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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.'