnitude that no one could think of anything else.

I want to comment on the meaning of a prophetic response to this national disaster. Christians are called to speak prophetically to the world, calling for repentance.

The reaction of some evangelicals, however, was, unfortunately, to place the blame for the attacks on people in groups who have had a secularizing effect on American society. I don't associate myself with those comments. Nor do I believe most American Christians do. These remarks were ill-timed and inappropriate -- as those who made them, to their credit, have acknowledged. They have apologized for them.

While I obviously believe that the forces of secularism have done immeasurable harm, it is unfair to associate this tragedy with those forces. Nor can we lay the blame at the feet of Arabs or Muslims in general as some are wont to do.

The hijackers who crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were Muslim in name only. Several of them were involved in drunk driving and visiting strip bars, things no religious Muslim would ever do. In reality they were anarchists seeking to destroy, destabilize, and make us slaves to fear.

But, you ask, aren't Christians supposed to be prophetic within the culture and point out sin? Of course, but there are biblical guidelines.

First, remember the words of the apostle Peter: "It is time for judgment to begin with the family of God" [I Peter 4:17]. The sins of Christians and of the church are our first order of business. Our materialism, pride, disunity, gossip, and lack of love are as much a cause for judgment as anyone else's behavior. To single out the transgressions of others while ignoring our own is to turn biblical teaching on its head.

Second, the biblical prophets who pronounced God's judgment upon the people were careful to count themselves among those being judged. And when judgment came, they shared in the suffering of the people. Jeremiah wept and wrote laments when Jerusalem fell, Ezekiel went into exile, and Moses threw his lot in with the people when God told him of his intention to wipe out Israel and begin again with him. We always speak as fellow sinners -- and should be the first to repent.

Third, if we would be prophetic, we need to speak out for the right reasons: not to find scapegoats, condemn, or denounce; but out of love for our neighbors. Rather than demonizing others, we offer an alternative to destructive worldviews that have left many victims -- including the victims of last Tuesday -- in their wake.

Comments that sound self-righteous and point the finger at others make it hard for ordinary people to see how the Christian message differs from the condemning message of the hijackers. Christians should be measured and balanced in all we say -- a word of caution for all of us.

*

from BreakPoint Commentary · Charles Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database blame

Are Parents To Blame When Teens Go Bad?

The first question for many people after young American John Walker Lindh was found fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan was: What was he doing there? But the next question was: Where were his parents in all of this?

What were they thinking when they bankrolled their son's travels in search of an Islamic ideal, first in Yemen as a 17-year-old and later in Pakistan and Afghanistan as a young adult?

After practically every school shooting or other act of wrongdoing by a teen-ager, the sins of the children are visited on their fathers and mothers in sometimes fiercely critical post-mortems of their parenting.

"People assume that there's a very direct correspondence between what kids do and what their parents did for them or to them," said James Garbarino, who talked with the parents of one of the Columbine High School gunmen for his recent book, "Parents Under Siege." For his part, Garbarino says that parents are not necessarily to blame for what their children do.

In recent weeks, the spotlight has been put on the parents of Charles Bishop, the 15-year-old who crashed a small plane into a Tampa, Fla., high-rise, leaving a suicide note expressing support for Osama bin Laden. Also in the news were the parents of Richard Reid, the 28-year-old accused of trying to detonate explosives in sneakers during a trans-Atlantic flight.

The criticism of Marilyn Walker and Frank Lindh, Lindh's estranged parents, has been scathing, and has been aimed at both their actions and their environment - liberal, wealthy Marin County just north of San Francisco.

There has been speculation that Lindh lost his moorings amid the confusion of his parents' separation and his mother's own spiritual wanderings, which ultimately led her to convert to Buddhism.

It didn't help when his parents said immediately after their son's arrest that he is a "good boy" and that they had supported his pilgrimage to world trouble spots.

Lindh's "road to treason and jihad didn't begin in Afghanistan. It began in Marin County, with parents who never said, 'no,'" columnist Jeff Jacoby wrote in The Boston Globe.

The 20-year-old Lindh, who was captured in November, was charged Tuesday with conspiracy to kill U.S. citizens and could get life in prison. The Bush administration decided against a military trial or charges that carry the death penalty.

His parents, after weeks of silence, said through their lawyer that they still love and support their son.

Lindh's parents had paid for his solo trip to Yemen, one of the world's most dangerous places for Westerners, despite misgivings that prompted Marilyn Walker to repeatedly call representatives of the Yemen Language School, seeking assurances that he would be OK.

Lindh repeatedly got in trouble with authorities there. He considered himself a more pious Muslim than most Yemenis, and made illegal attempts to meet with militants, according to those who encountered him.

During a second trip to the Middle East eight months later, he sent an e-mail from Pakistan asking for more money. His father wired him $1,200, and Lindh was off to meet bin Laden. Lindh's parents did not see him again until he appeared on CNN, a wounded and disheveled prisoner.

"Clueless," is one of the milder epithets that has been aimed at Lindh's parents.

The parents of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the teen-agers who in 1999 killed 12 students and a teacher at Columbine High School and then committed suicide, were similarly criticized. In that case, the criticism was not that the parents were too tolerant, but that they were ignorant - they should have known about their boys' dark fantasies and weapons cache.

Phyllis York, co-founder of Toughlove International, which urges parents to set limits on unruly offspring, said she is not surprised at the criticism. "We live in a culture where parents don't count, yet they're blamed as scapegoats," she said.

Child psychiatrist Dr. Elizabeth Berger sees fear behind the outrage.

"When a person in an unexpected way does something grotesque, it is terrifying," she said. "Everyone says, 'Lord, there but for the grace go I.' Rather than tussling with that humbling and humanitarian idea, frequently they push that away by asserting - 'This could not possibly be me.'"

Child experts agree: Teens are good at fooling their parents.

Garbarino asked freshmen at Cornell University, presumably a group of high-achievers, if they had hidden anything scary from their parents. They had, everything from suicidal leanings to drug busts.

Berger, author of "Raising Children With Character," would not comment on the Lindh household and said no outsider can deliver a clinical analysis of what is surely a complex situation.

She said she does not absolve parents from all responsibility, but in general, "one cannot work backward from a troubled offspring and assert that the parents zigged when they should have zagged."

*

You Stole the Dollar!

In his book, "The Preaching Event," John Claypool tells a poignant story about identical twin brothers who never married because they enjoyed each other's company so much. When their father died, they took over his store and ran it together in a joyful collaboration. But one day a man came in to make a small purchase and paid for it with a dollar. The brother who made the sale placed the dollar on top of the cash register... and walked the customer to the door to say goodbye. When he returned, the dollar bill was gone. He said to his twin brother, "Did you take the dollar bill I left here?" "No, I didn't," answered the brother. "Surely, you took it," he said, "There was nobody else in the store." The brother became angry: "I'm telling you, I did not take the dollar bill."

