This Christmas I got a new Bible. It is quite beautiful, with leather binding and room on each page to keep notes. I soon started transferring some of my notes on my favorite verses to my new Bible and that got me to thinking, "Is it really a good idea to transfer these notes? Am I just cutting and pasting my old thoughts, and by that ignoring the rest of the passages?"
I think this is a fair question. We all have our favorite verse, chapter or book of the Bible. We go to them frequently when we need a bit of regularity or to strengthen our conviction on a particular point. However, if we focus too much on what we have already extracted from the verse and build only on our own interpretation or understanding of the passage, we run into the danger of merely creating a man or self centered doctrine. This happens far too frequently in my personal life, I fear.
So how can we avoid this type of problem? Well, one thing that I have started is that I never write in my Bible with ink. This is because my thoughts change, situations change, and also to remind myself that though I may have thoughts and opinions, they are not on par with Scripture. I'm not condemning writing in one's Bible with pen, not at all, but it is just one of those little things I do personally to help remind myself that God is God and I am not.
Another thing that I am trying to work on is reading more than just my preference into my reading. We often come at Scripture with the assumption of what it should say, not what it does say. Being human, this is something we all struggle with. Realizing that we do so is one of the first steps to correcting bias and understanding the message behind what we are reading.
So am I going to copy all my notes into my Bible? I don't know, however, I do know there are some things that I will copy, not just for preference, hopefully, but because these are passages and notes that are relevant to what I teach and speak. In the end, we can do with this what we are to do with all our concerns: we bring it to God in prayer.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Duck Disaster
My online life has been invaded this past two weeks by the Phil Roberts/Duck Dynasty controversy. For those who don't know, Phil Roberts is a star on the 'reality' show Duck Dynasty, which in turn, is about the company by the same name and the family who runs it. They are conservative Christians who are all about "guns and God." Recently, the father was interviewed by a magazine and gave a short, firm anti-gay statement. He was then pulled from the show and now everyone is up in arms saying his right to religion and free speech was taken away. But was it?
Well, does he have the right to make anti-gay comments? Yes, and he did. He is allowed to, but seeing as his show is owned by a liberal gay-friendly company, they do not agree with him. They do not have to either. So they run into an impasse. He will not back down so they fire him. This is not an attack on religion or free speech, but instead, they do not want to be associated with such ideas as 'gay is wrong'. They did not say Phil couldn't say that, they just said he couldn't work for them then. If a conservative church had an employee, like a pastor, who suddenly said something that was against the grain of the church, like Jesus is just another of many gods, then the church would have the right to fire him, on the grounds that he was misrepresenting their beliefs.
Phil Roberts does not represent what A&E wants to represent. Therefore, they are allowed to let him go. He was not persecuted, nor was he threatened. Phil is allowed to preach all the time on his off time, in other words when he does not represent A&E. But as their spokesperson, they do not want him to be 'anti-gay'.
Personally, I think that A&E are fully in their rights to fire/suspend Phil. Not that I agree with A&E, but I believe they have the right to choose who represents them, just as Christians have the right to choose who represents us as well.
Here's another question: Is Phil being an accurate representation of Christ? This is not one I will try to answer with a simple yes or no. But we need to realize this: being gay is not the sin that condemns people, being a sinner is what condemns them. (see this post for more on our Christian reaction to gay people) What I mean is this, if all the gay people in the world were suddenly "not gay" (if that is possible) tomorrow, it would not grant them all salvation. Salvation is through Jesus, not through being straight. I believe some well-meaning Christians have the idea that being gay is somehow more wrong than being unfaithful as a straight person, married or not. But I do not believe that God views it that way. God tells us that He views lust as adultery and anger as murder. If we draw an imaginary line of 'bad sin' and say that being gay is the 'bad sin' all we are doing is condemning without helping. That is the most unChristlike thing we can do. In the end, pray for your enemy, and love them. That is what we are called to do.
Well, does he have the right to make anti-gay comments? Yes, and he did. He is allowed to, but seeing as his show is owned by a liberal gay-friendly company, they do not agree with him. They do not have to either. So they run into an impasse. He will not back down so they fire him. This is not an attack on religion or free speech, but instead, they do not want to be associated with such ideas as 'gay is wrong'. They did not say Phil couldn't say that, they just said he couldn't work for them then. If a conservative church had an employee, like a pastor, who suddenly said something that was against the grain of the church, like Jesus is just another of many gods, then the church would have the right to fire him, on the grounds that he was misrepresenting their beliefs.
Phil Roberts does not represent what A&E wants to represent. Therefore, they are allowed to let him go. He was not persecuted, nor was he threatened. Phil is allowed to preach all the time on his off time, in other words when he does not represent A&E. But as their spokesperson, they do not want him to be 'anti-gay'.
Personally, I think that A&E are fully in their rights to fire/suspend Phil. Not that I agree with A&E, but I believe they have the right to choose who represents them, just as Christians have the right to choose who represents us as well.
Here's another question: Is Phil being an accurate representation of Christ? This is not one I will try to answer with a simple yes or no. But we need to realize this: being gay is not the sin that condemns people, being a sinner is what condemns them. (see this post for more on our Christian reaction to gay people) What I mean is this, if all the gay people in the world were suddenly "not gay" (if that is possible) tomorrow, it would not grant them all salvation. Salvation is through Jesus, not through being straight. I believe some well-meaning Christians have the idea that being gay is somehow more wrong than being unfaithful as a straight person, married or not. But I do not believe that God views it that way. God tells us that He views lust as adultery and anger as murder. If we draw an imaginary line of 'bad sin' and say that being gay is the 'bad sin' all we are doing is condemning without helping. That is the most unChristlike thing we can do. In the end, pray for your enemy, and love them. That is what we are called to do.
Friday, December 13, 2013
Ice and Storms
This past week, we suffered a massive ice storm. The trees in the area were covered with ice, power went out, and vehicles were covered. Many trees were damaged, and some were even destroyed. The sheer weight of the ice did its work quite effectivly. There is a massive tree in the back yard of the school that was split down the middle and uprooted by the weight of the ice on it. It got me to thinking about our own Christian life and how we are compared to trees.
As you may know, trees that are shallowly rooted often don't stand up to the weather well. We hear about this all the time. But in an area like the one where we live, there are trees everywhere. These trees don't all need deep roots because their roots mix and the sheer density of the forest saves them from most of the damage of the wind. This is very much like our Christian walk. Groups of Christians can indeed lean on each other and thereby stand against trials and temptations in many situations.
But what about sudden terrible things in our Christian life? Death, serious injury, trauma, or some other disaster? These are more like an ice storm than a windy day. Although wind is common and trees grouped together can weather the storm as a group, iced trees must each bear their own weight. They must rely on their own roots too keep them standing. They may loose branches, or they may fall entirely. They may crack, like the tree in our back yard. Other trees cannot help in this situation, only the roots that the tree has already put down. By the time the ice starts to form it is too late to start worrying about their roots. What has grown has grown and whatever is there is all that is there.
In the same way, some temptations and trials we go through are things that other Christians can help us bear, like windy days for trees. However, there are problems and trials that no other person can help us with. These situations are something that we can bring to God and Him alone. The roots we have in Him are what matter at these times. These roots need to be put down before the ice and storms come. If we wait until they are already there it may be too late. Let us lay our roots now, while we have time.
Friday, November 22, 2013
Colored Christianity
I recently covered the concept that there is more than one absolute "correct righteousness." In viewing morality we often fall into a mode of judgment that views everything as black, white, or somewhere in between.
However, seeing that God has each of His children at different places in their spiritual walk, we often find it difficult to see the 'color' of someone else's faith, if you will. We would like to point to a place on the picture above and say, "this is how pure your faith is." We would like to easily judge spiritual life of another and give an exact judgement, then move on in our faith to see what else we can find to classify and judge.
However, there are two key flaws in this approach. First, we find that morality is not really a greyscale pattern that goes from black to white with some grey in between. Instead, we find that it is more like a color wheel, where it is not always easy to see if your yellow is as close to the white center as my blue.
We find that it can be much more difficult than a simple black and white judgement, but we find that God, and by extension morality, is far more complex then what we first assume or perhaps desire it to be. And in desiring the simplicity of judgement on our peers and their lives, we run into the second major flaw in greyscale morality: Love, or more accurately, the profound lack thereof once we find ourselves so enamored with judging other people's spiritual state.
"Wait a minute," you may be saying, "Are we not told to judge the fruit of others in the Sermon on the Mount?" Indeed, we are told to judge. But we are told to judge the works of these people on the basis of being good or bad, not the level of goodness or level of badness. Our flesh so often creeps in and want to be the best at whatever we are doing. This can apply to our spiritual walk far to easily as well; we want to be the most holy, or most wise, or ironically, the most humble. We go to great lengths to judge others walk with God in order to lift our own up. This is a struggle that happens daily, and we are called to daily deny ourselves, and put that part of us to death.
So wether you are on the blue side working up and to the right, or on the red side working toward the left, we need to remember that our position, and even the position of others is not the focus. The focus is to be Christ, the perfect center. If we keep our focus there, we are bound to improve. If we focus instead on others and their errors, we will only try to correct their mistakes in our lives. It may be that someone in the green area needs to go further down on the 'color scale of holiness' but if the person in the purple sees this and tries to correct themselves by what they feel the green needs, they will end up further away rather than closer to the center. We cannot easily correct others, nor is it often our job; this belongs to the Holy Spirit.
The point I am heading toward is simply this - If we try to judge other's spiritual walk by where we are, we will fail. We cannot easily see other's place. Often we cannot comprehend why others do what they do, but we judge them anyways. We are to judge the fruit of a person by its good or bad state; we are not supposed to rank the taste of each fruit to our own liking for then our personal bias has far more of an effect than actual morality does. If we each strive to become purer and more like Christ each day and see that others are doing the same, that is be best fruit we can ever wish for.
However, seeing that God has each of His children at different places in their spiritual walk, we often find it difficult to see the 'color' of someone else's faith, if you will. We would like to point to a place on the picture above and say, "this is how pure your faith is." We would like to easily judge spiritual life of another and give an exact judgement, then move on in our faith to see what else we can find to classify and judge.
However, there are two key flaws in this approach. First, we find that morality is not really a greyscale pattern that goes from black to white with some grey in between. Instead, we find that it is more like a color wheel, where it is not always easy to see if your yellow is as close to the white center as my blue.
We find that it can be much more difficult than a simple black and white judgement, but we find that God, and by extension morality, is far more complex then what we first assume or perhaps desire it to be. And in desiring the simplicity of judgement on our peers and their lives, we run into the second major flaw in greyscale morality: Love, or more accurately, the profound lack thereof once we find ourselves so enamored with judging other people's spiritual state.
"Wait a minute," you may be saying, "Are we not told to judge the fruit of others in the Sermon on the Mount?" Indeed, we are told to judge. But we are told to judge the works of these people on the basis of being good or bad, not the level of goodness or level of badness. Our flesh so often creeps in and want to be the best at whatever we are doing. This can apply to our spiritual walk far to easily as well; we want to be the most holy, or most wise, or ironically, the most humble. We go to great lengths to judge others walk with God in order to lift our own up. This is a struggle that happens daily, and we are called to daily deny ourselves, and put that part of us to death.
So wether you are on the blue side working up and to the right, or on the red side working toward the left, we need to remember that our position, and even the position of others is not the focus. The focus is to be Christ, the perfect center. If we keep our focus there, we are bound to improve. If we focus instead on others and their errors, we will only try to correct their mistakes in our lives. It may be that someone in the green area needs to go further down on the 'color scale of holiness' but if the person in the purple sees this and tries to correct themselves by what they feel the green needs, they will end up further away rather than closer to the center. We cannot easily correct others, nor is it often our job; this belongs to the Holy Spirit.
