All posts by Ken Cluck

Ken has served in various cultures and settings, including two Native American reservations, rural communities, Korean churches, and has worked with Asian refugees living in the US. Ken's passions are Theology, Philosophy (especially Philosophy of Religion, Ethics and Logic), History and Politics. Ken has been married to his wife, Yong, since 1987. She is the center of his world and the greatest joy of his life.

Book Review: Death in the Pot

Death in the Pot: The Impact of Food Poisoning on HistoryDeath in the Pot: The Impact of Food Poisoning on History by Morton Satin
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

I bought this book to research some theories about historical influences that I have long suspected–such as the impact of lead poisoning on the rulers of Rome. While I enjoyed the material, I found his opinions having nothing to do with the historical material to be annoying. For example, “Unfortunately, the impact of global warming upon the Arctic waters may soon make the Northwest Passage a practical reality” (p 139). I am reading a book on the history of food poisoning presented by a molecular biologist. I’m not interested in the author’s take on Climate Change. Perhaps it would have been received well if he had been speaking about the possibility of famine, rather than navigation.

There were also some ‘unfortunate’ editing errors that I found unnerving. For example, “Books such as Your Money’s Worth, 100,000,000 Guinea Pigs, and the American Chamber of Horrors stimulated the…” (p 162). It would have been nice to break that up with semicolons or by rewriting. This is not the only example where a better job of editing would have been helpful.

Otherwise, the information was helpful and fairly entertaining. The arguments were pretty good in support of his conclusions–at least as well as is possible when dealing with historical matters. He obviously finds it easier to speak more authoritatively about events in modern history–judging by the amount of material dedicated to each period.

If you are looking for a book that concentrates on ancient history and food, then this will not satisfy because less than half covers that period. If you want a good general overview with a concentration in industrial and modern history then this one works well. It is also a good introduction to an area of historical research often overlooked.

View all my reviews

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Forgiven or Trusted?

There’s an old saying, “It’s easier to get forgiveness than permission.” While the phrase is usually meant cynically, it is something to look at. This is because our Christian faith includes so much about forgiveness—both our being forgiven by God and others being forgiven by us. However, we should never take this forgiveness for granted, nor use it as an excuse to be immoral or hurtful.

When we take the forgiveness of others for granted, we act expecting them to forgive us. We know our action is something the other would not like. We know the action is something for which we will need forgiveness—in other words it will be an immoral or inappropriate act. We may find ourselves thinking, “So-and-so will not like that I am doing this, but he will forgive me.” This is true, but will that person trust you again? We forget that trust and forgiveness are two very different things.

When I forgive you, I am choosing to not demand restitution or punishment for an act committed against me. For example, if you took money from my wallet and I forgive you, then I would not demand repayment and neither would I demand your punishment. I would also choose to not hold the act over you. So, I will not come back at you years later in anger and say, “Remember when you stole my money?” It is this last that is so hard. We often express forgiveness, but in a heated moment the memory comes back and we lash out. This is part of our own imperfection—we want to forgive as completely as God, but we are weak and sinful.

This problem doesn’t just stem from our imperfection though. It also comes from the problem of trust. Trust and forgiveness are too different things (as I said above), but they can be related. Back to our illustration: if you took money from my wallet and I forgive you, does that mean I will be comfortable leaving my wallet around you in the future? Some may, but I think most would not. You see, even though you have been forgiven, you may never be trusted again. You committed the first act; you were forgiven for the act; you may not be trusted in a similar situation again. Though forgiven by the other, your status with that person has been harmed.

Now, is this wrong? Is there anything that says forgiveness must include future trust? Since I trusted you before your action, does forgiving the action require me to still trust you? Actually, I don’t believe one always requires the other. One is a question of relationship and response to an action. The other is an assumption of actions. When I trust you with my wallet, I am assuming you will refrain from taking anything from it. When I trust you with my children, I am assuming you will protect them as your own. When a woman and man marry, they trust each other to act in keeping with that covenant. When any of these are violated, the offender needs forgiveness by the offended, but can the one offended return to the original assumption about the person.  Does the command to forgive require resetting the assumption?