From that point, mistrust and suspicion grew until finally the two brothers could not work together. They put a partition right down the middle of the building and made it into two stores. In anger, they refused to speak for the next 20 years. One day a stranger pulled up in a car and entered one of the two stores. "Have you been in business very long here?" the stranger asked. "Yes, 30 or 40 years," was the answer. "Good," continued the stranger, "I very much need to tell you something... Some 20 years ago, I passed through this town. I was out of work and homeless. I jumped off a boxcar. I had no money and I had not eaten for days. I came down that alley outside and when I looked into your store window, I saw a dollar bill on the cash register. I slipped in and took it. Recently I became a Christian. I was converted and accepted Christ as my personal Savior. I know now it was wrong of me to steal that dollar bill... and I have come to pay you back with interest and to beg your forgiveness."

When the stranger finished his confession, the old storekeeper began to weep as he said, "Would you do me a favor? Would you please come next door and tell that story to my brother?" Of course, with the second telling, the two brothers were reconciled with many hugs and apologies and tears. Twenty years of hurt and broken relationship based not on fact, but on mistrust and misunderstanding. But then healing came; reconciliation came, because of that stranger's love for Christ.

The point is clear: Christ is the reconciler, but as the Apostle Paul put it, we can be "agents of reconciliation" when we live in the spirit of love. Love has the power to heal. Love has the power to reconcile.

*

from Email · John Claypool via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database blame

A Soul In A Bottle?

Acts 16:16

"Can a bokor (witch doctor) put a person's soul in a bottle?" That was the question the pastor put to a workshop at the Danda clinic in Haiti. Some of the participants giggled and whispered to each other. By the low murmur from the group, obviously there was a difference of opinion among them.

For a large sum of money, the local bokor will prepare a concoction in a bottle, which can be used either for protection or to attack someone. The bokor will even come to the house to make sure the spell is cast properly (for another fee, of course).

One of the counselors at the workshop remembered the story of a young woman who sought revenge against a neighbor for stealing a T-shirt, after the two had argued. The bokor was hired and the potion prepared. However, the woman's mother intervened and the bokor left without doing his work. The woman later found the T-shirt behind the bed. A rat had dragged it there to make a nest. The fears, the arguments, the money wasted were for nothing. The woman immediately sent for the local church leaders to pray with her. She accepted Christ immediately, thanking God for delivering her from evil.

The pastor pointed the participants to Ephesians 6 and the armor God has for us. As servants for the Living God, we are protected. We can put our souls in God's bottle for sure protection.

Someone Else's Fault

2 Samuel 12:13

Years ago there was a cowboy hero - and a young boy who thought he was a big deal. The boy was me. And my parents bought me this plate with my hero's picture on it - and an inscription that said, “That-a boy! You cleaned your plate.” I wanted his approval. So I just kept cleaning my plate ... and filling it so I could clean it again. By the time I was in high school, I was 210 pounds. And whose fault was it that I was so heavy? I've told many people - it was the fault of my cowboy hero, of course. At least, I wish I could have blamed him.

I'm Ron Hutchcraft, and I want to have A Word With You today about “Someone Else's Fault.”

I've always been joking when I blamed my “clean your plate” hero for my teenage weight problems. But it's no joke that blaming someone else is, for most of us, one of our favorite ways to account for something in our life that shouldn't be there - whether it's a bad attitude, a bad habit, a bad situation, a bad relationship.

This attempt to dodge the responsibility for our actions is nothing new. Centuries ago, the prophet Nathan was sent by God to confront King David with his sins of adultery and conspiracy to commit murder. David had slept with Bathsheba, the wife of one of his most loyal soldiers, and then arranged for that man's death in battle. When David learned that Bathsheba was pregnant, well, he knew that he had a serious problem on his hands and he tried to cover it up. But Nathan approached David with the parable of a rich man who had owned many sheep and a poor man who owned one little lamb. When the poor man came for dinner at the rich man's house, the rich man killed the poor man's one little lamb for dinner. Well, David was enraged at this rich man's outrageous crime - and he angrily said, “The man who did this deserves to die!”

Then Nathan said these four chilling words to the king - “You are the man!” And in 2 Samuel 12:13, our word for today from the Word of God, “David said to Nathan, 'I have sinned against the Lord.'“ That moment of painful honesty was the beginning of David's deep repentance and the restoration of his shattered relationship with God. It took a while, but David finally accepted the responsibility for what he had done. And the healing began that moment.

That's how it will begin for someone who's listening right now. As you look at that bad situation, the mess, the problems, you have two choices: blame someone else or accept your part of the responsibility ... for that broken or strained relationship, for the negativity, for the conflict, the mess, or the trouble. Many of us hide from taking responsibility for our situation with a “victim” copout.

Maybe you've honestly been hurt or wronged. You can't do anything about the other person taking responsibility for what they've done. But you can accept the responsibility for the way you've handled it, for the wrong things you may have tried to excuse by the wrong things someone else did. Those who have been victims - and those who've been victimizers - never get free until they realize that they are now the victims of their own choices, not someone else's.

There is an old spiritual that goes something like this, “Not my brother, not my sister, but it's me, O Lord, standing in the need of prayer.” That's a great place to start - looking in the mirror, asking, “Lord, what do I need to change?” Taking responsibility - that's the price of healing ... it's the price of greatness.

________________

Copyright © Ron Hutchcraft Ministries, Inc., PO Box 400, Harrison, AR 72602. Used by permission. Written by Ron Hutchcraft. "Practical Answers to Real Life Issues"

*

from A Word With You by Ron Hutchcraft #4191 · Ron Hutchcraft via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database personal responsibility

The Blaming Game

Want to know what happens to a civilization of people who begin feeling sorry for themselves? Invariably blaming others for their problems? Take a look at Iraq!

As columnist James Pinkerton observed, Iraq and the entire Fertile Crescent gave the world its first writing, its first literature, its first laws, its first prayers, and its first songs. My goodness, what has happened since?

According to a recent U.N. report, Iraq and other Arab states are clustered toward the bottom of almost every international ranking from economic growth to literacy to life expectancy. I have been in the Middle East enough times over the past 30 years to have heard the same old excuses over and over: "It was the Crusades!" "It was colonization by the West."

The main miserable theme, "It is the Jews!" That is all nonsense, of course. What has happened there is this mind-set of the people believing that they have no personal accountability, that all of their misfortunes are the results of the actions of others.

And so they are ruled by a deadly fatalism, a passivity, the defeat of something inside a person that makes him believe that his own actions can make life better. You have heard the old phrase, "Where there's a will, there's a way." True and conversely, "Where there's no will, there's no way."