The point I am heading toward is simply this - If we try to judge other's spiritual walk by where we are, we will fail. We cannot easily see other's place. Often we cannot comprehend why others do what they do, but we judge them anyways. We are to judge the fruit of a person by its good or bad state; we are not supposed to rank the taste of each fruit to our own liking for then our personal bias has far more of an effect than actual morality does. If we each strive to become purer and more like Christ each day and see that others are doing the same, that is be best fruit we can ever wish for.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Faith: Attacking and Defending
In Christianity, we find there are a lot of different opinions and factions. I'm not going to list my personal convictions on any of them in this post, nor look at the 'why' or 'what' of what we defend in our faith, but rather take a look at the 'how'.
We see there are basically three types of defenses for our beliefs. The frightened pacifist, who doesn't defend what he believes because he doesn't know or doesn't think he knows enough to defend what he believes. These are usually weak Christians, either for lack of discipline/conviction or personal conflict in their own lives. These people can also be they type who believe everything is right or no one can know or condemn.
Next, we have the all out assault. This is typically what we would call a Fundamentalist approach. They believe everything is vital, nothing can be disagreed upon, and if we disagree, one of us is a heretic. Now, it is very true that some things are essentials to the Christian faith; however, not all of our personal convictions are things that others are forced to follow. We find that these people are dissenters and quarrelers. They are usually very willing to argue a point, but will refuse to listen to anyone else's ideas or beliefs. These are, sadly enough, often the loudest voices in Christianity. They condemn all who disagree with them and are a poor example of Christ. They are the very ones Paul was talking about when he said that we are to have nothing to do with these types of people. (2 Timothy 3:2-5) These people often sway other weak or fearful Christians with their powerful arguments and reasoning. Often it is done through fear, as those who follow said 'leader' are afraid of condemnation from that person. So they jump through the proverbial hoops to win the accolades of their ideological leader. This type of person is quick to condemn, often being very verbal with their convictions and will have lots of verses (often out of context) to support their stance. This is by far the most damaging example of Christianity.
Lastly, we also have the true examples of Christ. This is a hard path to stay on. It requires us to be in fellowship with God, in prayer about not only our convictions, but how to share these convictions. These are to be solid pillars of the Church, not condemning for the sake of condemning; but leading with love. These people will often have an answer for the Assault-type Christian, but need to be in prayer about wether or not this will actually help. They are to bear the burden of the weak (Romans 15), they are to do so in love (I Peter 4, I Cor. 13), and they are to correct false teaching (Gal. 5).
That's a lot of work. What can we do with this? How can we ever balance love, bearing burdens, and also exposing those who are wrong? The first thing we need to do is turn our attention away from them, and toward Christ. Then, after our priorities are in line with Christ, (more complex and time consuming than it sounds, in fact it takes all of our very existance) we turn our focus on ourselves. This focus on ourselves is not to please ourselves, but to purify ourselves through Christ. After that, we are to help others. Remember, we are not to correct or argue for our own selves, but to further Christ and to help those who are in error. Its not about destroying other peoples arguments, being the smartest person in the room, or even making sure people know we are right or not ignorant. We are not to defend ourselves, but strive to help others become more like Christ.
In conclusion, we often see ourselves falling into one of the first two groups, either lax or attacking. When this happens, we need to turn our focus back on Christ, in fellowship and prayer, then work on the log in our own eye before worrying about the splinter in our neighbors.
We see there are basically three types of defenses for our beliefs. The frightened pacifist, who doesn't defend what he believes because he doesn't know or doesn't think he knows enough to defend what he believes. These are usually weak Christians, either for lack of discipline/conviction or personal conflict in their own lives. These people can also be they type who believe everything is right or no one can know or condemn.
Next, we have the all out assault. This is typically what we would call a Fundamentalist approach. They believe everything is vital, nothing can be disagreed upon, and if we disagree, one of us is a heretic. Now, it is very true that some things are essentials to the Christian faith; however, not all of our personal convictions are things that others are forced to follow. We find that these people are dissenters and quarrelers. They are usually very willing to argue a point, but will refuse to listen to anyone else's ideas or beliefs. These are, sadly enough, often the loudest voices in Christianity. They condemn all who disagree with them and are a poor example of Christ. They are the very ones Paul was talking about when he said that we are to have nothing to do with these types of people. (2 Timothy 3:2-5) These people often sway other weak or fearful Christians with their powerful arguments and reasoning. Often it is done through fear, as those who follow said 'leader' are afraid of condemnation from that person. So they jump through the proverbial hoops to win the accolades of their ideological leader. This type of person is quick to condemn, often being very verbal with their convictions and will have lots of verses (often out of context) to support their stance. This is by far the most damaging example of Christianity.
Lastly, we also have the true examples of Christ. This is a hard path to stay on. It requires us to be in fellowship with God, in prayer about not only our convictions, but how to share these convictions. These are to be solid pillars of the Church, not condemning for the sake of condemning; but leading with love. These people will often have an answer for the Assault-type Christian, but need to be in prayer about wether or not this will actually help. They are to bear the burden of the weak (Romans 15), they are to do so in love (I Peter 4, I Cor. 13), and they are to correct false teaching (Gal. 5).
That's a lot of work. What can we do with this? How can we ever balance love, bearing burdens, and also exposing those who are wrong? The first thing we need to do is turn our attention away from them, and toward Christ. Then, after our priorities are in line with Christ, (more complex and time consuming than it sounds, in fact it takes all of our very existance) we turn our focus on ourselves. This focus on ourselves is not to please ourselves, but to purify ourselves through Christ. After that, we are to help others. Remember, we are not to correct or argue for our own selves, but to further Christ and to help those who are in error. Its not about destroying other peoples arguments, being the smartest person in the room, or even making sure people know we are right or not ignorant. We are not to defend ourselves, but strive to help others become more like Christ.
In conclusion, we often see ourselves falling into one of the first two groups, either lax or attacking. When this happens, we need to turn our focus back on Christ, in fellowship and prayer, then work on the log in our own eye before worrying about the splinter in our neighbors.
Monday, November 4, 2013
The End of Thanksgiving
This last weekend an new animated holiday movie came out titled "Free Birds." Its a whimsical movie about turkeys and the first Thanksgiving. Although the movie was supposed to be about Thanksgiving, there was no actual giving of thanks other than a five second bit about Governor Bradford thanking the time traveling turkeys for pizza. (I'll wait while you reread that to make sure you got it right)
So what can we draw from this? Well, it is blatant re-writing of Thanksgiving in pop culture. It has been the recent habit of the media to ignore Thanksgiving in favor of Black Friday, but this is the first time that we are told the Thanksgiving story with the intent to leave God and the God-fearing men and women out of the story. In fact, the settlers may look like Puritans and Separatists, but they act like anything but Godly people in the movie. Yes, historically there were many settlers who were not Pilgrims - many of the settlers were greedy businessmen - but they didn't have the traditional clothing of those we like to call "Pilgrims".
So what we see is the acceptance, or more the preaching, of an originally godless Thanksgiving. There is no mention of being thankful, instead the entire movie consists of the "Pilgrims" complaining. Now, it being a movie about time-traveling turkeys, one has to take things with a rather massive grain of salt, but the fact is that they go out of their way to portray Thanksgiving as just time with family. Not time to count our blessings or thank God for them, but just to be with our family. Of course, family time is wonderful, but there is more to Thanksgiving than that.
Personally, I would rather have Thanksgiving dropped as a National Holiday than have it re-written in this way. I think we as Christians should still celebrate Thanksgiving, but in actual giving of thanks, not just a turkey and some stuffing.
But back to "Free Birds". I'm not saying we need to condemn the movie itself. This is of little use and makes no sense to those who don't see why this bothers us. Instead, we need to focus on what we are to do as Christians, which is to shine as a light for God. If we take our time to be truly thankful, and to give God thanks, we are fulfilling part of our requirement as Christians. We cannot change people by condemning things when they don't agree with our convictions; instead we need to show them God by love and obedience to God's command. Let us be a light of Thanksgiving this year. Let us show the world that we have been with Jesus.
So what can we draw from this? Well, it is blatant re-writing of Thanksgiving in pop culture. It has been the recent habit of the media to ignore Thanksgiving in favor of Black Friday, but this is the first time that we are told the Thanksgiving story with the intent to leave God and the God-fearing men and women out of the story. In fact, the settlers may look like Puritans and Separatists, but they act like anything but Godly people in the movie. Yes, historically there were many settlers who were not Pilgrims - many of the settlers were greedy businessmen - but they didn't have the traditional clothing of those we like to call "Pilgrims".
So what we see is the acceptance, or more the preaching, of an originally godless Thanksgiving. There is no mention of being thankful, instead the entire movie consists of the "Pilgrims" complaining. Now, it being a movie about time-traveling turkeys, one has to take things with a rather massive grain of salt, but the fact is that they go out of their way to portray Thanksgiving as just time with family. Not time to count our blessings or thank God for them, but just to be with our family. Of course, family time is wonderful, but there is more to Thanksgiving than that.
Personally, I would rather have Thanksgiving dropped as a National Holiday than have it re-written in this way. I think we as Christians should still celebrate Thanksgiving, but in actual giving of thanks, not just a turkey and some stuffing.
But back to "Free Birds". I'm not saying we need to condemn the movie itself. This is of little use and makes no sense to those who don't see why this bothers us. Instead, we need to focus on what we are to do as Christians, which is to shine as a light for God. If we take our time to be truly thankful, and to give God thanks, we are fulfilling part of our requirement as Christians. We cannot change people by condemning things when they don't agree with our convictions; instead we need to show them God by love and obedience to God's command. Let us be a light of Thanksgiving this year. Let us show the world that we have been with Jesus.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Defenders of the Faith
I have heard one Theologian say that he is a watchdog of God, and as such he cannot help but bark when his Master is attacked. As wonderful as this sounds, I think this is a terrible Theological statement. We are not called to be 'attackers of the faith', but defenders. We are told by Paul to keep our convictions between ourselves and God; not to go attacking others with our beliefs. Jesus tells us to make sure we do not cast pearls before swine, or they will tear us to pieces. We get a clear picture here of the fact that we are to be a light, an example, and a witness. We are not to shove our conviction in other's faces; for one, even if they did what we asked this does not make them Christians, and two, conviction is the work of the Holy Spirit, not ours to do. One that note, God does not desire dogs, he desires sons and daughters. God can defend Himself quite well if He would need to, and we as His children need to realize we are not to go fighting flesh and blood, but the spirit of darkness.
You may ask,"So are we not supposed to witness to people?" Of course we are! This is the function of a Christian. The very reason for our continued existence here on Earth. However, it is not as simple as just shouting in people's faces. Nor is it trying to guilt trip people into joining a church. Although these things may work from time to time, that does not make them the best alternative. You may be able to kill a fly with a shotgun, but that does not mean you should. In the same way, blasting people with the Gospel may hit one or two, but will most likely cause far more damage than good in the area.
In the end, there is no easy black and white line of evangelism. Instead, it is a day to day existence. If our relationship with the people around us does not show them Christ, we should not think that approaching a stranger will help. Oh, it may ease our conscience, we can say we tried, but that is not really what God requires of us. He requires us to be faithful. This is not a 10:00-12:00 every Sunday in Church type of faithful, but a faithfulness in every corner of our lives. It is a painful faithful, one that requires sacrifice and self-denial. It is one that we work with our entire lives here on Earth. That, my friend, is how we are to evangelize. And if we do, then people will come to us to ask of the hope that is in us. Until that time, we are to be faithful in word and deed. If we cannot be faithful in our own lives, how can God expect us to be so in someone else's?