This is a hard question. This is because our own forgiveness is such a justification (remember the old saying, “Just as if I’d Never sinned”) that not only has the old sin been covered, but it is removed as if it was never committed—we are declared to have never committed the sin. This justification is the basis of our being reconciled to God and the establishment of a relationship with the Father. From then on, he treats us as one who has never sinned.

So, when we forgive, we should seek this sort of reconciliation with those who hurt us. However, does this reconciliation mean trusting them? Should a woman who was beaten by a boyfriend continue to date him as part of forgiving him? Should a parent whose children were harmed by a neighbor forgive and then continue to allow that neighbor to watch the kids? It is in these situations where we find it easy to agree that forgiveness may not mean a restoration of trust—at least not to the original degree.

My reason for bringing this up today is not to tell you that forgiving someone doesn’t require you to trust them. That would be too much of a blanket statement because sometimes the trust should be restored. I am writing this to remind you that while it may be “easier to get forgiveness than permission,” the ruptured trust may be impossible to restore. When you approach a relationship this way you make an assumption about the other person. That assumption may irreparably harm the assumptions the other person makes about you. Do not treat others from the assumption that they will have to forgive you. Instead, treat them with the respect of demonstrating that you want their trust rather than their forgiveness—because you may not be able to have both.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

The Wife of Your Youth

In my morning devotions, I’ve been reading from Malachi. This morning’s reading brought me to Malachi 2:16, which in the NIV reads:

“I hate divorce,” says the Lord God of Israel, “and I hate a man’s covering himself with violence as with his garment,” says the Lord Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.”

This passage is actually a bit hard to understand. The first part is not so hard, but the second part is confusing (“a man’s covering himself with violence as with his garment”). One thing that often helps is to look at other translations and this passage is no exception. I believe the translation in the English Standard Version is easier to understand and is closest to the intended meaning. It reads:

“For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the Lord, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”

This way of translating and interpreting the passage actually works better in the context of the whole passage. In verse 13 of this chapter the writer speaks of flooding the Lord’s altar with tears, and wailing while the Lord refuses their sacrifices. He tells them this is because they have broken faith with the wives of their youth (Malachi 2:14). God is bearing witness against them for their mistreatment of their wives in putting them away and not remaining faithful to them.

This helps to understand the portion about covering one’s garments with violence. God is saying, “I do not hear your prayers or receive your covenant sacrifices, because I am bearing witness to the violation of your marital covenant.” Interestingly, this same sentiment is found in 1 Peter 3:7 (ESV):

 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.”

Don’t get upset about the term “weaker vessel” and don’t misapply it. This is not saying she is weaker. It is not a statement of a fact, but a statement of how a husband should care for and protect his wife. If you have two vessels, one of stone and the other of fine thin ceramic, you will treat one with greater care. Interestingly, the one treated with greater care is also the one that is the most precious.

Another passage to consider in this is Jesus words about forgiveness found in Matthew 6:14-16, which reads:

“For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”

Jesus even gives a parable about a man seeking forgiveness, but then refusing to extend it to another. Imagine wanting the Lord to forgive us, but not being willing to forgive another. In the same way here we see husbands wanting to enjoy the benefits of their covenant with God, but refusing to follow their covenant with their wives.

Malachi is telling us that a husband who violates his covenant with his wife is harming himself. Funny, because most husbands think they will be happier with someone else, or without the responsibility of marriage. God is saying they will benefit from faithfulness. Unfaithfulness is harmful not only to the victim but just as harmful to the perpetrator.

But what does this unfaithfulness entail? In the NIV and some translations the word is “divorce.” In the KJV and some others the word is “put away” or “separate.” The word used actually means to divide from. This means that a husband who divides from his wife in violation of their covenant brings harm upon himself. Now, this should make us ask what sort of unity is entailed in the covenant relationship between a husband and wife, so that we can know what exactly a violation is.

Since the covenant is one of unity and oneness, in flesh, life and being, this violation of the covenant would be a refusal to protect the wife, or the relationship. Besides, divorce or physical separation, this would include abuse, sexual unfaithfulness, emotional distance, inconsideration. There are many ways to harm the covenant, and all are an abomination to the Lord. Anything that divides a husband and wife is abominable.

We husbands are commanded to love our wives as Christ loved the Church (Ephesians 5:25) and to work hard to encourage, equip and strengthen her. Keep the covenant with your wife, whatever the cost.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Shut the Church Doors?