What a tragedy for a once-great civilization! What a tragedy for any individual who spends a lifetime blaming others for his or her own situation. Jesus said, "Take up your bed and walk!" Both of those actions require some faith and action. Both of those ingredients seem to be lacking these days in Iraq.

from Source not recorded · Dan Betzer via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Heredity Or Environment?

After reviewing his teenage son's report card, an irate father exclaimed, “Five Fs? How could you make five Fs? This is the worst card you've ever had!”

“What do you think it is, Dad,” the boy asked, “heredity or environment?”

________

From 'It's Always Too Soon To Quit', by Lewis R. Timberlake, p36; submitted by Kiri Christina Hyatt

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #25291]

Faith Divides the Survivors and It Unites Them, Too

Job 36:15

Next door to four houses flattened by the tsunami, three rooms of Poorima Jayaratne's home in Ambantota, Sri Lanka, still stood intact. She had a ready explanation for that anomaly, and her entire family's survival: she was a Buddhist, and her neighbors were not.

“Most of the people who lost relatives were Muslim,” said Ms. Jayaratne, 30, adding for good measure that two Christians were also missing. As proof, she pointed to the poster of Lord Buddha that still clung to the standing portion of her house.

The earthquake and tsunami that killed at least 150,000 people reached from Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim majority nation, to India, the world's largest Hindu one. It hit Thailand's Buddhist majority and Muslim minority, and this tiny island country, which is mostly Buddhist but has sizable Hindu, Muslim and Christian populations.

Across nations and religions there has been a search for explanations of not only why the tsunami came but why it killed some and not others - and a vibrant, sometimes virulent cottage industry is supplying them.

Some discern a lesson that humanity should unite, citing the bodies of people of all religions tumbling together into mass graves, while others see affirmations of the rightness of their own path. Amid sympathy, there is judgment; beneath public compassion, a private moralizing.

The tsunami may also deepen religious and ethnic divisions, perhaps dangerously. In Sri Lanka in recent years, dozens of churches have been attacked by militant Buddhists. It is the Christians, some Buddhists say, who are to blame for the tsunami.

Din Syamsuddin, a cleric and deputy chief of Muhammadiyah, one of Indonesia's largest Muslim organizations, said the people of the Aceh region near the epicenter had calmly accepted the tragedy as a sign of God's disapproval and a divine examination to test their faith.

Natural disasters are an indication that man has strayed from the path of God, he said: “We believe it is an examination, and we face it with passion and submission.”

Because a physical tragedy is only a test, Acehnese Muslims believe, the real punishment may come later, he said. According to Islamic doctrine, only after critical self-evaluation and positive deeds can people begin to repair their relationship with God.

Rebuilding after the tsunami really means “returning to the center of life, which is God,” Mr. Syamsuddin said.

In mostly Hindu India, some see a divine reaction to a society whose changing economy is feeding corruption and greed. Muthuvel, 55, a fisherman in Nagappattinam whose wife is missing, said, “Fishermen are becoming greedy and jealous of other richer colleagues.”

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, a guru in India who has built a huge following among the country's growing and stressed middle class, said: “If you forget nature, this is the way nature reminds you. Crime and stress punish nature.”

Here in Sri Lanka, four religions - Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and Christianity - coexist. Their followers' explanations often exhibit a commonness of belief, reflecting the primal reasons the religions evolve and the ways they have influenced one another over time.

Most of the population follows the Theravada school of Buddhism, in which understanding dukkha, or suffering, is a central concept, as is accepting the inability to control it. The Venerable Battapola Nanda, a priest near Galle whose temple has become a relief camp, said the tsunami reinforced a central Buddhist tenet: “If you think something will happen, it never will,” he said. “If you think it never will happen, it will.”

A similar sense of the limits of man and the greatness of God informed the words of Nasir Mohammad, a Muslim textile shop owner in Hambantota. It is not for humans to explain why so many children died, but to accept it, he said. “God makes the world,” he said. “He can give, he can take. Sometimes he gives more. Sometimes he takes.”

Always, there is a search for signs, as in the conviction of Rose Jayasuriya, 59, that her older sister Patricia, 74, still missing, died blessed because she had just taken communion when the sea invaded their church. Sri Lankan Buddhists believe that rebirth follows death, and that sin and good deeds determine one's future in this life and the next. Many Buddhists said they suspected that those who had lost children had done something wrong in a previous life.

M. Vilmot, 49, a baker whose 14 family members survived, was sure that those who had lost loved ones were being punished for some sin. “We earn money the correct way,” he said. “That's why it didn't happen to us.” His bakery, perhaps 30 feet from the sea, was damaged but not destroyed. He said he followed the five Theravada Buddhist precepts of not lying, stealing, drinking, philandering or killing animals, while others only gave money to temples and then misbehaved.

G. H. Bandusile, 44, a fisherman's wife in Koggala, was certain that punishment was being meted out to the survivors, not the dead. “The good people are gone,” said Ms. Bandusile, who lost her mother. “The bad people must stay and suffer.”

On a back road in the village of Nagurasa in the Galle district, T. G. David, a Buddhist farmer and strict vegetarian whose beard gave him the look of a prophet, said the fishermen devastated by the tsunami had paid the price for their work.

“Fishermen are taking life,” said Mr. David, who is 72. “Farmers have no problems.”

Sri Lankans of all religions tried to link the ferocity of nature to the fallibility of man. At the Sri Kathiresan Temple in Galle, a Hindu temple, A. P. Sethuraman, the trustee, blamed activities like drinking and drug use by foreigners in particular.

“Many bad things happen along the seaside,” he said. It was a lesson sent by Lord Shiva, he said: “You must live the right way.”

His proof was the local shrine to Vishnu and Kanda, two Hindu gods. It survived where the buildings all around it did not. Ramzy Mohammad, 32, a Muslim businessman, said many Sri Lankan Muslims believed God was angry about dissension in families, growing drug use and rape.

“He got angry and washed up the water,” said Mr. Mohammad, who lost 11 family members.

The Rev. Charles Hewawasam, a Roman Catholic priest who lost a nun and 18 members of his congregation in Matara, Sri Lanka, saw the tsunami as a reaction to ethnic and religious tensions.

“Nature is saying: 'You may have your powers, your fighting. I can destroy within a second the whole thing,' “ he said. The dead, he added, “have sacrificed their lives for us to teach a lesson: be together, treat one another as human beings.”

But for some the kind of divisions he cited seem to have only been deepened by the disaster.

At the Buddhist temple in Kalatura, Sri Lanka, Nimal Ranjit Perera blamed an apocryphal Christian who had made a cake in the shape of Lord Buddha and then cut it with a knife. Indonesia, he added as an aside, was struck because Indonesians had been manufacturing and wearing underwear with the image of Lord Buddha.