You may ask,"So are we not supposed to witness to people?" Of course we are! This is the function of a Christian. The very reason for our continued existence here on Earth. However, it is not as simple as just shouting in people's faces. Nor is it trying to guilt trip people into joining a church. Although these things may work from time to time, that does not make them the best alternative. You may be able to kill a fly with a shotgun, but that does not mean you should. In the same way, blasting people with the Gospel may hit one or two, but will most likely cause far more damage than good in the area.
In the end, there is no easy black and white line of evangelism. Instead, it is a day to day existence. If our relationship with the people around us does not show them Christ, we should not think that approaching a stranger will help. Oh, it may ease our conscience, we can say we tried, but that is not really what God requires of us. He requires us to be faithful. This is not a 10:00-12:00 every Sunday in Church type of faithful, but a faithfulness in every corner of our lives. It is a painful faithful, one that requires sacrifice and self-denial. It is one that we work with our entire lives here on Earth. That, my friend, is how we are to evangelize. And if we do, then people will come to us to ask of the hope that is in us. Until that time, we are to be faithful in word and deed. If we cannot be faithful in our own lives, how can God expect us to be so in someone else's?
Monday, October 14, 2013
Absolute Goodness?
Often we as Christians assume that when we are faced with a decision there is one absolute perfect choice. We believe that our choices can be ranked as good, better and best.
But is this true? Can all choices be ranked like this? As easy as this would make life, I do not believe this to be the case. I do not think that there is only one perfect answer in every situation. I believe there to be multiple best answers that are all equally good. Now I am not trying to say that we can assume that whatever we do is right, but we would be wise to realize that there can indeed be more than one perfect answer.
How can I be so bold? Well, lets take a look at God's choices. The first thing to consider is that He indeed mades choices. We see references do God's decision-making throughout the Bible. We know that Jesus often chose things in a manner that may seem arbitrary and random. But chose God does. If God is also perfect and absolutely holy then any decision made must also be both of those things. The fact that He has more than one thing to choose from shows that they meet His criteria, namely, perfection and holiness.
But what if there is only one perfect choice? Well, then God is confined to only making those choices, this means that He would have no Freewill. If that is true, then it follows that God has less choice than you or I, less choice than my cat, and less choice than anything He created. That would also mean the things He created had more power than He. This does not make sense, in fact, it flies in the face of what we understand about God.
So what can we apply from this information? Well, we know that there are multiple best answers. As such, we should be very hesitant in judging people we do not understand. We should be unwilling to assume that people who make different spiritual choices are automatically 'less holy' or 'less spiritual' than we are. It is very important that we do not assume that our understanding of perfection is the only accurate one. Many Christians condemn others assuming that their best must also be another person's best as well. This is not our place. Our preference and ignorance should not be our guide in evaluating other people's Godliness. If we doubt someone else's faith, we should do what we should always do; bring it to God in prayer, and act in love.
But is this true? Can all choices be ranked like this? As easy as this would make life, I do not believe this to be the case. I do not think that there is only one perfect answer in every situation. I believe there to be multiple best answers that are all equally good. Now I am not trying to say that we can assume that whatever we do is right, but we would be wise to realize that there can indeed be more than one perfect answer.
How can I be so bold? Well, lets take a look at God's choices. The first thing to consider is that He indeed mades choices. We see references do God's decision-making throughout the Bible. We know that Jesus often chose things in a manner that may seem arbitrary and random. But chose God does. If God is also perfect and absolutely holy then any decision made must also be both of those things. The fact that He has more than one thing to choose from shows that they meet His criteria, namely, perfection and holiness.
But what if there is only one perfect choice? Well, then God is confined to only making those choices, this means that He would have no Freewill. If that is true, then it follows that God has less choice than you or I, less choice than my cat, and less choice than anything He created. That would also mean the things He created had more power than He. This does not make sense, in fact, it flies in the face of what we understand about God.
So what can we apply from this information? Well, we know that there are multiple best answers. As such, we should be very hesitant in judging people we do not understand. We should be unwilling to assume that people who make different spiritual choices are automatically 'less holy' or 'less spiritual' than we are. It is very important that we do not assume that our understanding of perfection is the only accurate one. Many Christians condemn others assuming that their best must also be another person's best as well. This is not our place. Our preference and ignorance should not be our guide in evaluating other people's Godliness. If we doubt someone else's faith, we should do what we should always do; bring it to God in prayer, and act in love.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Age and Conviction
The older we get the more often we find ourselves looking at those that are younger than ourselves and wonder, "Do they really understand what it means to be a Christian? Do they know what all this entails?" We wonder if they really 'get it' or if they are just following along with the crowd.
Is this fair? I don't know anyone else's heart, nor am I really supposed to. But I can look back on my own life and experiences. When I was a child, I did what many children do and 'asked Jesus into my heart.' Now, I know there is a lot of backlash against that phrase, but as a child, I took this seriously. It was perhaps a more simple experience, and I was far more ignorant of Theology and God than I am know, but it was just as much a true spiritual experience before Him. As I continued to grow older, I had more experiences of this nature. I would grow in understanding and maturity and have a deeper understanding of what Christianity and God entail.
This progression continues to this day. I grow and understand more. But the experience with God that I had as a child was no less real, important, or valid because of my lack of understanding then. In fact, I believe that the inverse is more likely true. As a child, I flung myself completely upon God without a doubt of philosophy, theology, or rhetoric. Although I strive in understanding God and being a better Christian, and I find these things very important; the lack of them as a child did not make for a fake Christianity. Indeed, we find that Jesus told us something of this in Scripture. To whom more is given, more is required. We find that this is still true of us. As children, we are given little complex understanding, therefore little is required of us. The inverse is true in adulthood and as we grow in Christ.
So am I saying we need to stay spiritual infants and never have to worry about our faith being a fraud? Not at all, we are to be obedient servants and stewards, and that requires growing up in Christ.
In the end, what I am saying is that children and new converts may not have much understanding or revelation as a mature Christian. This does not make their Christian faith or walk less valid, nor does it discount them as followers. However, it does discount them as leaders of the faith.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Broken
Jesus tells us that He did not come for the healthy, but for the sick. His mission was not to help those who thought they were good enough already, but to help those who knew they were not good enough. We as Christians often try to convert any and all who will listen, but is this the way that we are supposed to work? Is that what Jesus did? Does He expect us to recruit Christians by offering them incentives like the blessings of an easy life, unlimited finances, or perfect ease? Where to we get the idea that we are supposed to win people over? Is it even our business to show them the perks of Christianity?
It seems that in our modern time, we want only the perks for ourselves. Ironically, this is the anti-thesis of Christianity. We are told to follow Christ we are to deny ourselves, to crucify our own desires and flesh, and to constantly practice self sacrificing love.
Is that what we see in Christianity today? If not, is it because we aren't really spreading the Gospel, but instead just telling them that Jesus is God's Son? Even the devil knows that Jesus is the Son of God. That knowledge is not enough to save us; it just isn't. Yet that seems to be all that we hear taught by many people these days. Sadly, some Churches don't even preach Jesus, just self-motivational rhetoric.
So what do we need to do? We need to remember that to come to God requires us to be broken before Him. We have to realize His Holiness, His absolute Perfection and Righteousness and our total lack of anything that comes close. We need to see that its not that we go to God to be 'safe' or 'good enough'. Instead, we need to see that we go to God because the is the only good that really exists. God is our Savior because we need Him to cleanse us, not because we need an escape plan from Hell. We were created for Him, not He for us.
Yet, we need to remember that God loves us. We are not worth it, but still He does. As humans, love is almost always selfish. We want to get something out of loving someone. In this area however, God shows His true goodness in a way all of us can not even really begin to understand. He loves us even though He needs nothing from us; there is not one thing that we can do to help God. He is self-sustaining and absolutely complete. Yet, He loves you. More than you can imagine. This is the most wonderful form of love you or I could possibly contrive or hope for.
So what do we need? We need to realize that God is in fact God. That He is complete in Himself, needing nothing from us. We need to see how foolish we are, how utterly helpless and selfish and greedy we are, how full of ourselves we have become and how abhorrent and vile this truly is. Yet He still loves us so much He would die for us, to reconcile us with Him. In this amazing situation, we need to realize that we have a need for Him, but He does not need us. He still chose to offer us a solution, and that is this; to be filled with Him, to let Him be in us what we cannot be ourselves. For that to work we must surrender fully, not just say a prayer, not just attend a church on Sunday, not just read the Bible and go to Bible study when convenient. We are to give our very lives to Him, and He expects nothing less.
What do we get in return? Him. We get the very God of the universe as our Father. That, my friend, is awesome indeed.
It seems that in our modern time, we want only the perks for ourselves. Ironically, this is the anti-thesis of Christianity. We are told to follow Christ we are to deny ourselves, to crucify our own desires and flesh, and to constantly practice self sacrificing love.
Is that what we see in Christianity today? If not, is it because we aren't really spreading the Gospel, but instead just telling them that Jesus is God's Son? Even the devil knows that Jesus is the Son of God. That knowledge is not enough to save us; it just isn't. Yet that seems to be all that we hear taught by many people these days. Sadly, some Churches don't even preach Jesus, just self-motivational rhetoric.
So what do we need to do? We need to remember that to come to God requires us to be broken before Him. We have to realize His Holiness, His absolute Perfection and Righteousness and our total lack of anything that comes close. We need to see that its not that we go to God to be 'safe' or 'good enough'. Instead, we need to see that we go to God because the is the only good that really exists. God is our Savior because we need Him to cleanse us, not because we need an escape plan from Hell. We were created for Him, not He for us.
Yet, we need to remember that God loves us. We are not worth it, but still He does. As humans, love is almost always selfish. We want to get something out of loving someone. In this area however, God shows His true goodness in a way all of us can not even really begin to understand. He loves us even though He needs nothing from us; there is not one thing that we can do to help God. He is self-sustaining and absolutely complete. Yet, He loves you. More than you can imagine. This is the most wonderful form of love you or I could possibly contrive or hope for.
So what do we need? We need to realize that God is in fact God. That He is complete in Himself, needing nothing from us. We need to see how foolish we are, how utterly helpless and selfish and greedy we are, how full of ourselves we have become and how abhorrent and vile this truly is. Yet He still loves us so much He would die for us, to reconcile us with Him. In this amazing situation, we need to realize that we have a need for Him, but He does not need us. He still chose to offer us a solution, and that is this; to be filled with Him, to let Him be in us what we cannot be ourselves. For that to work we must surrender fully, not just say a prayer, not just attend a church on Sunday, not just read the Bible and go to Bible study when convenient. We are to give our very lives to Him, and He expects nothing less.
What do we get in return? Him. We get the very God of the universe as our Father. That, my friend, is awesome indeed.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Monday, August 19, 2013
Magic in Literature
- Recently a friend of mine asked me a question about the Harry Potter series of books. They were wondering if there was a problem with enjoying such fiction as a Christian, which I find to be an interesting a polarizing topic in today's culture.
- Now, I haven't read the Harry Potter series, per se, but I have read many books of high science fiction/fantasy that also include magic, wizards, and fantastical situations. And from my childhood I loved these books more than any other style, as they have a great deal of imagination and potential in them. But it does raise an important point. Is the wizardry, magic, or the implications of these enough to condemn these books?