This morning, in my devotional time, I’ve been reading from a very familiar passage (Malachi 1:10f). This passage, in the NIV reads:

“’Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you,’ says the Lord Almighty, ‘and I will accept no offering from your hands. My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations,’ says the Lord Almighty.”

This passage is heard repeatedly throughout the Christian Church as a call to give to God the best that we have, rather than trying to cheat by giving less than our best. However, while reading it this morning I was struck with a very different perspective. The problem with the usual application is that the passage is not speaking to the one bringing the offering to the temple. It speaks to the ones whose job is to offer the sacrifice on behalf of the giver—the priests. In 1:6d we read: “It is you, O priests, who show contempt for my name.” Then, after the passage we are looking at, the Lord continues, “And now this admonition is for you, O priests.”

The priests were receiving crippled and diseased offerings from the people. Rather than inspecting them properly and refusing these offerings they are receiving them. Doing this, of course, encourages others to do likewise. So, this makes me wonder why the priests would do this. Why would the priests accept what is not acceptable?

You have to understand that there were several offerings given through the ritual calendar year. However, most of these offerings either went to the upkeep of the priesthood—the food and money to support them and their families—or were shared as a meal between the priest and the giver. A portion of most offerings went to the priests themselves. Like most human behavior we can best understand it by understanding the self-interest of the people involved. How would this work for the self-interest of the priests? Tied to this self-interest is the old adage of “follow the money.”

When a person looked through their herd to find an offering, they knew it was going to cost them. The cost would be relative to the animal selected. For example, offering a heifer with many more years of potential breeding would cost far more than offering the old tired bred-out cow which would likely never have another healthy calf—if she did breed again the chances are high she and the calf may both be lost at calving. One costs years of future wealth and the other only costs one cow at the end of a lifetime of returns. If a herdsman had two calves, one with a twisted leg, more likely to be taken by predators, and the other healthy, giving the healthy one costs more and leaves the herdsman with a chance of more loss after giving—which requires a greater deal of faith.

This adds an interesting dynamic. When giving costs more we tend to give less—staying much closer to what is the minimum requirement. When it costs less, we can give more of a lesser value which encourages giving more. If herdsmen can meet their religious duty and look good in the community while still clearing their herds of the unwanted and unprofitable stock, they are likely to give more. This is where the self-interest of the priests comes in, and inspires the Lord’s rebuke. If the priests just look the other way, they get more. If they permit a lesser quality offering they get more. Meat is meat. If the herdsman can give three cows when he otherwise would have given only two, the priest is enriched.  All that would matter to the priest is that the meat would still be good after the animal is sacrificed. This is a much lower standard. The priest is looking at the sacrifices according to their benefit to themselves rather than their honor to the Lord.

Now, let’s apply this today. We no longer offer animal sacrifices. Christ’s sacrifice was the final offering of this kind. Our sacrifices today are good deeds done in the flesh and this includes offerings given to the Lord’s service and the expansion of his kingdom. What is in the self-interest of today’s “temple staff”? I am speaking of the vocational minister—the modern professional pastor. Larger offerings provide larger salaries. I am not decrying salaries or vocational ministry. However, we can all be tempted to do what is necessary to bring in those larger offerings, not because it benefits the kingdom, but because it benefits us. When this happens the kingdom is despised, while the pastor profits.

Larger offerings are easier with larger crowds. In this way each may give less value, but more is received and the pastor’s ‘market value’ and salary grows. Malachi’s charges are lived out in the modern church by the pastor who waters down the Word; who accepts less holiness from his people; who makes discipleship as soft as possible; who would rather pat his people on the back than call them to repentance. Such churches pack in the people. Such churches gather in large offerings and pay huge salaries. But is it possible Christ would rephrase the words of Malachi 1:10a as, “Oh, that one of you would shut the church doors…”?

I don’t want to go too far with the pastor/priest comparison. The priests of the New Testament are all the people of God (1 Peter 2:5). But should this make the words of Malachi 2:7 apply any less to today’s pastor?

“For the lips of the [pastor]ought to preserve knowledge, and from his mouth men should seek instruction—because he is the messenger of the Lord almighty.”

We must never accept lesser from ourselves than what God demands.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share