At the same temple, Thenahandy Asha, 26, blamed carnivorous Christians who had “killed many animals” on Christmas, the day before the tsunami. “God was angry,” she said, so on the next day poya, or full moon day, holy in Buddhism, he delivered his punishment. Samantha Silva, 24, agreed: God was angry that so many people had eaten meat, and consumed alcohol, on Christmas.

But he could not explain why so many Buddhists had died, or so many children - his own girl and boy, ages 5 and 2, among them. His brain was too upset to puzzle that out, he said. All he could do was leave flowers and light lamps at the temple, and pray that his children's next lives would be good ones.

________

Evelyn Rusli contributed reporting from Indonesia for this article, and Hari Kumar from India.

God's Way Or My Way?

Genesis 16:1

Sermon series on Abraham. Genesis 16:1-6

GOD'S WAY OR MY WAY?

====================

I. Schemes can work.

II. God is taking an awfully long time.

A. Abram and Sarai have been in Canaan 10 years.

B. Their scheme.

III. Four stupid things Christians do.

A. Think that God needs your help.

B. Put people before God.

C. Pass the blame instead of taking responsibility.

D. Accept peace at any price.

IV. Everybody loses.

A. Sarai is humiliated, and loses a maid.

B. Hagar is exiled and loses her home.

C. Abram loses a son and peace in his family.

V. A sovereign God lets everybody win.

A. All of them end up blessed in the end.

B. Don't leave God out of the picture.

from Condensed sermon outline (handout) by Rev. David Holwick · Rev. David Holwick, Serm05e.pco via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Terrorism Is Our Fault?

“Do you believe the Islamic terrorists to be evil?” the radio host asked the lady who had called his program Aug. 10. There was a pause. “No, I do not,” she replied. “We should look at ourselves to discover what we did to make them hate us so much. This is all our fault.”

In only a few seconds the caller revealed her anthropological perspective of the world. It is one that is shared by many in the United States. It is not only a misguided view, but in the war against terrorism, it is suicidal.

Anthropology is one’s understanding of the origin and development of the human race. It seeks to comprehend the workings of culture as well as individual behavior. And, realized or not, everyone has an anthropological perspective.

Those with a humanistic anthropology believe that mankind is basically good. This view cuts across political and theological lines. The bottom line of this anthropological view is that men and women are inherently good and must be conditioned or provoked into bad behavior.

The talk show caller referenced above is a sterling example of someone who believes that the human race is basically good. In her mind, those who commit terrorist acts are not evil; they are simply misunderstood. In other words, we, the United States, must have done something terrible to cause them to hate us so much.

Those who share the caller’s humanistic anthropological perspective believe that poor economic conditions or American foreign policy are the reasons that terrorists loathe the United States.

The caller honestly believes that if someone sympathetic and understanding, like herself, could sit down and have tea with the terrorists, listen to them and feel their pain, the whole terror threat would evaporate.

Others holding the humanistic view of anthropology believe what the terrorists need is a really good psychologist. Just a few sessions with Dr. Phil, and their lust for jihad would be cured.

By contrast, those with a Bible-based, or bibliocentric view of anthropology -- like myself -- believe the aforementioned humanistic understanding is naïve, misguided and downright dangerous.

A bibliocentric anthropological perspective holds that mankind is sinful and self-centered -- people basically act and do whatever is necessary to promote or protect self.

Those with a bibliocentric approach to anthropology believe mankind must be taught or socialized in how to behave properly. However, no amount of socialization, education or religious training will ever eradicate the bent toward self-interest. Hence, a constant accountability is necessary.

I believe the terrorists that planned to blow up planes flying from England to the United States did so because they hate anyone that does not embrace their view of the world.

They hate because they were born with a propensity to care only about themselves. That natural egocentric fire has been fueled by a theology that instructs them it is Allah’s will to kill infidels, who happen to be anyone that will not convert to Islam.

They also believe that in sacrificing their lives for the cause of Allah in jihad, they will be rewarded with a sensual paradise, which is just another appeal to man’s natural self-interest.

Because I understand that man is inherently evil, and that the terrorists’ theological view exploits this natural inclination, I do not believe it is possible to reason with them.

The liberal/moderate anthropology that sees Islamic terrorists as misunderstood freedom fighters that can be negotiated with is not only naïve, it is suicidal.

The caller to the radio talk show indicated that she believes the terror threat we face in America is our fault. She could be right. That is, if the mere fact we are breathing is our fault.

Something Horribly Wrong: the Reality of Evil

Less than seventy-two hours have passed since the shootings that killed thirty-two innocent people and injured another thirty at Virginia Tech. Americans can relate to what Virginia Tech President William Steger said immediately after the killings: “I’m really at a loss for words to explain or to understand the carnage that has visited our campus ... “

This is especially true as a frightening picture of the killer emerges: a young man, by all accounts a loner, who, according to the WASHINGTON POST, wrote poetry about death and “expletive-filled rants against the rich and privileged.” Clearly, on the dark side.

As we seek to understand what happened and why he did this, it is vital that we not exclude an important part of the equation: evil.

Faced with this kind of horror, we automatically assume that we are dealing with a MADMAN — a word the media has already used to describe the killer. That’s because we can’t imagine ourselves or anyone we know doing anything remotely like this. Therefore, we conclude that something must have been “wrong” with the perpetrator.

And, since our culture is defined by what sociologist Philip Rieff called the “therapeutic ethos,” the “something” that’s “wrong” must be a psychological defect. Mental illness, not human evil, is our preferred explanation for what happened in places like Blacksburg or Columbine.

I witnessed an extreme example of this therapeutic thinking during a visit to a Norwegian prison years ago. Throughout the tour, officials bragged about employing the most humane and progressive treatment methods anywhere in the world. I met several doctors in white coats.

That prompted me to ask how many of the inmates, who were all there for serious crimes, were mentally ill. The warden replied, “Oh, all of them.” I must have looked surprised, because she said, “Well, of course, anyone who commits a crime this serious is obviously mentally unbalanced.”

Stated differently, there is no such thing as sin and evil, and the only reason why people might commit serious crimes is that they are mentally ill. Thus, the best — and perhaps, only — response to crime is behavior modification and all of those other up-to-date psychological techniques.

While the Norwegian approach would strike most Americans as very naïve, the difference between them and us is one of DEGREE not KIND. We also blame crime on external factors, like mental illness, culture, dysfunctional childhood, and the like.

We are uncomfortable attributing events like this to human evil, much less to a kind of evil that seeks to undo God’s creation — what Christians call the demonic.