Sunday, August 18, 2013
When Friends Leave
Recently in our church we have had friends leave the Church. This type of thing is always painful, and rarely ends without one side or the other being wounded for a long period of time. Its hard to let people leave, and harder still to stand quietly by as people try to pass the blame from members to ministerial to "just reasons" and is confusing at best. But this leads to a group of questions.
What does it mean when people leave the Church? Are we doing something wrong? Do we need to chase them? Should we plead for them to come back?
Lets take a look at the ministry of Jesus. People left Jesus ministry as well. In John 6:66 we read that many of His former disciples left. What did Jesus do? Did He chase them down? Did He try to compromise?
No, instead Jesus made sure that those who were there were willing to stay. We find a similar story in the life of Gideon. There the ranks of Gideon's army were thinned out and streamlined in order for God's will to be accomplished.
So am I saying now that anyone who leaves the Church is being removed by God? Not at all. It can be that God has someone leave the Church because the Church is teaching heresy; like Martin Luther and the Catholic Church, or Jeremiah in the nation of Judah. There are cases like this where God leads people out of the Church for a reason.
So how do we know which is which? How can we tell if those who leave are like Martin Luther, who was following Godly convictions; or if they are like Jesus' disciples, who left when things got hard?
There may not be a solid, one size fits all answer, but there are some things we can check to get a clearer picture.
1. Are they spiritual leaders in the Church?
2. Do they have a clear, moral reason for leaving?
3. Is their walk with God visibly more intimate now that they have left?
If the answers to the above questions are all "no", then we have a reason to believe that those who leave are more like the shallow Jews of Jesus day than like Martin Luther or Jeremiah in Judah.
But if all the answers to the above questions are no, where do we go from there? How do we minister to these friends?
Sadly, we have no more details about Jesus' wandering disciples. Instead, let us turn to the story of the Prodigal Son. The son that left the Father and returned was received with open arms. This is how we should receive a prodigal who returns.
But note, both Jesus and the Father in the parable of the Prodigal Son did not follow those who left. They did not pander to those who left, or even ask for a reason for their leaving. We cannot force people to come to God. We can force them to come back to Church, but we cannot ever force them to follow God's will.
Conclusion
In times of difficulty like this, it is important to remember the most important and useful thing we can possibly do: Pray. Bring it to the Father. We need to remember that they are God's children as well as we are. Our love for our brothers is to be strong, and we are to be as loving as Christ Himself. I pray that God will give us the wisdom to work through challenging times like these.
What does it mean when people leave the Church? Are we doing something wrong? Do we need to chase them? Should we plead for them to come back?
Lets take a look at the ministry of Jesus. People left Jesus ministry as well. In John 6:66 we read that many of His former disciples left. What did Jesus do? Did He chase them down? Did He try to compromise?
No, instead Jesus made sure that those who were there were willing to stay. We find a similar story in the life of Gideon. There the ranks of Gideon's army were thinned out and streamlined in order for God's will to be accomplished.
So am I saying now that anyone who leaves the Church is being removed by God? Not at all. It can be that God has someone leave the Church because the Church is teaching heresy; like Martin Luther and the Catholic Church, or Jeremiah in the nation of Judah. There are cases like this where God leads people out of the Church for a reason.
So how do we know which is which? How can we tell if those who leave are like Martin Luther, who was following Godly convictions; or if they are like Jesus' disciples, who left when things got hard?
There may not be a solid, one size fits all answer, but there are some things we can check to get a clearer picture.
1. Are they spiritual leaders in the Church?
2. Do they have a clear, moral reason for leaving?
3. Is their walk with God visibly more intimate now that they have left?
If the answers to the above questions are all "no", then we have a reason to believe that those who leave are more like the shallow Jews of Jesus day than like Martin Luther or Jeremiah in Judah.
But if all the answers to the above questions are no, where do we go from there? How do we minister to these friends?
Sadly, we have no more details about Jesus' wandering disciples. Instead, let us turn to the story of the Prodigal Son. The son that left the Father and returned was received with open arms. This is how we should receive a prodigal who returns.
But note, both Jesus and the Father in the parable of the Prodigal Son did not follow those who left. They did not pander to those who left, or even ask for a reason for their leaving. We cannot force people to come to God. We can force them to come back to Church, but we cannot ever force them to follow God's will.
Conclusion
In times of difficulty like this, it is important to remember the most important and useful thing we can possibly do: Pray. Bring it to the Father. We need to remember that they are God's children as well as we are. Our love for our brothers is to be strong, and we are to be as loving as Christ Himself. I pray that God will give us the wisdom to work through challenging times like these.
Friday, August 2, 2013
Christlike Kindness
As Christians, we are called to be like Christ. We are told to love those around us, and to treat them the way we would like to be treated. This is often used as a way to tell Christians they are always supposed to "lie down and take it." What we mean by this is that a Christian isn't supposed to be disagreeable, hardheaded, or have any spine whatsoever. But is this the Christian example we get from Scripture?
We see that Jesus Himself is our example in the Bible. He was kind, loving, and gentle. That is what we are called to be. However, He was not spineless. In fact, He was firm in both teaching and in action. We read that He taught with authority. It emanated from Him. He also was very firm with the Pharisees and the people who were profiting off of the Temple. He even became physical in His defense of the Church of God.
So what does this show us? Well, for one, it tells us that being a Christian does not entail being a coward. Note Jesus did not defend His personal pride with harsh words or violence; He only defended God's Holiness and the people whom the Pharisees had been mistreating.
How does this apply to us? Well, we often want to get confrontational or physical about things we find offensive as well. But we need to make sure that these are not items that have to do with personal pride but rather the defense of the weak and the glory of God. In our human nature, we would gladly defend ourselves if we feel we have been offended. This is not the type of thing I am supporting here. No, that form of defensiveness is a form of pride; our self being hurt.
We often see Christians throwing proverbial stones at groups they disagree with. They will hate on groups that do not live according to Christian principles. A modern day example is the gay community. Now, I am not saying the gay lifestyle is not wrong; I am saying that it is not the only sin in the world. If the entire gay community stopped being gay; that would not stop them from being sinners, nor would it make them automatic Christians. We need to first show them Christ, then His law. If we expect them to live in accord with God's law without being God's people, it is as foolish as expecting an Australian to follow Germany's speed laws. It doesn't make sense. Now when that Australian becomes a German citizen, he will indeed need to follow Germany's laws.
We are trying to make sinners follow God's law without turning to God. This is foolishness and heretical. We need to bring them to God and let Him do the convicting. If they are not followers of God, they will not follow His Law; its that simple.
In short, 'curing' gayness would not stop people from being sinners. The problem is deeper than merely one thing. Throughout history we see that people want to make Christianity as simple as changing actions. But God isn't just about the outside, He is concerned with the inside.
In conclusion, we are to be like Christ. We are to show love, be an example, and defend Godliness. Defending Godliness is not the same as attacking unGodliness, and the difference is something that the Holy Spirit must convict each of us on.
We see that Jesus Himself is our example in the Bible. He was kind, loving, and gentle. That is what we are called to be. However, He was not spineless. In fact, He was firm in both teaching and in action. We read that He taught with authority. It emanated from Him. He also was very firm with the Pharisees and the people who were profiting off of the Temple. He even became physical in His defense of the Church of God.
So what does this show us? Well, for one, it tells us that being a Christian does not entail being a coward. Note Jesus did not defend His personal pride with harsh words or violence; He only defended God's Holiness and the people whom the Pharisees had been mistreating.
How does this apply to us? Well, we often want to get confrontational or physical about things we find offensive as well. But we need to make sure that these are not items that have to do with personal pride but rather the defense of the weak and the glory of God. In our human nature, we would gladly defend ourselves if we feel we have been offended. This is not the type of thing I am supporting here. No, that form of defensiveness is a form of pride; our self being hurt.
We often see Christians throwing proverbial stones at groups they disagree with. They will hate on groups that do not live according to Christian principles. A modern day example is the gay community. Now, I am not saying the gay lifestyle is not wrong; I am saying that it is not the only sin in the world. If the entire gay community stopped being gay; that would not stop them from being sinners, nor would it make them automatic Christians. We need to first show them Christ, then His law. If we expect them to live in accord with God's law without being God's people, it is as foolish as expecting an Australian to follow Germany's speed laws. It doesn't make sense. Now when that Australian becomes a German citizen, he will indeed need to follow Germany's laws.
We are trying to make sinners follow God's law without turning to God. This is foolishness and heretical. We need to bring them to God and let Him do the convicting. If they are not followers of God, they will not follow His Law; its that simple.
In short, 'curing' gayness would not stop people from being sinners. The problem is deeper than merely one thing. Throughout history we see that people want to make Christianity as simple as changing actions. But God isn't just about the outside, He is concerned with the inside.
In conclusion, we are to be like Christ. We are to show love, be an example, and defend Godliness. Defending Godliness is not the same as attacking unGodliness, and the difference is something that the Holy Spirit must convict each of us on.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Christians in the Culture
In our world around us, Christians and Christianity itself are both not popular. I don't mind that so much. One thing that does bother me is the fact that in the fiction, either written or on screen, Christians are usually portrayed as nut-jobs, hypocrites, or self-righteous Pharisees. In almost every book, TV show, or movie; any hero, smart guy, or kind person is shown as an atheist, agnostic, or of some other religion other than Christianity. Usually, the smart person will make comments about religion as if it is only for the stupid, and act as if all of the Bible has been disproven and science shows actual facts that support things like macro-evolution and the lack of a soul.
Ironically, one of the few accepted Christians in our modern world is, a comic book character. In a place that one would hardly expect to see even tolerance to faith, we find a character that is an example of standing up for truth, morality, and the weak. As in most comic books, these ideas are merged into a comic book character - Captain America. Here is one of my favorite recent quotes from Cap.
(NOTE: He is quoting Mark Twain in this panel as well)
Now, I know that characters change depending on who is writing the current issue of a comic, but I find that Captain America is one of few characters in the modern world who's faith is not ridiculed, but respected. He is not a fraud, hypocrite, or self-righteous. His attitude of submission and morality is an example we don't see much in the modern world. We are told that there is no right or wrong, we cannot tell others that wrong is wrong. In this world of political correctness, it is nice to have a constant Christian in fiction that is not made to look the fool, is not created only to disprove Christianity.
Is this a deep post? No. But I just wanted to show appreciation for the fact that not all Christians in media are made to be frauds.
In the end, lets remember to stand for our faith as well; let us not be frauds. Instead, let us be what Peter told the churches of his day, to be such an example that when people want to make fun of Christ or Christianity, that they cannot do so because of us. Let us be a light, a firm tree planted by the river of truth.
Ironically, one of the few accepted Christians in our modern world is, a comic book character. In a place that one would hardly expect to see even tolerance to faith, we find a character that is an example of standing up for truth, morality, and the weak. As in most comic books, these ideas are merged into a comic book character - Captain America. Here is one of my favorite recent quotes from Cap.
Now, I know that characters change depending on who is writing the current issue of a comic, but I find that Captain America is one of few characters in the modern world who's faith is not ridiculed, but respected. He is not a fraud, hypocrite, or self-righteous. His attitude of submission and morality is an example we don't see much in the modern world. We are told that there is no right or wrong, we cannot tell others that wrong is wrong. In this world of political correctness, it is nice to have a constant Christian in fiction that is not made to look the fool, is not created only to disprove Christianity.
Is this a deep post? No. But I just wanted to show appreciation for the fact that not all Christians in media are made to be frauds.
In the end, lets remember to stand for our faith as well; let us not be frauds. Instead, let us be what Peter told the churches of his day, to be such an example that when people want to make fun of Christ or Christianity, that they cannot do so because of us. Let us be a light, a firm tree planted by the river of truth.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Chronologically Christian
As a boy, my father taught me the importance of being on time. It was ingrained in our family that we were to be at least fifteen minutes ahead of schedule. To be late, I was told, was disrespectful. It wastes other peoples time and shows little respect for them or their schedule. In fact, my father often said he would rather not show up than be late. He felt that not showing up was less disrespectful than being late if it was a non-obligatory situation.
Now, I know that sometimes we cannot help being a bit late, but often we see that lateness is a character trait, not just a coincidence. Does this matter? Is it really this big of an issue?
Well, let's take a look at what the Bible says about being late. There is no verse that states, "Thou shalt be on time"; however, we do find something that can be applied quite well to the situation.
In Matthew 5:37 and James 5:12 we find that we are to let our yes be yes, and our no be no. In other words, we are to be consistent. We are to be trustworthy; and being on time is one form of trustworthiness. Indeed, we could say, let your "12:00 be 12:00, and your 1:00 be 1:00."
If our word has no meaning when we say 5:30, how do people know that we are serious when we talk about other things? If 3:00 can be 4:30, what does it mean when we say, yes or no? Or more than that, what trust can be given to us in situations where people cannot observe us? If we visibly disregard our own words is things like being on time, why should we expect people to trust us when they cannot see what we are doing?
In the end, we are to be respectful and honest with both our time, and with other people's time. We are to do all things decently and in the proper order.
Is this a requisite in Christianity? No, but it is one of the things we do need to work on as Christians. All of us have items that need improving, and we are to strive to do so. As Jesus said, "be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect."
Now, I know that sometimes we cannot help being a bit late, but often we see that lateness is a character trait, not just a coincidence. Does this matter? Is it really this big of an issue?
Well, let's take a look at what the Bible says about being late. There is no verse that states, "Thou shalt be on time"; however, we do find something that can be applied quite well to the situation.
In Matthew 5:37 and James 5:12 we find that we are to let our yes be yes, and our no be no. In other words, we are to be consistent. We are to be trustworthy; and being on time is one form of trustworthiness. Indeed, we could say, let your "12:00 be 12:00, and your 1:00 be 1:00."
If our word has no meaning when we say 5:30, how do people know that we are serious when we talk about other things? If 3:00 can be 4:30, what does it mean when we say, yes or no? Or more than that, what trust can be given to us in situations where people cannot observe us? If we visibly disregard our own words is things like being on time, why should we expect people to trust us when they cannot see what we are doing?
In the end, we are to be respectful and honest with both our time, and with other people's time. We are to do all things decently and in the proper order.
Is this a requisite in Christianity? No, but it is one of the things we do need to work on as Christians. All of us have items that need improving, and we are to strive to do so. As Jesus said, "be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect."
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Republican Religion
So, this might not apply to all areas of Christianity, however, in the part of the world that I live in Christians all seem to be Republicans. In fact, I know that for some well-meaning people, the words Christian and Republican are just as entwined as birthdays and cake. But is this a good thing?
Well, lets take a look at a few reasons most Christians support the Republican party. The Republican party is, for the most part, anti-abortion. We as Christians feel strongly that abortion is murder, and therefore we support shutting it down. But realistically, most modern Republican politicians have no real vested interest in stopping abortion. There are exceptions to this rule, but for the most part, they spend their time working on other subjects. Don't get me wrong, I am appalled by the abortion industry, and I would also label it as evil. The concern I have is that Republicans are now just riding the emotions of their voters without doing much about the issue.
Another reason many Christians are pro-Republican is the fact that the Republican party is, again for the most part, against big government and over-taxation and spending. As they often point out, lack of government intervention leads to more money for the citizens; at least, the hardworking ones. Although this is mostly true, the money that is made usually ends up in the pockets of those in charge, not necessarily in the pockets of those who are doing the actual work.
Small government leads to a few more problems. What happens when companies pollute the environment? Before you write me off as a liberal whack-job, let me remind you that we are called to take care of the earth. (Genesis 2:15; Numbers 35:33-34; Ez. 34:17-18) God also warns us that He will punish us if we fail to do so. I do not believe that humans should die, starve, or be injured to protect the environment; however, we are to take care of it even if it does cost us a bit extra time or money.
Did you know that Pittsburg was once so polluted by the steel industry that it was known as a "three shirt a day" city? That means that the air was so filthy that businessmen changed their shirts three times a day just to keep clean and professional. Here are some pictures of the city at that time.
That fog you see is actually pollution. The greed of the major companies caused the city to become so filthy that people were dying of lung disease, cars used their headlights in the city at all times, and nothing was ever actually clean or healthy at any time. Eventually, the government passed regulations to clean the city, but it is still one of the dirtiest places in the United States.
Now, the point I'm trying to make is this: if we as humans were basically good, kind, and unselfish; the Republican party would be perfect. But, instead we have greedy fallen humans to work with. As such, the church should step up and take the responsibility to take care of those who are less fortunate. Sadly, we haven't been doing a good job, and the government has had to take over. This is one redeeming side of the Democratic party. They try, in their own flawed way, to take care of those who are less fortunate; whereas the Republican party is more concerned with making the rich richer rather than actually helping those in need. Again, I am not supporting the Democratic party, merely pointing out some good traits. We, as the church, have left the poor and distressed to fend for themselves while we profit from our business deals, and someone else has stepped in to do our job. Now, I do not think the Democrats are doing a very good job of it; however, they are doing more than what we are.
This is why we have laws that prohibit pollution, support welfare, and give the government control over our personal lives. We have failed as a church to help those in need. If we do not do it, then it falls to our un-Godly government to do so. It is a sad fact, but that is what has happened. The Democratic party of our modern world seeks to make the poor better off. This is indeed one of the mandates of the Church, but in our lack of interest and lack of support, we have turned over that responsibility to the Democratic party. In doing so, we have also unintentionally given them the right to 'help' the poor in ways we do not agree with, viz. pay without labor, abortion, and an attitude of entitlement.
How did Jesus handle politics in His day? Oh, believe you me, there were a lot of hot political topics in His world. The country He was born in was under foreign rule and they were forced to pay taxes to an emperor they despised. They asked Jesus about this in Mark ch. 12. Jesus did not get involved in the political aspect of the question, instead, He did what we should do: He turned His focus on God.
So am I telling you to become a Democrat? Not at all. Am I saying you shouldn't be a Republican? Not that either. In the end, you need to follow the conviction God gives you. But remember, Christians are no longer of this world. We have our loyalty to God, not to country or party. We are loyal to God, first and foremost, after that, it is not my business what you do, as long as you follow the conviction God gives you.
How do we know what our convictions are? We pray, we ask God to convict us. God will convict us if we listen. After that, we need to remember what Paul says in Romans 14:22.
The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.
Well, lets take a look at a few reasons most Christians support the Republican party. The Republican party is, for the most part, anti-abortion. We as Christians feel strongly that abortion is murder, and therefore we support shutting it down. But realistically, most modern Republican politicians have no real vested interest in stopping abortion. There are exceptions to this rule, but for the most part, they spend their time working on other subjects. Don't get me wrong, I am appalled by the abortion industry, and I would also label it as evil. The concern I have is that Republicans are now just riding the emotions of their voters without doing much about the issue.
Another reason many Christians are pro-Republican is the fact that the Republican party is, again for the most part, against big government and over-taxation and spending. As they often point out, lack of government intervention leads to more money for the citizens; at least, the hardworking ones. Although this is mostly true, the money that is made usually ends up in the pockets of those in charge, not necessarily in the pockets of those who are doing the actual work.
Small government leads to a few more problems. What happens when companies pollute the environment? Before you write me off as a liberal whack-job, let me remind you that we are called to take care of the earth. (Genesis 2:15; Numbers 35:33-34; Ez. 34:17-18) God also warns us that He will punish us if we fail to do so. I do not believe that humans should die, starve, or be injured to protect the environment; however, we are to take care of it even if it does cost us a bit extra time or money.
Did you know that Pittsburg was once so polluted by the steel industry that it was known as a "three shirt a day" city? That means that the air was so filthy that businessmen changed their shirts three times a day just to keep clean and professional. Here are some pictures of the city at that time.
That fog you see is actually pollution. The greed of the major companies caused the city to become so filthy that people were dying of lung disease, cars used their headlights in the city at all times, and nothing was ever actually clean or healthy at any time. Eventually, the government passed regulations to clean the city, but it is still one of the dirtiest places in the United States.
Now, the point I'm trying to make is this: if we as humans were basically good, kind, and unselfish; the Republican party would be perfect. But, instead we have greedy fallen humans to work with. As such, the church should step up and take the responsibility to take care of those who are less fortunate. Sadly, we haven't been doing a good job, and the government has had to take over. This is one redeeming side of the Democratic party. They try, in their own flawed way, to take care of those who are less fortunate; whereas the Republican party is more concerned with making the rich richer rather than actually helping those in need. Again, I am not supporting the Democratic party, merely pointing out some good traits. We, as the church, have left the poor and distressed to fend for themselves while we profit from our business deals, and someone else has stepped in to do our job. Now, I do not think the Democrats are doing a very good job of it; however, they are doing more than what we are.
This is why we have laws that prohibit pollution, support welfare, and give the government control over our personal lives. We have failed as a church to help those in need. If we do not do it, then it falls to our un-Godly government to do so. It is a sad fact, but that is what has happened. The Democratic party of our modern world seeks to make the poor better off. This is indeed one of the mandates of the Church, but in our lack of interest and lack of support, we have turned over that responsibility to the Democratic party. In doing so, we have also unintentionally given them the right to 'help' the poor in ways we do not agree with, viz. pay without labor, abortion, and an attitude of entitlement.
How did Jesus handle politics in His day? Oh, believe you me, there were a lot of hot political topics in His world. The country He was born in was under foreign rule and they were forced to pay taxes to an emperor they despised. They asked Jesus about this in Mark ch. 12. Jesus did not get involved in the political aspect of the question, instead, He did what we should do: He turned His focus on God.
So am I telling you to become a Democrat? Not at all. Am I saying you shouldn't be a Republican? Not that either. In the end, you need to follow the conviction God gives you. But remember, Christians are no longer of this world. We have our loyalty to God, not to country or party. We are loyal to God, first and foremost, after that, it is not my business what you do, as long as you follow the conviction God gives you.
How do we know what our convictions are? We pray, we ask God to convict us. God will convict us if we listen. After that, we need to remember what Paul says in Romans 14:22.
The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Two Toned Testimony
I was reading a few cartoons by Jeff Larson from The Back Pew just a minute ago, and came across this one.
This describes our Christian walk far too well at times. We try to minister and bring the Gospel to people that we do not treat according to Godly principles. We forget that Jesus first preached repentance, then the Sermon on the Mount, before telling his disciples to go and make disciples.
So what do I mean with this? Do I mean to imply that we should not witness? No, I am saying that we need to make sure that our interaction with people shows the love of Christ before we attempt to minister to them. We need to remember how Jesus interacted with people, how He loved them and was concerned for them. Too often we 'witness' to ease our conscience; it has nothing to do with a burden for the lost.
We need to be consistent testimonies with our lives before we can affect people with our words. Not that long ago, I saw a flyer advertising weight loss coaching. There was a picture of a rather large man that was displayed prominently. I assumed this was a motivational pic, but it turned out that this was the 'weight loss coach.' I had a hard time taking the ad seriously because it looked like the man needed what he was selling. I don't mean to be rude, but frankly, if you can't do it for yourself, than it is doubtful you can do it for others.
In the same way, people will view our Christian message. If we live lives that are not Godly and righteous through God's grace, than people would naturally assume that we do not have God's spirit. It is tragic, but true. We bless God and curse our neighbor. James talks about this in the third chapter of his book as well. We can see that the early church had the same problem. What does James tell them? Stop. This cannot be so. It needs to end.