Yet without this idea, events like this massacre can never be understood. We might learn that the killer was “mentally unbalanced” or on anti-depressants. But, absent evidence that he was clinically delusional, this knowledge will not explain why he walked onto a college campus, locked people in a lecture hall, and killed them.

Events like this not only horrify us — they unsettle us. We think of sin and the demonic as not-so-quaint relics from a superstitious age. And even more destructive, random events like this remind us how little we know about ourselves and what we are capable of, as well. But failing to call evil EVIL misleads us about the world we live in and our need for God’s grace, the only real answer and hope for any of us.

________

Copyright (c) 2007 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · Charles Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database atrocityblame

Smuggling Shoes

Officials at the Harare airport in Zimbabwe stopped a 26-year-old woman after suspicious customs officers saw her butt. The woman, who was not identified, had 14 pounds of marijuana stuffed in her shorts and was arrested on smuggling charges.

Meanwhile, customs officers at Narita Airport in Tokyo, Japan, stopped Juan Yung-chuan, 43, and demanded to look at his shoes. "For someone about 170 centimeters (5.6 feet) tall, he was wearing suspiciously big shoes," a customs spokesman said. Inside was 350 grams of heroin, but Juan says he is innocent. "I was only asked by a Thai man to wear the shoes at Bangkok airport," he claims, "but I had no idea what was inside them." (Reuters, AFP)

from Internet: This Is True (…-admin@lyris.net) [don't Distribute] · Randy Cassingham via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database personal responsibility

City Blames God

Pastor Greg Beutel of Forth Worth, Texas, had a Hyundai car that was badly damaged when a city streetlight fell on it. When he contacted city officials for compensation for the $2,000 in damages, he was told, "It's an act of God."

from The Week magazine via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Blame David, Not Bathsheba – The Prophet Nathan Did

Exodus 20:14

In the Book of Samuel, three key voices say he’s the guilty one, not her.

________

The story of David and Bathsheba has a lot of gaps. It’s a brilliantly told narrative that requires us to draw conclusions based on what we already know. The downside to this sophisticated mode of storytelling is that readers will make unjustified assumptions to fill in the gaps.

As Sara Koenig notes in Bathsheba Survives, the history of this passage’s interpretation makes a fascinating case study of how each generation thinks about sexuality.

Today is no exception.

In the age of #metoo and #churchtoo, the conversation is trending again on Twitter. (As far as I can tell, #sbctoo sparked this latest round.) Once again, various personalities are arguing that David committed adultery, not rape, or vice versa.

Those arguing that David committed adultery often try to pin blame on Bathsheba for bathing in public, thereby seducing David, while those arguing that David raped her point to the uneven power dynamics between them.

But here’s the problem: We think of “adultery” as consensual by definition, while the Bible defines it as the responsibility of the male head of the household to keep his hands off his neighbor’s wife (Exod. 20:14).

That doesn’t mean a woman can’t sin sexually. However, the Ten Commandments are addressed to men by default. They were called to restrain their strength for the sake of community.

It’s hard to think of another Old Testament story that fits the bill more precisely. Bathsheba is literally David’s neighbor’s wife, which means she’s totally off limits to him.

She’s also off limits because of David’s warfare practices.

We learn in 1 Samuel 21:4–5 that he prohibited sexual relations during battles or “missions” from the king. The rule was meant to maintain ritual purity so that soldiers could carry out the divine will.

In those days, battles were considered religious. That’s why Uriah refuses to go to his wife when he answers David’s summons. He shows more restraint when drunk than David does when sober — for the sake of the men’s mission, and to show solidarity with them.

By contrast, David fails to take the mission seriously. He doesn’t lead the troops in battle. Instead, he stays home and preys on the “war widow” next door. He violates Uriah’s marriage covenant, which the narrator reminds us of by repeatedly calling her “the wife of Uriah.”

The incident could be called adultery only in the sense that both David and Bathsheba were married, not in the modern sense of consent. The one difference between this case and Amnon’s violation of his half-sister Tamar (described a few chapters later) is that neither of the latter two was married.

Otherwise, the stories are parallel: He saw; he wanted; he took. But still, some will ask, “Didn’t Bathsheba seduce him?”

The first thing to note is that she is not bathing on the roof (2 Sam. 11:2). It’s David who is on the roof — a normal place to be in the cool of the evening. He ought to be at war with his men, but nevertheless, there he is, bored.

Why is she bathing where he can see her? In David’s day, the city had no indoor plumbing. Bathing normally happened in public.

If Bathsheba is bathing in a public pool, then, she can hardly be implicated for immodesty. And if she’s bathing in the courtyard of her own home, her bath is more private than normal. In fact, the text never says that she was naked.

Isn’t nakedness an obvious inference? Not necessarily. We lived for two years in the Philippines and regularly visited a crowded Muslim neighborhood with no indoor plumbing. Despite rather strict notions of modesty, men and women found ways to scrub clean under adequate cover (usually generous tube skirts for both men and women).

A public approach to hygiene may be foreign to many of us, but it’s quite common in some areas of the world.

This was no ordinary bath, either. She was purifying herself ritually following menstruation (2 Sam. 11:4). This practice indicates that she was a pious keeper of Israelite purity law (and also that she was not already pregnant, which is important to the question of parentage). David’s sexualization of her religious hygiene should raise an eyebrow or two.

David summons her. Does she have a choice? Her husband and her father are both soldiers under his command. No one can refuse the king.

Bathsheba’s only words in the entire story are “I’m pregnant.” David has put her in a predicament: If her husband returns and finds her pregnant, she could be stoned for adultery. But the situation is not her fault, and David knows it.

David’s Plan A is to bring Uriah home from the front to make love to his own wife. It’s still early in her pregnancy, so Uriah may later think it’s his own child. When he piously refuses to come, David has him killed and takes Bathsheba into his harem.

For me, the clincher is this: The narrator is unequivocal in blaming David (2 Sam. 11:27). The prophet Nathan is unequivocal in blaming David (2 Sam. 12:1–12). And Bathsheba is never chastised.

Yes, she loses her son, but that loss is never characterized as her punishment. She suffers for David’s sin, as subjects always do when their leader is recalcitrant.

Pinning the blame equally on Bathsheba ignores how God assesses the story through Nathan. It ignores the culture of the city of David. And it ignores the clear exegetical signals throughout the chapter.

For David, as for every Israelite, the neighbor’s wife is like a daughter to be protected, not an experience to be collected. David knows Bathsheba is unavailable. But this doesn’t deter him in the least. Like a predator, he summons her. He’s come to believe that because he has power, he can have whatever he wants when he wants it.

To me, the most shocking part of the story comes after the murder of Uriah, when David tells his commander, Let this matter not be evil in your eyes (2 Sam. 11:25). David attempts to redefine his own behavior as acceptable.