How can we stop this? Well, James gives us that answer too. We cannot. Its that simple. It is impossible for us to do this. What does that leave us with? What kind of encouraging answer is that? Well, it is the foundation of Christianity. We cannot do it; only God can. And He will, provided that we come to Him with empty hands and a humble heart. We cannot assume that we are even close to good enough in this regard, or in any other. However, God's grace is amazing, He will help us, He will stand in for us and renew us, if only we admit that we cannot and never could. We have to let go, and let Him do His work within us. This is true of our daily walk, and also of our ministry to the people we interact with. Once we let God work through us, He will guide us in our evangelism as well.
Now, this is not a one time thing. This is daily, a denying of ourselves and an admission to God that we need Him to do it through us. That is the core of Christianity. It starts and ends with God.
Monday, June 24, 2013
Election or Predestination?
One of the things that often comes up in Theological studies is the concept of election and predestination. I am not planning on tackling the actual question in this post, I just wish to clarify the defintion and difference between the two terms.
Predestination, or προοριζο, means to choose ahead of time. This implies choosing something before it happens. This term is used six times in the New Testament.
Election, or εκλεκτοσ, means to be chosen to preform a duty or task. (e.g. a president or minister may be elected.) another definition is as follows: chosen: an exclusive group of people; "one of the elect who have power inside the government".
Now, we see that both terms are used in the Bible to refer to God's people at different times. However, we also need to remember that just because someone is elected, or elect, if you will, does not mean that it was chosen before time. A minister may be elected, but that is not a predetermined item. It takes the choice of those in the congregation. We have the same thing with a president. They are elect, but that does not mean they had no choice.
We also see that predestination also is a Biblical principle. However, we need to be careful in how we use these two terms. Although many people may use the two to mean the same thing, they most certainly do not. We may have an elect group of School board members, but that does not mean they were predestined to be there.
In other words, predestination requires election, but election does not require predestination. This is not an attempt to refute anyone's theory, just to define the terms thrown around as if they were interchangeable.
In other words, all people in a position of authority, privilege, or grace, are elect in their position. That includes presidents, parents, teachers, employees, employers, and most definitely Christians. We are elect. We are indeed an exclusive people chosen to preform a duty and fulfill a task. That is the meaning of being elect in any area of life.
For more examples of how we must make sure to use reasoning correctly in Theology, see this earlier post.
Predestination, or προοριζο, means to choose ahead of time. This implies choosing something before it happens. This term is used six times in the New Testament.
Election, or εκλεκτοσ, means to be chosen to preform a duty or task. (e.g. a president or minister may be elected.) another definition is as follows: chosen: an exclusive group of people; "one of the elect who have power inside the government".
Now, we see that both terms are used in the Bible to refer to God's people at different times. However, we also need to remember that just because someone is elected, or elect, if you will, does not mean that it was chosen before time. A minister may be elected, but that is not a predetermined item. It takes the choice of those in the congregation. We have the same thing with a president. They are elect, but that does not mean they had no choice.
We also see that predestination also is a Biblical principle. However, we need to be careful in how we use these two terms. Although many people may use the two to mean the same thing, they most certainly do not. We may have an elect group of School board members, but that does not mean they were predestined to be there.
In other words, predestination requires election, but election does not require predestination. This is not an attempt to refute anyone's theory, just to define the terms thrown around as if they were interchangeable.
In other words, all people in a position of authority, privilege, or grace, are elect in their position. That includes presidents, parents, teachers, employees, employers, and most definitely Christians. We are elect. We are indeed an exclusive people chosen to preform a duty and fulfill a task. That is the meaning of being elect in any area of life.
For more examples of how we must make sure to use reasoning correctly in Theology, see this earlier post.
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Sacrificing Stories
Today we were getting together with some friends and one of the guys mentioned that he didn't read fiction any longer. He viewed it as a waste of time. While I may say that anything indulged to excess is a bad thing, I am saddened at the thought of eliminating fiction entirely.
Why is that, you may ask? Aren't stories just for children? I would say that that is far from the truth. Stories carry over much truth, morals, and imagination. It helps us think, reason, process, and understand.
Jesus himself taught much in the form of fiction. His parables were not true in the sense that they actually happened here on Earth, but true in the sense that they taught us lessons and morals.
This gift of God, language and literature, is precious and can be used for great things. In fact, stories often outlive their teller, with authors who have died hundreds of years ago influencing the minds and lives of those who remain.
But even non-fiction stories often fall under the ax some people give literature. This is indeed a great tragedy when this occurs. Without it, so many things fall to the wayside. When God gave us the Bible, it was written mainly in story form for us to learn from. I am not saying that our writing is on par with the Holy Scriptures, but I do believe it is a wonderful medium that God has given us.
I'm not saying God doesn't convict some people of this. But I also believe that we shouldn't eliminate the good with the bad. Paul talks about denying things for the sake of denying them in Colossians 2:16-23. It is not good to assume that asceticism is good in all things. Sometimes self denial is a bad thing.
Bad? But I thought we were supposed to deny ourselves? Yes, but only in so far as it is actually good for us. If we eat to excess, we need to deny our impulses, that is one area I have had to continually deal with myself. But a person with bulimia or anorexia needs to make sure to eat enough. If they deny themselves food, it is not for their own good anymore.
A historical example that hits close to home for me would be the Anabaptists of Mexico. My parents grew up in a small colony there. Just a few generations ago, they were people of Godly faith and conviction. They denied themselves many things in order to focus more on holy things. Don't get me wrong, I believe that God does indeed deserve our attention. But if we are not careful with how we do it, people will adhere to what they see these spiritual people adhere to. And almost every time, we see that it only takes a generation or two to become a group that has no idea why they abstain from things, but they do so. In fact, it tragically becomes what Paul warns of, self-righteous self-denial.
So how can we avoid this? Well, one thing is to not put such an emphases on what we are not doing, and instead focus on what we ARE doing. Instead of talking about all the things we don't believe or do, instead work with the things we do believe and are doing. If we put our focus in the correct area, than each can follow his own God-given convictions and not attempt to instead follow someone else's.
Why is that, you may ask? Aren't stories just for children? I would say that that is far from the truth. Stories carry over much truth, morals, and imagination. It helps us think, reason, process, and understand.
Jesus himself taught much in the form of fiction. His parables were not true in the sense that they actually happened here on Earth, but true in the sense that they taught us lessons and morals.
This gift of God, language and literature, is precious and can be used for great things. In fact, stories often outlive their teller, with authors who have died hundreds of years ago influencing the minds and lives of those who remain.
But even non-fiction stories often fall under the ax some people give literature. This is indeed a great tragedy when this occurs. Without it, so many things fall to the wayside. When God gave us the Bible, it was written mainly in story form for us to learn from. I am not saying that our writing is on par with the Holy Scriptures, but I do believe it is a wonderful medium that God has given us.
I'm not saying God doesn't convict some people of this. But I also believe that we shouldn't eliminate the good with the bad. Paul talks about denying things for the sake of denying them in Colossians 2:16-23. It is not good to assume that asceticism is good in all things. Sometimes self denial is a bad thing.
Bad? But I thought we were supposed to deny ourselves? Yes, but only in so far as it is actually good for us. If we eat to excess, we need to deny our impulses, that is one area I have had to continually deal with myself. But a person with bulimia or anorexia needs to make sure to eat enough. If they deny themselves food, it is not for their own good anymore.
A historical example that hits close to home for me would be the Anabaptists of Mexico. My parents grew up in a small colony there. Just a few generations ago, they were people of Godly faith and conviction. They denied themselves many things in order to focus more on holy things. Don't get me wrong, I believe that God does indeed deserve our attention. But if we are not careful with how we do it, people will adhere to what they see these spiritual people adhere to. And almost every time, we see that it only takes a generation or two to become a group that has no idea why they abstain from things, but they do so. In fact, it tragically becomes what Paul warns of, self-righteous self-denial.
So how can we avoid this? Well, one thing is to not put such an emphases on what we are not doing, and instead focus on what we ARE doing. Instead of talking about all the things we don't believe or do, instead work with the things we do believe and are doing. If we put our focus in the correct area, than each can follow his own God-given convictions and not attempt to instead follow someone else's.
Friday, June 14, 2013
Giving to God
Father's Day is just around the corner. That means that this weekend there will be many young children who are going to get their father a gift. It's a wonderful thought, and both the father and child will most likely enjoy it. It's not unlikely that some kid will ask his father for five dollars or so to buy a gift of some kind. Excited, the child will pick out whatever small item they think their father would enjoy and gleefully give it to him. The father will enjoy the gift, and the thought behind it, but very few will do so because they actually think they profited five bucks. The money was theirs to give in the first place and as such was always really theirs.
In much the same way, we give gifts to our heavenly Father. We gleefully use what He has given us and wish to present something to Him. Just as gladly, He receives it, not because He profits out of our giving or generosity, but because of the spirit of giving that comes with it. This is why the Scriptures say, "the Lord loves a cheerful giver." It isn't the gift God is worried about, it is why, how, and who of the matter that He is concerned with. This is also why Jesus says that the poor woman had given far more to God than the rich had. God view us as His children in many ways, some we like and some make us feel rather childish, ironically. His view of gifts is not based on the value others put on the gift, but instead on how much dedication, personal sacrifice, or thought and caring was in that gift instead.
So this Father's Day, let us honor our earthly fathers, as the Law commands. But let us do so in a way that also honors our heavenly Father. Let us give of ourselves to Him, both in word and in deed.
In much the same way, we give gifts to our heavenly Father. We gleefully use what He has given us and wish to present something to Him. Just as gladly, He receives it, not because He profits out of our giving or generosity, but because of the spirit of giving that comes with it. This is why the Scriptures say, "the Lord loves a cheerful giver." It isn't the gift God is worried about, it is why, how, and who of the matter that He is concerned with. This is also why Jesus says that the poor woman had given far more to God than the rich had. God view us as His children in many ways, some we like and some make us feel rather childish, ironically. His view of gifts is not based on the value others put on the gift, but instead on how much dedication, personal sacrifice, or thought and caring was in that gift instead.
So this Father's Day, let us honor our earthly fathers, as the Law commands. But let us do so in a way that also honors our heavenly Father. Let us give of ourselves to Him, both in word and in deed.
Friday, June 7, 2013
Blasphemy or Blessing?
I have often heard people talk about how you can take the writings or teachings of some Theologian and stretch them out to what they think is a logical end; they become heresy. For example, if you take the ministry of Billy Graham and say that all he is trying to do is get people to pray a prayer. Now, as Christians we know that just words coming over your lips will not save anyone. But Graham preached repentance and turning from sin, not just a sinner's prayer. Now did he use the common sinner's prayer to a great extent? Yes indeed. But that was not the cornerstone of his faith, nor was that the only goal of his ministry. He preached, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." This is a very Biblical message. Matthew 3:2 Matthew 4:17
Other authors have also been accused of misleading people if you take their sermons or writings a step further. People like John MacArthur, T.D. Jakes, John Calvin, Martin Luther, and many, many modern authors have been accused of starting a thought process that leads to heresy or blasphemy if you follow it to what they would claim is its logical end. What are we as Christians to do about this? How do we know if these things are good or bad, blasphemy or blessing?
So what kind of extrapolation is correct or incorrect? Well lets take a look at a parable we are familiar with: The Prodigal Son of Luke 15:11-32.
In this story we have the Father, who represents God. We have the son who represents fallen mankind. We have the other brother who represents an unforgiving spirit. Jesus parable here is designed to show the forgiveness of God, and it does so quite well.