If David had been king of any other ancient Near Eastern kingdom, his actions would have been unremarkable. Kings could do whatever they wanted. But this wasn’t any other kingdom; it was Israel. And David’s power was not absolute, nor did he make the rules. Yahweh did.

Nathan the prophet makes absolutely clear that the king had done evil in God’s sight (2 Sam. 12:9). His rebuke lands squarely on David. And David knows he’s in the wrong.

David’s response is simply I have sinned against YHWH (v. 13). Standing at a crossroads, he offers no defense, no equivocation, no excuses. He’s been caught in the act. He takes sole responsibility, repents, and chooses a better path forward.

In other words, he too affirms that he’s the guilty one.

When I reflect on the narrative, I often wonder whether it’s fair to call it “the story of David and Bathsheba.” Naming her implies cooperation where the text claims nothing of the sort. At the very least, we should call it “David and the Wife of Uriah” — or “David and Uriah,” since the showdown is clearly between these two men.

The ongoing debate about this story shows the importance of returning to a text again and again, attending to its details, and remaining open to the possibility that we have missed or misconstrued something.

Reading with others is essential to that process. We all miss things, because we’re all embedded in communities that have shaped what we notice and what we don’t. Sometimes our failure to realize this impairs our ability to see what’s right in front of us.

In this case, Bathsheba deserves another look.

________

Carmen Joy Imes is associate professor of Old Testament at Biola University

Facing the obvious

Barry Bryson writes: "I had a friend in High School who wanted desperately to be a hurdler on the track team. He could negotiate the low hurdles fairly well, but he couldn't seem to get across the high hurdles. He tried lifting weights to improve his strength, jumping rope to improve his vertical leap, and new shoes to give him an extra edge, but he couldn't seem to get across the high hurdles. finally I said to him, "Bill, you are 5 foot 2 inches tall and weigh 212 pounds. You won't ever be able to run the high hurdles unless you lose weight or grow a foot taller."

British comedian Dave Allen tells the story of his mother being unable to get her car to start. So she cleaned out the ash trays, the glove box, and cleaned off the windshield. To her amazement the car still would not start.

It never ceases to amaze me how easily we humans become oblivious to the obvious.

Ten Biblical Guidelines For Family Communication

James 1:19

Ten Biblical guidelines for family communication:

A. Be a ready listener and do not answer until the other has finished.

Prov 18:13; James 1:19

B. Be slow to speak. Think first. Speak as to be understood.

Prov 15:23,28; 21:23; 29:20; Jam 1:19

C. Speak the truth always but do it in love. Do not exaggerate.

Eph 4:15,25; Col 3:9

D. Do not use silence to frustrate the other person. 1 Sam 25:3

E. Do not become involved in quarrels. It is possible to disagree

without quarreling. Prov 17:14; 20:3; Rom 13:13; Eph 4:31

F. Do not respond in anger. Use a soft and kind response.

Prov 14:29; 15:1; 25:15; 29:11; Eph 4:26,31

G. When you are wrong, admit it and ask for forgiveness. Jam 5:19

H. Avoid nagging. Prov 10:19; 17:9; 20:5

I. Do not blame or criticize the other person.

J. Try to understand the other person's opinion. Phil 2:1-4

from Communication: Key To Your Marriage · Norman Wright via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database familyblamecriticism

Marriage Can Work By Communicating, Not Running

Acts 11:2

People don't have much luck running from unhappy marriages.

While 40 percent of first marriages end in divorce, 60 percent of second marriages and 75 percent of third marriages end in divorce, said Gary Chapman, marriage enrichment speaker and author, in one of 16 "Toward a Growing Marriage" regional seminars to be sponsored by the Baptist Sunday School Board in the coming year.

"We've got to learn to love the person we're now married to," said Chapman.

[used 5/19/96]

Communication is key to achieving an intimate, lasting marriage, said Chapman, of Winston-Salem, N.C., whose books on marriage include "Toward a Growing Marriage" and "The Five Love Languages."

However, statistics again reveal trouble, Chapman said, citing a study reporting 50 percent of wives say their husbands are uncommunicative and another study reporting 86 percent of divorces were fueled by deficient communication.

[used 7/14/96]

"Any couple can have good communication," Chapman asserted. It's not a matter of personality, he said, even when a person who tends toward a "Dead Sea" personality has a spouse who tends toward a "Babbling Brook" personality.

"Communication is basically an act of the will," Chapman said. "It's something we choose to do or not do."

For example, beyond making efforts to learn and discuss each other's interests in life, asking each other for advice and giving compliments, Chapman suggested couples read a marriage enrichment book, chapter by chapter, week by week, with both partners sharing what they've learned about themselves; have the courage to apologize for words and actions that have built walls in their relationship; and pray together, if only silently, holding hands.

In times of conflict, Chapman suggested couples call a "temporary time-out" to avoid saying or doing anything at the moment that later might be regretted and to examine within themselves why they're angry. Then, they should set a time to talk, taking five-minute turns voicing their feelings without interruption. Spouses should give credence to facts and feelings voiced by their mates; express what they understand each other to be saying, whether or not they agree; and then offer, "What can I do to help?" or "How can we solve this problem?"

Too often, couples can't resolve their conflicts because they're "preaching to each other," Chapman said. The average person will listen to his or her spouse 17 seconds before interrupting, he recounted. Screaming, he added, is "a learned phenomenon -- and it can be unlearned," so that negative feelings

can be expressed in kinder words.

"There are no conflicts that cannot be resolved," Chapman said. "There are only people who will not resolve them."

Chapman encouraged spouses to examine themselves in prayer for sin, rather than blaming all their marital problems on their partners. The sin should be confessed to God for forgiveness; likewise, the partner's conscience should be cleared with his or her spouse; and the partner should focus on living by the power of the Holy Spirit, whose control can enable a person "do things they wouldn't ordinarily do," Chapman said.

For behaviors that "bug" a person about his or her spouse, Chapman suggested voicing only one criticism a week for the partner to work at changing."Don't give an overdose" of criticism that sparks a blowup or kills the partner's motivation to change, Chapman said. Many couples, unfortunately, are destroying their marriages by giving each other overdoses every day, he said.

Constructive criticism should be voiced only when the partner has been given time to become emotionally ready, Chapman said. It should not be before a meal when the partner may be hungry and prone to irritability, he said.

If a partner can change the behavior, do it, Chapman counseled, reminding that marriage is ministry to the other partner. And if a partner will not or cannot change the behavior, the other partner must work at remembering that biblical love accepts many imperfections, he said.

The five "love languages" provide more marriage-building help, Chapman said, drawing from his book listing:

-- Words of affirmation that build up the other person.

-- Gifts, showing that a partner has been thinking of his or her mate.

-- Acts of service, even in household chores such as vacuuming or taking out the garbage.

-- Spending quality time, giving one's spouse undivided attention.

-- Physical touch, such as holding hands, kissing or sexual intercourse.

"Each of us has a primary love language, the one that makes us feel most loved," Chapman said. A partner may think he or she acts lovingly toward the other person, yet "we're not connecting emotionally" with the other's emotional needs, he said.

No husband should act as "dictator" in the home, Chapman said, calling the notion unbiblical. The husband must give leadership, he said, yet there must be a "mutual sharing of ideas and feelings, shared in honesty and love with a view to unity."

"There is no place for selfishness" on the husband's part, Chapman said.

Mistaken notions about sex also must be addressed, he said, disputing such statements as "Good Christians don't talk about sex" and that sex is "dirty" or "worldly."

If there is any place where sex should be discussed, it's the church, Chapman said. "We have a word from God on the subject. ... God is the author of sex," intending it for procreation, companionship, meeting physical and emotion needs and pleasure. "Sexual intercourse within marriage is beautiful," Chapman said, noting the Bible itself, various evangelical books and Bible-based counselors can serve as key resources for attaining a wholesome view of sex.

"I believe the hope of this nation is in Christian families," Chapman said, warning, "We cannot survive another 30 years in this country like the last 30. We've got a whole generation that doesn't know what Christian marriage is all about."

If the church can "get it together" in the area of marriage, "I believe the world will beat a path to our door and ask us how to do it. We can have a significant impact on our generation ... by getting our marriages on a growing track ... and spilling over into the communities around us," Chapman said.

________________________

Copyright (c) 1995 Baptist Press

RNbp5911mrjB5911b6912

#3750

*

Looking For Reasons: Disaster and A Prophetic Voice

Since the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington last week, BreakPoint commentaries have focused on a Christian worldview response. And we've ignored our schedule -- correctly so. The attacks were of such magnitude that no one could think of anything else.

I want to comment on the meaning of a prophetic response to this national disaster. Christians are called to speak prophetically to the world, calling for repentance.

The reaction of some evangelicals, however, was, unfortunately, to place the blame for the attacks on people in groups who have had a secularizing effect on American society. I don't associate myself with those comments. Nor do I believe most American Christians do. These remarks were ill-timed and inappropriate -- as those who made them, to their credit, have acknowledged. They have apologized for them.

While I obviously believe that the forces of secularism have done immeasurable harm, it is unfair to associate this tragedy with those forces. Nor can we lay the blame at the feet of Arabs or Muslims in general as some are wont to do.

The hijackers who crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were Muslim in name only. Several of them were involved in drunk driving and visiting strip bars, things no religious Muslim would ever do. In reality they were anarchists seeking to destroy, destabilize, and make us slaves to fear.

But, you ask, aren't Christians supposed to be prophetic within the culture and point out sin? Of course, but there are biblical guidelines.

First, remember the words of the apostle Peter: "It is time for judgment to begin with the family of God" [I Peter 4:17]. The sins of Christians and of the church are our first order of business. Our materialism, pride, disunity, gossip, and lack of love are as much a cause for judgment as anyone else's behavior. To single out the transgressions of others while ignoring our own is to turn biblical teaching on its head.

Second, the biblical prophets who pronounced God's judgment upon the people were careful to count themselves among those being judged. And when judgment came, they shared in the suffering of the people. Jeremiah wept and wrote laments when Jerusalem fell, Ezekiel went into exile, and Moses threw his lot in with the people when God told him of his intention to wipe out Israel and begin again with him. We always speak as fellow sinners -- and should be the first to repent.

Third, if we would be prophetic, we need to speak out for the right reasons: not to find scapegoats, condemn, or denounce; but out of love for our neighbors. Rather than demonizing others, we offer an alternative to destructive worldviews that have left many victims -- including the victims of last Tuesday -- in their wake.

Comments that sound self-righteous and point the finger at others make it hard for ordinary people to see how the Christian message differs from the condemning message of the hijackers. Christians should be measured and balanced in all we say -- a word of caution for all of us.

*

from BreakPoint Commentary · Charles Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database blame

Terrorism Is Our Fault?

“Do you believe the Islamic terrorists to be evil?” the radio host asked the lady who had called his program Aug. 10. There was a pause. “No, I do not,” she replied. “We should look at ourselves to discover what we did to make them hate us so much. This is all our fault.”

In only a few seconds the caller revealed her anthropological perspective of the world. It is one that is shared by many in the United States. It is not only a misguided view, but in the war against terrorism, it is suicidal.

Anthropology is one’s understanding of the origin and development of the human race. It seeks to comprehend the workings of culture as well as individual behavior. And, realized or not, everyone has an anthropological perspective.

Those with a humanistic anthropology believe that mankind is basically good. This view cuts across political and theological lines. The bottom line of this anthropological view is that men and women are inherently good and must be conditioned or provoked into bad behavior.

The talk show caller referenced above is a sterling example of someone who believes that the human race is basically good. In her mind, those who commit terrorist acts are not evil; they are simply misunderstood. In other words, we, the United States, must have done something terrible to cause them to hate us so much.

Those who share the caller’s humanistic anthropological perspective believe that poor economic conditions or American foreign policy are the reasons that terrorists loathe the United States.

The caller honestly believes that if someone sympathetic and understanding, like herself, could sit down and have tea with the terrorists, listen to them and feel their pain, the whole terror threat would evaporate.

Others holding the humanistic view of anthropology believe what the terrorists need is a really good psychologist. Just a few sessions with Dr. Phil, and their lust for jihad would be cured.

By contrast, those with a Bible-based, or bibliocentric view of anthropology -- like myself -- believe the aforementioned humanistic understanding is naïve, misguided and downright dangerous.

A bibliocentric anthropological perspective holds that mankind is sinful and self-centered -- people basically act and do whatever is necessary to promote or protect self.

Those with a bibliocentric approach to anthropology believe mankind must be taught or socialized in how to behave properly. However, no amount of socialization, education or religious training will ever eradicate the bent toward self-interest. Hence, a constant accountability is necessary.

I believe the terrorists that planned to blow up planes flying from England to the United States did so because they hate anyone that does not embrace their view of the world.

They hate because they were born with a propensity to care only about themselves. That natural egocentric fire has been fueled by a theology that instructs them it is Allah’s will to kill infidels, who happen to be anyone that will not convert to Islam.

They also believe that in sacrificing their lives for the cause of Allah in jihad, they will be rewarded with a sensual paradise, which is just another appeal to man’s natural self-interest.

Because I understand that man is inherently evil, and that the terrorists’ theological view exploits this natural inclination, I do not believe it is possible to reason with them.