But what does it mean that the Father is intending to give an inheritance? Does this mean Jesus is implying God will die? And what of the friends in this story, are they the angels? What about the other son; for if the prodigal represents mankind, does that mean that the other brother is an example of another group of beings? And who are the farmer who employed him, or the false friends who forsook him? Does the famine mean something?
All these questions can be overwhelming. Some of them have answers, while others are nonsense. But which is which? How can we as discerning Christians know?
There are a couple of ways that we can learn to understand these parables and other teachings. The first thing we should do before we do any of this is pray. Ask God to lead you, His Spirit will reveal things we cannot understand.
God does require us to put in effort as well, however. We cannot pray and stop trying. We must persist. Therefore, we need to ask important questions about any teacher's teaching. Here are some of them.
1. Are the questions you are asking important to the main point?
Many interesting questions we may ask have nothing to do with the point the author was trying to make. The parable of the prodigal son has nothing to do with angels, therefore Jesus did not include them. This does not mean they have no part to play in our lives, it is just not the main point He was trying to make.
2. Does the author intend for you to draw this conclusion?
In the question, 'What about the inheritance, does this mean Jesus is implying God will die? ' We need to ask ourselves, What else does Jesus teach about the Father? Is there any teaching anywhere that we can use to assume that this is what Jesus meant? If not, we should not think that Jesus meant that here. He used a story to convey an idea about forgiveness, He was not trying to hide something dark or revolutionary in the story. Nothing that Jesus says here or anywhere else ever suggests that the Father will die, therefore, we cannot assume that is what He meant here either.
3. Is this direct Theology, or is it an example?
Direct Theology is based in absolute statements. These are things like: God is eternal, God created the heavens and the Earth, Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Father is God.
These direct theological statements are not up for discussion and have a direct, absolute meaning.
Examples (types, parables, similes, metaphors, or any other literary device) are used to make a point. They are not meant to fit in absolutely all ways of interpreting them, only in the way they are first used. For example, Jesus is the door to God. That means He is the only way in. It does not mean that Jesus has hinges that can be turned or a lock that can be picked. When He says that He is the bread of life, that does not mean He gets moldy if you leave Him alone too long. Examples are only useful for explaining one meaning, not several, and will fall apart if you try to make them mean something they don't mean.
This is the most misused form of Theology in writing, to assume that an example can mean multiple things. Although some stretching may work with examples, (one could say the other brother in the Prodigal Son might be the self-righteous person) it does not work universally. For that reason, if a person is using examples, take the example to only mean what the author or speaker intends it to mean. Even Jesus parables can be twisted to mean things they don't.
If the issue you are discussing does indeed involve direct Theology, then it is important to understand the first two point here, namely, is that the point the author was making? If not, is it a sub-point the author did intend for you to draw? Sometimes these sub-points are intentional, but often times they are not. Sir Thomas Moore and Martin Luther were both men of God who lived in the same time, yet both understood the Church differently. They both followed the conviction that they felt was of God. Moore was killed for his, Luther lived a full life. Moore stayed in the Catholic Church, Luther left. Moore believed in the Sacraments, Luther did not. What were the implications of their beliefs? Do we agree with them? Were these the things Luther and Moore wanted us to take from their lives?
In the end, the point both Luther and Moore were making was this: We must follow the guidance of God in our lives even if that costs us church positions (Luther) or our very lives (Moore). Even if some of the beliefs these men had are things I would disagree with now, their lives were an example to be followed. They both lived in obedience to God to the best they could. Neither one was perfect, but nor were they expected to be. It is the heart, the motive if you will, that God looks to; and we are to try to understand that motive, not just the statement or action.
Other authors have also been accused of misleading people if you take their sermons or writings a step further. People like John MacArthur, T.D. Jakes, John Calvin, Martin Luther, and many, many modern authors have been accused of starting a thought process that leads to heresy or blasphemy if you follow it to what they would claim is its logical end. What are we as Christians to do about this? How do we know if these things are good or bad, blasphemy or blessing?
So what kind of extrapolation is correct or incorrect? Well lets take a look at a parable we are familiar with: The Prodigal Son of Luke 15:11-32.
In this story we have the Father, who represents God. We have the son who represents fallen mankind. We have the other brother who represents an unforgiving spirit. Jesus parable here is designed to show the forgiveness of God, and it does so quite well.
But what does it mean that the Father is intending to give an inheritance? Does this mean Jesus is implying God will die? And what of the friends in this story, are they the angels? What about the other son; for if the prodigal represents mankind, does that mean that the other brother is an example of another group of beings? And who are the farmer who employed him, or the false friends who forsook him? Does the famine mean something?
All these questions can be overwhelming. Some of them have answers, while others are nonsense. But which is which? How can we as discerning Christians know?
There are a couple of ways that we can learn to understand these parables and other teachings. The first thing we should do before we do any of this is pray. Ask God to lead you, His Spirit will reveal things we cannot understand.
God does require us to put in effort as well, however. We cannot pray and stop trying. We must persist. Therefore, we need to ask important questions about any teacher's teaching. Here are some of them.
1. Are the questions you are asking important to the main point?
Many interesting questions we may ask have nothing to do with the point the author was trying to make. The parable of the prodigal son has nothing to do with angels, therefore Jesus did not include them. This does not mean they have no part to play in our lives, it is just not the main point He was trying to make.
2. Does the author intend for you to draw this conclusion?
In the question, 'What about the inheritance, does this mean Jesus is implying God will die? ' We need to ask ourselves, What else does Jesus teach about the Father? Is there any teaching anywhere that we can use to assume that this is what Jesus meant? If not, we should not think that Jesus meant that here. He used a story to convey an idea about forgiveness, He was not trying to hide something dark or revolutionary in the story. Nothing that Jesus says here or anywhere else ever suggests that the Father will die, therefore, we cannot assume that is what He meant here either.
3. Is this direct Theology, or is it an example?
Direct Theology is based in absolute statements. These are things like: God is eternal, God created the heavens and the Earth, Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Father is God.
These direct theological statements are not up for discussion and have a direct, absolute meaning.
Examples (types, parables, similes, metaphors, or any other literary device) are used to make a point. They are not meant to fit in absolutely all ways of interpreting them, only in the way they are first used. For example, Jesus is the door to God. That means He is the only way in. It does not mean that Jesus has hinges that can be turned or a lock that can be picked. When He says that He is the bread of life, that does not mean He gets moldy if you leave Him alone too long. Examples are only useful for explaining one meaning, not several, and will fall apart if you try to make them mean something they don't mean.
This is the most misused form of Theology in writing, to assume that an example can mean multiple things. Although some stretching may work with examples, (one could say the other brother in the Prodigal Son might be the self-righteous person) it does not work universally. For that reason, if a person is using examples, take the example to only mean what the author or speaker intends it to mean. Even Jesus parables can be twisted to mean things they don't.
If the issue you are discussing does indeed involve direct Theology, then it is important to understand the first two point here, namely, is that the point the author was making? If not, is it a sub-point the author did intend for you to draw? Sometimes these sub-points are intentional, but often times they are not. Sir Thomas Moore and Martin Luther were both men of God who lived in the same time, yet both understood the Church differently. They both followed the conviction that they felt was of God. Moore was killed for his, Luther lived a full life. Moore stayed in the Catholic Church, Luther left. Moore believed in the Sacraments, Luther did not. What were the implications of their beliefs? Do we agree with them? Were these the things Luther and Moore wanted us to take from their lives?
In the end, the point both Luther and Moore were making was this: We must follow the guidance of God in our lives even if that costs us church positions (Luther) or our very lives (Moore). Even if some of the beliefs these men had are things I would disagree with now, their lives were an example to be followed. They both lived in obedience to God to the best they could. Neither one was perfect, but nor were they expected to be. It is the heart, the motive if you will, that God looks to; and we are to try to understand that motive, not just the statement or action.
Monday, June 3, 2013
Tongue Trouble
If there is one thing that our local church service is not, it is loud. We have a particular organization in our service that is rarely changed, and; even then, it doesn't often involve much of what some might call vigor or vitality. We worship in quiet, other than the music and songs. Rarely is there a comment or voice from the pews, and the preacher's voice does not raise above a normal pitch on general occasions.
Some people, it seems, are bothered by such things. They believe in loud, fervent worship, maybe a chorus of amens, or speaking in tongues. What do you believe? Should we change our worship style? Is this calm and collected form of worship not led by the Spirit? Do we need some energy and vigor to show the new life in us?
This is a question that others have asked before us. Paul actually addresses this question to the Corinthians in the first book that he wrote to them. Paul tells them in chapter fourteen that they are not to be disorderly, nor does he wish they loud if it is not of use. He tells them that it is better to speak five words in a useful way than ten thousand words in a tongue. He also tells us that things need to be organized in order to be helpful. A flute or harp needs guidance and distinct notes in order to be understood and put to use, he claims, and in such a way the worship needs to be guided to be useful and understood. This does not mean that speaking in tongues is useless. Not at all. What he is saying is that speaking in tongues is a sign for unbelievers, but that in a gathering of believers there is to be understanding and order. He goes on to tell us that God is not a God of confusion but of peace. And being His children, we are to follow in His footsteps.
Does this mean that we are to give up speaking in tongues? Not at all. This gift, as Paul describes it, is to be used as a witness for unbelievers, and he firmly agrees with it. Indeed, Paul says he has spoken in tongues himself more than all of them. He goes on to explain that it is not useful if no one can understand it and therefore it is not edifying for the church. He tells them that there are much more useful gifts for them to have in their ministry to believers. He makes a point to tell them that only two or three should speak and the rest are to listen and weigh what is being said.
So what does that leave us with? Should we add speaking in tongues to our worship service? Thinking about it seriously leads us to a more basic question: why do we ask about speaking in tongues? Is it to build up the church? Is it to worship God? Or is it that we are curious and want to see what this looks like for ourselves? For many of us, it may just be the curiosity of seeing something unusual that attracts us to this.
In the end, if we attend a church that is filled with verbal affirmation or not, what matters is the heart of each of the people gathered there. If it is an issue that bothers part of our body of believers, than I believe it has become unprofitable to the unity in Christ. Yet we are also told to not forsake it entirely as it is useful for ministry. All I can say is this: We are reminded to be mature in our thinking; which may mean being discerning in wether we are actually serving Christ or just putting on a good show. And remember, Jesus had quite the words for those who just put on a 'good show.'
Some people, it seems, are bothered by such things. They believe in loud, fervent worship, maybe a chorus of amens, or speaking in tongues. What do you believe? Should we change our worship style? Is this calm and collected form of worship not led by the Spirit? Do we need some energy and vigor to show the new life in us?
This is a question that others have asked before us. Paul actually addresses this question to the Corinthians in the first book that he wrote to them. Paul tells them in chapter fourteen that they are not to be disorderly, nor does he wish they loud if it is not of use. He tells them that it is better to speak five words in a useful way than ten thousand words in a tongue. He also tells us that things need to be organized in order to be helpful. A flute or harp needs guidance and distinct notes in order to be understood and put to use, he claims, and in such a way the worship needs to be guided to be useful and understood. This does not mean that speaking in tongues is useless. Not at all. What he is saying is that speaking in tongues is a sign for unbelievers, but that in a gathering of believers there is to be understanding and order. He goes on to tell us that God is not a God of confusion but of peace. And being His children, we are to follow in His footsteps.
Does this mean that we are to give up speaking in tongues? Not at all. This gift, as Paul describes it, is to be used as a witness for unbelievers, and he firmly agrees with it. Indeed, Paul says he has spoken in tongues himself more than all of them. He goes on to explain that it is not useful if no one can understand it and therefore it is not edifying for the church. He tells them that there are much more useful gifts for them to have in their ministry to believers. He makes a point to tell them that only two or three should speak and the rest are to listen and weigh what is being said.
So what does that leave us with? Should we add speaking in tongues to our worship service? Thinking about it seriously leads us to a more basic question: why do we ask about speaking in tongues? Is it to build up the church? Is it to worship God? Or is it that we are curious and want to see what this looks like for ourselves? For many of us, it may just be the curiosity of seeing something unusual that attracts us to this.
In the end, if we attend a church that is filled with verbal affirmation or not, what matters is the heart of each of the people gathered there. If it is an issue that bothers part of our body of believers, than I believe it has become unprofitable to the unity in Christ. Yet we are also told to not forsake it entirely as it is useful for ministry. All I can say is this: We are reminded to be mature in our thinking; which may mean being discerning in wether we are actually serving Christ or just putting on a good show. And remember, Jesus had quite the words for those who just put on a 'good show.'
Friday, May 31, 2013
Is God Gone?
In our classroom this year, we read extensively about King Hezekiah. Now for those who don't know Judaean history, He was a great king of Judah. He was the son of an evil man named King Ahaz. His father killed his own son's as sacrifices to an idol. But Hezekiah was not like his father. He was a man of God. He followed God's path and obeyed God's law. During his reign Judah destroyed idols, repaired the Temple, and followed God's law as the Torah commanded. As King he saw the neighboring country of Israel be destroyed by Assyria while his nation of Judah prospered and avoided such destruction.
Sounds like a good life, huh? Due to his faithfulness, God gave him everything. But actually the story is a bit more complex than that. You see, we need to look at a very important part of the text here. Remember, this is the king that removed idol worship and restored the nation's worship of God at the Temple, both in word and deed. Now listen closely. Here is what happened in his relationship with God.
II Chron. 32:32"...God left him to himself."
What? What does this mean? God left Hezekiah to himself. God did not answer him. In context we see that Hezekiah had fallen to the chief of all sins. Pride. With all that Hezekiah had seen in his life, all the provisions God made for him and his nation, Hezekiah still became a proud man. And God left him.
Does it feel like God is gone in your life too? Does it feel like God has distanced Himself from you? What can we do about this?
The answer may be simple. Repent. That is the theme of the Old Testament and the New Testament. Jesus preached it. Paul preached it. John the Baptist preached it. The prophets preached it. We must repent if something has come between us and God.
Now sometimes it may be that we feel God has abandoned us and it is not related to our sin. God let Job go through serious trials to purify him, and Job felt as tough God had abandoned him as well. But God was not punishing Job, He was testing him.
Now, I don't know if this is something you struggle with. I do not know if you feel like God is distant. If you don't, that's truly wonderful; but if so, take a minute and think about this. Is there something in you life that has caused this distance? Is it some part of your life that needs to be surrendered to God? Please remember that God's love is not based on how perfect or imperfect we are, but His Spirit will not reside in a place of sin. God loves you, but He will not ignore problems in your life. The solution? Pray. Bring it to the Father.
Now it may be that this isn't your problem. Maybe you are being tested like Job. If that is the case, the solution will already sound familiar to you: pray. Bring it to the Father. No matter what it is we are going through we can surrender it to Him.
Does this advise sound too simple? It may sound simple, but the reality is that there isn't anything you can do to entice God. You can't bribe Him. Indeed, we cannot even do what He requires. So what is left? We pray and ask Him to do it for us. To give us the strength to be whom He wants us to be.
Sounds like a good life, huh? Due to his faithfulness, God gave him everything. But actually the story is a bit more complex than that. You see, we need to look at a very important part of the text here. Remember, this is the king that removed idol worship and restored the nation's worship of God at the Temple, both in word and deed. Now listen closely. Here is what happened in his relationship with God.
II Chron. 32:32"...God left him to himself."
What? What does this mean? God left Hezekiah to himself. God did not answer him. In context we see that Hezekiah had fallen to the chief of all sins. Pride. With all that Hezekiah had seen in his life, all the provisions God made for him and his nation, Hezekiah still became a proud man. And God left him.
Does it feel like God is gone in your life too? Does it feel like God has distanced Himself from you? What can we do about this?
The answer may be simple. Repent. That is the theme of the Old Testament and the New Testament. Jesus preached it. Paul preached it. John the Baptist preached it. The prophets preached it. We must repent if something has come between us and God.
Now sometimes it may be that we feel God has abandoned us and it is not related to our sin. God let Job go through serious trials to purify him, and Job felt as tough God had abandoned him as well. But God was not punishing Job, He was testing him.
Now, I don't know if this is something you struggle with. I do not know if you feel like God is distant. If you don't, that's truly wonderful; but if so, take a minute and think about this. Is there something in you life that has caused this distance? Is it some part of your life that needs to be surrendered to God? Please remember that God's love is not based on how perfect or imperfect we are, but His Spirit will not reside in a place of sin. God loves you, but He will not ignore problems in your life. The solution? Pray. Bring it to the Father.
Now it may be that this isn't your problem. Maybe you are being tested like Job. If that is the case, the solution will already sound familiar to you: pray. Bring it to the Father. No matter what it is we are going through we can surrender it to Him.
Does this advise sound too simple? It may sound simple, but the reality is that there isn't anything you can do to entice God. You can't bribe Him. Indeed, we cannot even do what He requires. So what is left? We pray and ask Him to do it for us. To give us the strength to be whom He wants us to be.
Prophecies and Problems
Paul talks about predestination on several occasions. Many things that were prophesied have come to pass. Does this mean that everything is predetermined?
We find in Scripture that many things are decided before they come to pass. Jesus birth was prophesied, as was His death and resurrection. The Israelites had many prophecies that were fulfilled in their era. We look to the book of Revelation as prophecy that is to come. So what is a Christian to make of all of this? Does this mean that all things are determined? That we have no choice whatsoever?
Let’s first take a look at the type of things that we consider prophecy. The Old Testament shows us much about prophecy. We see that God foretold the destruction of Israel and Judah through prophets. He told them when it would happen, and when the bondage would end. He gave specifics on much of their trials and tribulations. And they all came to pass.
In the New Testament we see much prophecy fulfilled by Jesus as well. We see that He came as prophesied, lived, died, and rose accordingly.
We also see some things that are to come. Future prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled to our understanding. What about those? Are they going to happen without fail? If so, what of free will?
Like most complex questions, this will most likely have complex answers. It’s not as simple as saying that God’s Will is immutable and all is set into motion already. If that was the case, we would not have any choice and all the times God specifically tells His people to choose would be lies. Not only that, but Jesus mourning over the city of Jerusalem would make no sense whatsoever if Jerusalem had no choice in the matter. If we say that all that happens in God’s Will we say that all sin is by God’s choosing. In doing so, we make God worse than the Devil. Sin is choosing to go against God’s Will, and therefore, God Himself cannot do it. Therefore, not all is God’s choice, for if it was His choice it could not be sin, for God cannot choose to sin.
So we can’t just shove it all under the rug of absolute predetermination. That would be far too simple. However, we must see that there are indeed things that God did predetermine. So what’s the difference? Can we know? Do we have all these answers?
The more I study this, the more information I get, but the hard it is for me to come up with an actual conclusion. The easiest thing for me to say would be that God is God and we cannot possibly keep up with Him. While that is true, that does not give us permission to be lazy in our thought and understanding. To not completely understand is one thing, to not try at all is quite another.
Let’s take a look at what types of prophecies God gives us. There are two basic kinds: conditional and unconditional.
Here is an example of a conditional prophecy.
If, instead, you reject My statutes, and if your soul abhors My ordinances so as not to carry out all My commandments, and so break My covenant, 16 I, in turn, will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that will waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also, you will sow your seed uselessly, for your enemies will eat it up. 17 I will set My face against you so that you will be struck down before your enemies; and those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee when no one is pursuing you. 18 If also after these things you do not obey Me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins. 19 I will also break down your pride of power; I will also make your sky like iron and your earth like bronze. 20 Your strength will be spent uselessly, for your land will not yield its produce and the trees of the land will not yield their fruit. -Leviticus 26:15-20
We see that God prophesies that these things will come to pass IF the people disobey. It is a conditional prophecy. More such prophecies can be found like this. For example, here God prophesies what will happen if the do obey Him.
“Then it shall come about, because you listen to these judgments and keep and do them, that the Lord your God will keep with youHis covenant and His lovingkindness which He swore to your forefathers. 13 He will love you and bless you and multiply you; He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, your grain and your new wine and your oil, the increase of your herd and the young of your flock, in the land which He swore to your forefathers to give you.14 You shall be blessed above all peoples; there will be no male or female barren among you or among your cattle. -Deut 7:12-14
Here is an example of an unconditional prophecy.
"And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced…" -Zechariah 12:10
"…Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:" - Luke 24:46
Do you see the difference? Unconditional prophecies, like God’s promise to send a Messiah, are not based on us. They are based on God, who does not change. The are predetermined because God already exists in the future just as well as He exists in the past and present. He is at all places and times in unison. Therefore, He can predict what He will do in the future because He is doing it there. Unconditional promises rest upon God and His unchanging existence.
Conditional prophecies, however, are not absolutes. God lays out parameters for His promise or warning and tells people what He will do if they obey or disobey. These prophesies rely on what we as humans do, and in that way are not absolute. The part that rests with God, e.g. the punishment or reward, is absolute because it relies on Him. In other words, Conditional prophecies only come into effect if we chose to do something first. These are based on what we as humans choose. It is interesting to note how many prophecies are conditional on human choice. This does not mean that God won’t do His part. No. It means that He will not do so until we have chosen. Almost, if not all, unconditional prophesies do not rely on man at all. They rely solely upon God. Since He exists at all times in all places, these prophecies do not undo the free will He has given us. Rather, they are only dependent upon Him, and therefore do not have a bearing upon our freewill. This does not diminish God’s power in the least, instead, it shows that His power transcends the limits of time that we as man cannot escape.
But what of prophecies of people that were yet to come, such as John the Baptist, Judas Iscariot, or Samson? Do they have any choice in the matter? Do these people still have freewill? If so, how? If not, who is to say that we have free will?
We see that people like John the Baptist and Samson were chosen by God before birth. However, between these two we find great differences. John the Baptist and Samson were both chosen by God to lead, both were filled or stirred by the Spirit of God, but Samson chose to follow his own desires and disobey the commands of God. He broke his part of the covenant. As a Nazarene, he was not to touch dead animals, not to drink wine, and never to cut his hair. As long as he was at least partially faithful, God worked through Samson. Once Samson broke the last part of his covenant with God, the Lord departed from him. If you look at the verses in the book of Judges chapters 14-16 we see that Samson's first departure began in his earlier days, yet he ruled as a judge for twenty years before his final breaking of his covenant with God. God was faithful till the end, but Samson broke the covenant. John the Baptist is a stark contrast. It appears that he was faithful though the entire calling.
So what can we take from this? That even with the filling of God's Spirit from a young age, we as people have been given the freewill to deny that Spirit. This is the great and terrible gift from God. No matter how much prophecy there is, God will still allow us to choose, just like Samson and John the Baptist. Does this mean that God is to blame? No, it means that even if we are made to serve Him, we can still choose to not do so. God is still all powerful, but He will not force His will upon us. If He did, we would have no choice in the matter at all. But throughout Scripture we see time and again that God calls us to make a choice, to serve Him or to deny Him. I pray that we may all realize the gravity of this gift and not abuse it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)