The liberal/moderate anthropology that sees Islamic terrorists as misunderstood freedom fighters that can be negotiated with is not only naïve, it is suicidal.

The caller to the radio talk show indicated that she believes the terror threat we face in America is our fault. She could be right. That is, if the mere fact we are breathing is our fault.

Blame David, Not Bathsheba – The Prophet Nathan Did

Exodus 20:14

In the Book of Samuel, three key voices say he’s the guilty one, not her.

________

The story of David and Bathsheba has a lot of gaps. It’s a brilliantly told narrative that requires us to draw conclusions based on what we already know. The downside to this sophisticated mode of storytelling is that readers will make unjustified assumptions to fill in the gaps.

As Sara Koenig notes in Bathsheba Survives, the history of this passage’s interpretation makes a fascinating case study of how each generation thinks about sexuality.

Today is no exception.

In the age of #metoo and #churchtoo, the conversation is trending again on Twitter. (As far as I can tell, #sbctoo sparked this latest round.) Once again, various personalities are arguing that David committed adultery, not rape, or vice versa.

Those arguing that David committed adultery often try to pin blame on Bathsheba for bathing in public, thereby seducing David, while those arguing that David raped her point to the uneven power dynamics between them.

But here’s the problem: We think of “adultery” as consensual by definition, while the Bible defines it as the responsibility of the male head of the household to keep his hands off his neighbor’s wife (Exod. 20:14).

That doesn’t mean a woman can’t sin sexually. However, the Ten Commandments are addressed to men by default. They were called to restrain their strength for the sake of community.

It’s hard to think of another Old Testament story that fits the bill more precisely. Bathsheba is literally David’s neighbor’s wife, which means she’s totally off limits to him.

She’s also off limits because of David’s warfare practices.

We learn in 1 Samuel 21:4–5 that he prohibited sexual relations during battles or “missions” from the king. The rule was meant to maintain ritual purity so that soldiers could carry out the divine will.

In those days, battles were considered religious. That’s why Uriah refuses to go to his wife when he answers David’s summons. He shows more restraint when drunk than David does when sober — for the sake of the men’s mission, and to show solidarity with them.

By contrast, David fails to take the mission seriously. He doesn’t lead the troops in battle. Instead, he stays home and preys on the “war widow” next door. He violates Uriah’s marriage covenant, which the narrator reminds us of by repeatedly calling her “the wife of Uriah.”

The incident could be called adultery only in the sense that both David and Bathsheba were married, not in the modern sense of consent. The one difference between this case and Amnon’s violation of his half-sister Tamar (described a few chapters later) is that neither of the latter two was married.

Otherwise, the stories are parallel: He saw; he wanted; he took. But still, some will ask, “Didn’t Bathsheba seduce him?”

The first thing to note is that she is not bathing on the roof (2 Sam. 11:2). It’s David who is on the roof — a normal place to be in the cool of the evening. He ought to be at war with his men, but nevertheless, there he is, bored.

Why is she bathing where he can see her? In David’s day, the city had no indoor plumbing. Bathing normally happened in public.

If Bathsheba is bathing in a public pool, then, she can hardly be implicated for immodesty. And if she’s bathing in the courtyard of her own home, her bath is more private than normal. In fact, the text never says that she was naked.

Isn’t nakedness an obvious inference? Not necessarily. We lived for two years in the Philippines and regularly visited a crowded Muslim neighborhood with no indoor plumbing. Despite rather strict notions of modesty, men and women found ways to scrub clean under adequate cover (usually generous tube skirts for both men and women).

A public approach to hygiene may be foreign to many of us, but it’s quite common in some areas of the world.

This was no ordinary bath, either. She was purifying herself ritually following menstruation (2 Sam. 11:4). This practice indicates that she was a pious keeper of Israelite purity law (and also that she was not already pregnant, which is important to the question of parentage). David’s sexualization of her religious hygiene should raise an eyebrow or two.

David summons her. Does she have a choice? Her husband and her father are both soldiers under his command. No one can refuse the king.

Bathsheba’s only words in the entire story are “I’m pregnant.” David has put her in a predicament: If her husband returns and finds her pregnant, she could be stoned for adultery. But the situation is not her fault, and David knows it.

David’s Plan A is to bring Uriah home from the front to make love to his own wife. It’s still early in her pregnancy, so Uriah may later think it’s his own child. When he piously refuses to come, David has him killed and takes Bathsheba into his harem.

For me, the clincher is this: The narrator is unequivocal in blaming David (2 Sam. 11:27). The prophet Nathan is unequivocal in blaming David (2 Sam. 12:1–12). And Bathsheba is never chastised.

Yes, she loses her son, but that loss is never characterized as her punishment. She suffers for David’s sin, as subjects always do when their leader is recalcitrant.

Pinning the blame equally on Bathsheba ignores how God assesses the story through Nathan. It ignores the culture of the city of David. And it ignores the clear exegetical signals throughout the chapter.

For David, as for every Israelite, the neighbor’s wife is like a daughter to be protected, not an experience to be collected. David knows Bathsheba is unavailable. But this doesn’t deter him in the least. Like a predator, he summons her. He’s come to believe that because he has power, he can have whatever he wants when he wants it.

To me, the most shocking part of the story comes after the murder of Uriah, when David tells his commander, Let this matter not be evil in your eyes (2 Sam. 11:25). David attempts to redefine his own behavior as acceptable.

If David had been king of any other ancient Near Eastern kingdom, his actions would have been unremarkable. Kings could do whatever they wanted. But this wasn’t any other kingdom; it was Israel. And David’s power was not absolute, nor did he make the rules. Yahweh did.

Nathan the prophet makes absolutely clear that the king had done evil in God’s sight (2 Sam. 12:9). His rebuke lands squarely on David. And David knows he’s in the wrong.

David’s response is simply I have sinned against YHWH (v. 13). Standing at a crossroads, he offers no defense, no equivocation, no excuses. He’s been caught in the act. He takes sole responsibility, repents, and chooses a better path forward.

In other words, he too affirms that he’s the guilty one.

When I reflect on the narrative, I often wonder whether it’s fair to call it “the story of David and Bathsheba.” Naming her implies cooperation where the text claims nothing of the sort. At the very least, we should call it “David and the Wife of Uriah” — or “David and Uriah,” since the showdown is clearly between these two men.

The ongoing debate about this story shows the importance of returning to a text again and again, attending to its details, and remaining open to the possibility that we have missed or misconstrued something.

Reading with others is essential to that process. We all miss things, because we’re all embedded in communities that have shaped what we notice and what we don’t. Sometimes our failure to realize this impairs our ability to see what’s right in front of us.

In this case, Bathsheba deserves another look.

________

Carmen Joy Imes is associate professor of Old Testament at Biola University

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate