Fragments On Wholeness

Against Piper’s Suggestion That Jesus Must Have Just Killed at Least 39 People

2012-03-05T16:40:00.000-05:00

Note: There is certainly more to say, but I am exhausted by this discussion. I feel I need a little time to think and rethink the implications of what has been said. For now, I will just leave you with my initial thoughts with the understanding that I will more than likely refine and adjust after I have allowed my emotions to subside. As I often say to protect my ego after posting something without much proofing. Please forgive any errors/typos, I hope to recharge and revisit this soon.

“If a tornado twists at 175 miles an hour and stays onthe ground like a massive lawnmower for 50 miles, God gave the command.” –JohnPiper, FierceTornadoes and the Fingers of God

Here we sit, mere days after precious lives have been lost,and instead of acting pastorally, giving a hurt American community hope in Godin spite of tragic loss, hope that death is not the final say so, Piper decidesto take this very sensitive opportunity to deliver an insensitive response.Instead of hope in God in light of tragedy, John Piper suggests God is thecause of such. Is this the sort of message that needs to be given in difficulttimes? John Piper thinks so. I for one, do not. But, I often feel like a small,Wesleyan fish in a huge Reformed pond. Not only do I think certain truths arebetter used at certain times, I simply believe Piper is wrong in general.However, for lack of space, my argument at present will not be an alternativeview, but a demonstration of a lack of warrant in Piper’s. While I can hardlyfathom a reason why it could be the case, maybe Piper is right in hisassumption that God sent the tornadoes as an ordained act of His sovereignreign; however, Piper’s defense for such leaves much to be desired. My purposeshere are to suggest Piper try again. If he wishes to suggest the onus for thesedeaths are upon God and are not the sheer result of a fallen world and sin, as mostdeath seems to be, then he needs to do a better job of defending his point thana pithy 800 word essay that assumes too much from the Scripture he uses forproof texting. If you are going to hide behind a blog in order to tell hurtpersons that (Lord forgive me for even typing such) Christ has just killedtheir relatives, then you have a responsibility to not mention your premises in mere passing, but to explicate them in full. Until then, I refuse to make such boldassumptions, and I hope most persons who read this post refuse to do so aswell.

Addition forclarity: I want to makemyself clear from the outset. Nowhere in this blog am I suggesting that Godcannot or does not control weather as an act of judgment. Instead, I am merelysuggesting that there is not sufficient ground for an a priori assumption thatGod has to be the cause of every natural disaster directly. Piper’s argument isnot that it is possible God killed 39 people, but that He did. He assumes asmuch because of the premise that all natural disasters have to be of God, fornothing within the created order has such power. I find this highlyspeculative. First of all, where is this suggested anywhere in Scripture?Second, although it is feasible that God caused the recent tragedy, we cannotmake an assumption that suggested He must. If it is the case that God has to bethe direct cause for such events, then every disaster that has befallen humanitydue to some uncontrollable, cataclysmic event is the result of God’s divinehand. Are we warranted to say such? While we might be warranted to assume Hepermitted such events, there does not seem to be biblical evidence to suggestHe directly orchestrates all such events. On the other hand, if it is the casethat God is not always the direct agent of causation for all disaster, butsometimes the result is due to the fallen nature of the world under sin or isthe result of Satan’s actions, then to attribute all tragedy to God would beblasphemous, for we would be attributing the work of sin and/or the devil toGod. While it is possible that Piper is correct about this one event, hisargument also suggests that all such events are of God, and, if even only oneis not such that God is the primary agent, Piper has a very big problem on hishands and has led many astray. My concluding that Piper believes God to be theauthor and agent of this recent disaster is not based on one mere excerpt fromhis blog. Instead, it comes from the whole tenor of the argument and from theexplicit statements he says at the end, to which I refer later in this blog. Ialso demonstrate that there is a high possibility that not all such events arethe direct actions of God.

First, Piper opens with a list of Scripture that is tosomehow cement within our minds that God controls all violent acts of nature(Hosea 13:15; Exodus 10:19; Jonah 4:8; Psalm 107:25; Matthew 8:27), thatnothing else in existence has the means to cause such destruction. I guess Godbuilt the atomic bomb as well. The issue here is that these Scripture merelystate that God can control nature, not that He always does. We live not onlyas fallen creatures, but we live as beings in a fallen creation, which groansfor redemption as well. To suggest that God has to be the author of suchdestruction does not come from biblical evidence, but from the logicalconclusion of Piper’s heady, systematized theology, which suggests that for God to besovereign He must control all events. This is not the result of biblicaltheology, but is the result, as I argue elsewhere of a systematic theology,which forces the adherent to ascribe all things to God. Since Piper holds to suchclaims and even champions them, he apparently feels the need to defend suchclaims, especially after tragic, nationally known events.

But back to Piper’s biblical examples of God being the agentof causation, let us narrow our focus for a moment. Considering the gospelaccounts concerning Jesus calming the storm, it would seem strange to assumeGod the Father set a storm in motion only to have the Son rebuke the storm.This seems to be a house divided if there ever was one. The response is not,“Who is this that the Father would obey Him?” Instead, the response attributesthe storm to nature itself, “Who is this that the winds and waves should obeyHim” (Matthew 8:27). One could respond with an argument from silence thatsuggests that God caused the storm precisely so that Jesus could demonstrateHis divine nature, but, once again, this would trivialize the act, much like aman paying an attacker to stage a rape against a woman, so that he could looklike a hero once he stops the attack. It simply appears to be deception: Theancient Hebraic culture would not have assumed God caused the chaotic weather,so they would never make the connection that it was a set up.

After giving a list of Scripture that suggests that God hasthe ability to control weather, none of which suggest he causes all events ofnature, he turns to Job. In order to continue the argument that God is the Onewho directly causes devastation, Piper discusses the winds that came to killJob’s children, and Piper seems to praise Job for his response to thedevastation: “The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away” (Job 1:21). This isan utterance coming from a man who God still has much to teach. The whole story of Job demonstrates thatJob had much to learn about His God. So, taking something Job says of God inthe very beginning of the story as being pure, theological gold is less thanwarranted. Yet, this verse is misused in eulogies almost every day. In responseto such narrowed use of this portion of Scripture, Dr. Ben Witherington IIIwrites the following after the loss of his own daughter:

The words “The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away,”from the lips of Job, are not good theology. They’re bad theology. According to Job 1, it was not God, but the Devil who took away Job’schildren, health and wealth. God allowed it to happen, but when Job saidthese words, as the rest of the story shows, he was not yet enlightened aboutthe true nature of where his calamity came from and what God’s will actuallywas for his life — which was for good, and not for harm.

Simply that Job attributes his extreme loss to God, does notmake it the case (also see Job 7:20, 13:24, 21:7). Let us not theologicallytrivialize true loss by suggesting, “While it looks bad, it really is the goodwill of God that we should suffer loss” What Job experienced was true loss,real pain, and the result of sin in a fallen world, and he was really honest inhis expression, feeling that God was against him. Those of us who read thestory to the end, a privilege Job did not have when he made his statement, and see it is actually Satan acting against Job, should dare not attributesuch to God, and we should not simply say, “Well, God means well.” To say, “Godworks all things for the good of those who love Him,” (Romans 8:28) is not tosay that God causes all those things that He in turn uses for good. Instead,God’s redeeming nature can cause the suffering Christian to grow even in lightof true evil’s impact. As Joseph said to His brothers, “What you intended for evil,God has intended for good” (Genesis 50:20). That the event was evil is notdenied, but there is recognition that God can use such situations to furthersanctify the believer. If Satan is capable of such destruction, yet ourassumptions ignore this fact and immediately attribute all disaster to God, wemight find ourselves at fault for blasphemy, attributing the acts of Satan tothose of a good and loving God. While Piper might not be guilty of such, heseems to be playing fast and loose with his assumptions.

Perhaps we do not want to agree with Dr. Witherington insaying that Job was mistaken when He said, “The Lord gives, and the Lord takesaway,” (Job 1:21), although I tend to agree. But, perhaps instead we want toassume God did take something away, but are we to assume that what God tookaway was all of Job’s belonging and even Job’s children through the direct actsof “natural disaster?” This is not what the text seems to suggest. Instead, ifwe can say God took anything away from Job, it would be His “hedge ofprotection” (Job 1:10) so that it is Satan who then takes from Job all that he holds dear. In this passage, Satan suggests that Job is only loyalto God because God has provided above and beyond for Job by protecting Jobagainst Satan. All that befalls Job hereafter is the work of Satan. God allowsit, for all that happens must be allowed, but it was not of God--and, yes, I amreferring to the “natural disasters” that befell Job.

If we wish to affirm Piper’s statement quoted at thebeginning of this blog: “If a tornado twists at 175 miles an hour and stays onthe ground like a massive lawnmower for 50 miles, God gave the command,” wehave to say that God caused the devastation of Job’s family. Don’t allow thelanguage of Piper’s quote to have you imagine he might not be saying Godcaused the recent disaster, but merely permitted it, for Piper is also so bold to defend the following question, “Whywould God reach down his hand and drag his fierce fingers across rural Americakilling at least 38 [now 39 since an infant has passed] people with 90tornadoes in 12 states, and leaving some small towns with scarcely a buildingstanding, including churches?” It is this question that Piper sets out toanswer, adding, “We do not ascribe such independent power to Mother Nature orto the devil.” In other words, "This was God." While Piper might not ascribe such power to Satan, the book ofJob seems to do so:

“DoesJob fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything hehas? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds arespread throughout the land. Butnow stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surelycurse you to your face.”

TheLORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, buton the man himself do not lay a finger.”

ThenSatan went out from the presence of the LORD. (Job 1:9-11)

While Satan petitions God to strike Job, God’s response is not to thenturn and smite this righteous man. Instead, He allows Satan to do as he will,demonstrating Job’s goodness is not predicated upon Job’s understanding ofworks righteousness. Immediately following this allowance, Job’s sons and daughtersare killed by a violent wind. The assumption should be that Satan attacked. Itis only obvious that such is the case, unless we assume God does what Satanwishes and causes evil to befall Job by His own hand. This is clearly not thecase. So, Piper suggesting that Satan has no such power to cause great winds seemsto be in contradiction to what is happening in Job 1. Once again, Piper assumesit is God’s finger that ripped through the homes of many Americans just a fewdays ago because only God could do so, and while I allow for now that he mightbe right (although my assumption is that he is not), I also contend that he hasnot sufficiently considered the alternative, that evil is a destructive forcethat often befalls humanity in considerable ways.

To suggest that only God can perform such powerful acts such asstorms, earthquakes and the like is silly, unless, of course, one’s theologyforces one to suggest that God’s sovereignty forces Him to be the cause of allthat happens, which is Piper’s stance, it seems. God’s power extends to suchgreatness that He can cause universes to exist. A storm is small potatoes andto suggest evil can cause such destruction does not threaten God in the least.How can we make such claims? What if I said, “No man is powerful enough to murder another. Only God cangive and take life.” Does it make it any less true that murders are theculpable agents of the causes for murder? Absolutley not. Does the fact thatmurders happen make God the cause; does it make God a murderer? No. To saysomething as whimsical as God alone has the power to control weather mightsound nice, but it is simply untrue and leads to unwarranted assumptionsconcerning His character that Christians then have to unnecessarily defend. With scientific advances, even humansimpact weather. If we were to set off a nuclear bomb, or a series of bombs,inside the earth that caused great devastation, we need not say, “Whoa, thatmust have been God.” Likewise if a fallen creation produces a devastating windbecause of natural consequences of the order of things (otherwise, how didmeteorologist predict such would happen), we need not blame God a priori.

In the next section of his blog, Piper seems to move further and furtheraway from his defense of God being just while being the cause of thedevastation. Instead, he begins to discuss results, as if the ends justify themeans. Piper begins to discuss the Luke 13:4-5 passage in which Jesus discussesthe death of those whom were crushed by the tower of Siloam. Piper’s point isto suggest that the deaths of those in the path of destructive forces serve asa warning to the rest of us, and this story in Luke seems to suggest Jesus tookoccasion to make such a point. However, how does this then suggest that Godcaused the event? That it reminds us of our finitude, and that such a remindercan be beneficial, does not mean God justly caused a disaster that wouldotherwise be evil. If this event is to be analogous to recent disasters, Piperonce again must be assuming that the tower did not fall for any other reasonthan God’s mighty hand pushing it over. Such is never suggested in thispassage. Instead, a more naturalreading would be that Jesus simply takes occasion to use the tragedy to make apoint of correction to unwarranted assumptions concerning the cause ofdestruction. During this time, it was often assumed that evil befell personsbecause they had sinned perhaps worse than others, that we all could avoid suchby being “good enough.” Jesus is simply saying that this is not the case, butit is the case that if we do not repent then we all shall perish, whether bysuch dramatic causes or by simply dying of old age. In the end, perishing isperishing. Let us not fool ourselves. The point is that we are all going to suffertermination one way or another if we repent not. In other words, we are nobetter off simply because the tragic event did not directly impact us. It isnot proof we are sinless. Once again, thepresent discussion is whether or not God causes natural disaster. Inthe end, this Lukan passage is so far removed from the present discussion thatto import it in as a backing for God’s destructive nature seems dishonest.

Piper ends the section by saying; “Every deadly wind in anytown is a divine warning to every town.” If we are to assume this is ajustification for God touching His finger to the earth so that it rippedthrough the homes of several American families, then we can put Piper’sstatement thusly: “God did not simply permit evil to befall people with the result that persons would bereminded of our finitude and need for God [as seems to be a natural reading ofthe Lukan passage], but that God Himself touched His finger to earth, killingseveral, so that some might be so fortunate to know we need Him.” This is anends justifying the means approach that seems to be forced upon this situation.Like so many things Hyper-Calvinistic, this can be construed as something greatfor those spared, but not so good for those who were not. On the other hand, thatGod allows such to happen, with the result being that some take stock of theirown finitude is different than that He causes the devastation of some for thebenefit of others.

There is a very clever philosophical slight-of-hand maneuver that isoften used (by many Reformed thinkers, certainly not all) to rebut such claimsas I am making, namely that there is a difference between permitting andordaining/causing. Reformed persons might suggest that there is really nodifference and that Christians must own up to the fact that God causeseverything. To demonstrate this claim, Calvinist will often suggest that theonus for all things is still on God since He could possibly stop every event.This ignores causation. While God’s permitting evil to befall Job, the peopleat Siloam and the recent victims of the tornadoes might be unsavory to usstill, we must not suggest that God’s allowance of attack only pushes the issueof God’s onus back a step. In other words, we cannot simply say, “Well Godcould have stopped Satan from attacking so that God is still responsible forJob’s loss.” The result of such is that many reformers task does not become aquestion of who is to blame, but how is God justified in doing such. I wouldsubmit that suggesting God only permitting destruction is not the same assaying God ordains such. Saying God ordains and causes such an event places Himas the direct agent and even the coordinator of evil, while His permitting suchdoes not have to suggest He fixed the events or set them in motion. Thequestion of causation cannot be avoided by the simple statement that whateveris caused could be nullified by God. The cause is still the cause.

As C.S. Lewis often suggested, if God were not to permit sin from everhaving its affect upon the earth, we would not need salvation from sin. It isbecause sin is destructive that we need freedom from such bondage. God’sallowance of sin in the world does not create a philosophical problem thatmakes God the culpable agent no matter who causes such destruction. Instead,the onus for sin’s destructive place in the world lands squarely on humanity’sshoulders. In the end, Jesus is not saying, unless you repent the Father willcrush you with a tower.” He is simply saying, “Sin will take occasion tofinally terminate your being if you do not repent.” Jesus seems to suggest theonus to be on us. Jesus is not defending a destructive God. He need not do so.

In his final section, Piper ends his thoughts with the followingstatement:

Jesus rules the wind. The tornadoes were his.

But before Jesus took any life in rural America, he gave his ownon the rugged cross. Come to me, he says, to America — to the devastated and tothe smugly self-sufficient. Come to me, and I will give you hope and help now,and in the resurrection, more than you have ever lost.

You can show yourpartnership in suffering, and help lift the load, at Samaritan’s Purse.

John Piper cannot pass up the chance to bash humanity by suggestingthat we are smugly self sufficient. So, although Piper suggested we cannot know the ins and outs of God’s judgment, he cannot help himself from accusatory statements, even if theyare not the cause. He seems to miss the point that Jesus suggests that not allevil is the direct result of the victims’ sins, but the natural result of afallen world. In other ridiculous words, Piper suggests Jesus devastated thesepeople, but if you wish to be more benevolent than He and lift the burden Hecaused to befall these people, you can help by giving to the Samaritan’s Purse.This is theologically bankrupt. Jesus said this of His own purpose: “I came togive life, and give life abundantly” (John 10:10). Jesus died so that we do nothave to die.

In these words, John Piper makes the bold assumption that it was Godthe Son who killed all the people in the storms. While he wishes to argue in histhird section and also in his second section that God’s ways are inscrutable,in other words, we cannot decipher why God would do such, Piper nonethelessironically tries to give at least some defense as to why God would do such. Inthe end, God’s ways are not our ways for sure, but Christian’s should not usesuch as a crutch to say, “Well, God sure did a number on them, and, while Imight hate it myself, He has His reasons.” Piper uses statements in Job andRomans to suggest that, while we do not understand, it is not our place toquestion. This would be accurate if God indeed killed 39 people and we knew notwhy, but that this is the case is inconclusive to say the least. Christiansshould not feel silenced by Piper’s use of the texts suggesting we simplycannot understand why God would do such, for he conveniently forgets to mentionthe texts that tell us more about who we are, as Christians, concerning ourunderstanding: “Who has known the mind of the Lord as to instruct Him, but wehave the mind of Christ.” Paul is suggesting that we have a deeper insight asChristians than mere surface understanding. While Job cannot comprehend theinscrutable actions of God, Christians have at least some advantage over thisposition in that the Love of God resides within us, giving us some insight intoHis ways. This is not to say we can know all of what God is up to, but it seemsto suggest that we do not have to be completely befuddled. If the Christianmind God has given me seems to rail against something as being not of God, Ihave good reason to think I am right. I should not simply say, well God did itand I have to live with it. I have the privilege to test situations and personsto see if they testify of God or demonstrate evil. Once again, this is not tosuggest that this particular event was not as Piper insists, but it is tosuggest we are given the grace to discern for ourselves if this testimony is ofGod. We do not simply have to write it off.

In the end, Piper’s argument is lacking in many ways. First,his selection of Scripture fails to suggest, as he assumes it does, that Godcontrols all natural events, including disasters. Second, that God would allowevil to befall humans does not mean that he had to cause such. There is nosuggestion that God justifies sin so that he might better us. Instead, in lightof sin, God’s grace works against sins natural tendency to destroy and insteadtakes opportunity to redeem, even though we are the culpable party. Thirdly,while we all will perish, disaster is not proof that God is punishing some forthe sake of others. Instead, as Christ suggests, death is a sobering reminderthat sin is real. Nowhere is this a reminder that God causes sin, evil or all disasters. Finally,Christ came to give life, not to take it away. Moreover, if Christ were thecause, who are we to go against his action in order to restore the devastationby giving to Samaritan’s purse.

So, I say again:

Try again. -TM

Losing Traction: Part Two, Reviewing Bass’s Take Upon the Decline

2012-03-01T12:01:00.002-05:00

In my last post, I acknowledged the admittedly hard, coldfact that the American Church is on the decline. In my personal experience as aChristian minister, I can tell you that this is not a blow to my pride that Imust try to soften as much as I possibly can. Instead, it is a saddening factthat I feel I must expose if there is any hope for the future, not just for thechurch, but for those the church is supposed to impact. We are the salt andlight in a tasteless and dark world. Christians must be concerned for our ownhealth, not for the sake of self, but for the sake of others.

A few days after writing my previous post, “Why is the American Church Losing Traction,” a friend of mine sent me a link on Facebook to anarticle in the Huffington Post. We had been discussing the issue from our owndiffering perspectives, and here was yet another perspective from a differingpoint-of-view. While we all disagree on the “why,” we all acknowledge the “what,”the American Church is spiraling downward.

The title of this particular article read: “The End of Church.”* The author, Diana Bass, was also acknowledging the current tendenciesof our American culture to move away from “religion.” Yet, per my last blog, Ibelieve Bass’s title to be a bit premature. First of all, while the church inAmerica is certainly on the decline and will be on the margins by the year 2050if current tendencies hold, certainly we cannot assume that we are seeingoutright extinction. Moving from the social norm to a small minority is onething; total nonexistence is another. Now, this might be a Christian minister’sattempt to be optimistic. I hope not.

Second, and perhaps more pertinent, I must once again note,mainstream writers are intent on focusing on the decline here, while failing toacknowledge Christianity’s exponential growth elsewhere. Even while theChristian community is losing numbers in one area of the world, namely here inthe United States, it is growing at such a rate elsewhere that the faith as awhole is actually increasing. Let me be clear, this is not just “church talk.”I am not just repeating some cliché idea you hear bantered about the halls ofchurch, “Well, you’ve heard of the conversions in Africa haven’t you. Thousandsa day!” While this might sound like ungrounded Christian optimism, according topeer-reviewed research in the realm of academia, the hard numbers demonstrate agrowth. Thems the facts, as they say.

In other words, the terms “end” and “death,” which are usedthroughout this article, are a bit premature at best, and can be verymisleading at worst. Yet, this does not negate that the church has a problemright here right now, and Bass has some very interesting comments to make thatwe should consider. While I assume Bass and I would almost certainly disagree upon manytopics such as the nature of Christianity and the direction in which the faithshould move, we are seeing the same data, and some of the information shebrings to light helps shed light upon my last post. So, let’s dig in.

The first statement that caught my attention was spot-on and rife withirony: “For decades, mainline Protestants have watched helplessly as theirmembership rolls dwindled, employing program after program to try to stop thedecline.” I would only add to this that, along with programs, the church isalso resorting to marketing. The United Methodist Church, the denomination thatI officially belong to as a lay man (not my ordaining body), has for some yearsnow tried to regain its status in America through commercials and sloganeering:“Open Hearts, Open Doors, Open Minds.” Such attempts have not proven fruitful.It is not that the church has just not figured out the right marketing strategyor program, it is that people are not looking for such. In fact, it is theprogramming of which persons are so annoyed. Persons do not want programs;programs that came to replace church education and practice, are the exactproblems that have caused our decline in the first place. So using suchprograms in order to draw persons in is quite ironic. People are looking for afaith that changes life, a point Bass makes and one that we will discusspresently. Speaking about labels, Bass states:

Americans are extremely warm toward "spiritualbut not religious" (30 percent) and, even more interestingly (and perhapsparadoxically), the term "spiritual and religious" (48 percent).While "religion" means institutional religion,"spirituality" means an experience of faith. Large numbers ofAmericans are hankering for experiential faith whereby they can connect withGod.

While the tenor of Bass’s entire article seems to suggest that the movements of American sensibilities uponreligion are new, exciting, and evolutionary, I would argue that the want for“experiential faith” is nothing new. Moving back only a few centuries, we cannote that John Wesley often spoke of Christianity, at its core, as being an “experimentalfaith.” While there is no need to examine the full etymology of the term“experimental,” it is obvious from its use by this 18^th centurythinker that the word he would use today would be “experiential.” The NewTestament clearly demonstrates Christianity as a new way of life. The movementof the church to devolve into merely an institution of programs and marketingis the emerging church. If we do move towards a more experiential faith, itwill not be an evolving, but purification from “progress.”

In the above quote Bass also demonstrates that the average American isnot simply becoming irreligious and naturalistic. It is not as if Americanshave a sense of evolving as persons who understand faith as outmoded andacademically inferior. In fact, there is a large faction of persons who stillwant for spiritual connection. It is not simply that Americans are through withfaith in things unseen. If it were the case that deepening knowledge has madeour want for faith superfluous, pluralism would not be on the rise. Instead,the trend would simply be a shift to atheism and naturalistic thought: “But,”as Bass points out, “nearly half of Americans appear to hope for a spiritualreformation -- or even revolution -- in their faith traditions anddenominations.” Instead of leavingbelief in a deeper reality behind post-modern persons are simply dabbling invarious faiths, trying to fill their need for a deeper connection, and wherethe church is more attentive to real needs, instead of denominational concerns,progress is made.

There are successful individualcongregations -- Catholic or Protestant, mainline or evangelical, liberal orconservative, small or large -- everywhere. But the institutional structures ofAmerican religion -- denominations of all theological sorts -- are in a freefall…Theyare still trying to fix institutional problems and flex political muscleinstead of tending to the spiritual longings of regular Americans…Americans arenot rejecting faith -- they are, however, rejecting self-serving religiousinstitutions.

Bass seems to point out an interesting fact, and I wonder if there isanother possible outcome that this could produce beyond Bass’s assumption of anending of the church. While I do not believe Christian-based faith communitiesthat have a deep desire for experiential faith are new, they might be relativelynew in America, although, as I alluded to earlier in mentioning Wesley, such apresence has existed in America before, at least during the early Methodistmovement. Maybe, instead of an end, some persons are leaving denominationalismin hopes that “self-serving” church institutions will catch a hint that peopleare hungering for something much more authentic, and the church will remergestronger than before. This has happened in Australia. According to aconversation I had with Brian Edgar, a Christian ethicist in Australia, whiledenominations still exist in Australia, persons do not decide on attending achurch based on the name over the door. Instead, persons test the churches onan individual basis. In other words, people go to churches that promote trueChristian life, not denominationalism. Perhaps, and I simply say perhaps, ifthe church in America can realize this truth, that it is not about marketing orprograms, but about experience, then maybe there is hope for the church. I donot think this is absolutely outside the realm of possibility. As Bass pointsout, there are individual churches within many traditions that are successful.

In the end, Bass suggests that our present culture “expresses agrassroots desire for new kinds of faith communities.” In one way, I find thisstatement oxymoronic, especially when the author seems to be simply equatingthe American church with Christianity as a whole. How can we be expressing a“grassroots” desire for something “new”? On the other hand, I can agree thatmany American persons are craving something that can be largely unavailable inmany mainline churches today, a promotion of experiential faith. As I stated inmy last blog, one of our biggest problems is our lack of want to theologicallyeducate our communities on what it means to be a Christian. Instead, we justgive them things to do, programs as it were. This is entirely lacking. Personsdo not inherently know how to live within a culture. They must be taught. Thechurch has an ontological responsibility to teach others what it means to liveout the faith.

*Bass, Diana.(Feb.18, 2012). “The End of Church.” Huff Post Religion, Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diana-butler-bass/the-end-of-church_b_1284954.html

My Audrey’s Little “Uh-Oh:” From Utter Sadness to Sanctification

2012-02-13T10:12:00.003-05:00

Have you ever experienced one of those moments when youremotions overwhelmed you in a time you would never expect them to do so? Thathappened to me last night while I was lying in bed with my wife and daughter. Ifound myself extremely sad. Along with the sadness, I felt a sense ofembarrassment, assuming if someone knew what warmed the tears in my eyes, he orshe would find the cause extremely silly. The event seemed so out of place atthe moment that I did not even mention it to my wife, maybe for the concern Imight just lose my grip entirely if I spoke of the reason my heart was meltingin my chest.

“Uh-oh, Mommy…. Uh-oh, Daddy…” I hear these phrases utteredfrom my daughter’s lips more times in a day than I care to count. Usually,Audrey voices her concern with this phrase when she drops something, bumps herhead, or the like. In other words, she is recognizing, at nineteen months, amistake, something that should not or does not have to be, “Uh-oh…” So there welay, the three of us in the bed, because Audrey is ill and cannot find comfort.She is tossing and turning, and I cannot do anything to help. That was badenough, but what happened next absolutely broke my heart.

As she tossed and turned, she whimpered, her congested chestand sinuses making lying down in any position uncomfortable. Then she tugged ather ears and said, “Mommy, ears… ears, Mommy…” It was obvious that she was inpain. Maybe the congestion was taking its toll on her sinuses so much so thatit was putting pressure on her ears. It might have not been related to hersickness at all. She is, we think, also cutting here two-year molars, justadding insult to injury. Whatever the cause, she was suffering. In the grand schemeof things, this is no big deal. All babies fall ill sometimes, and they all cutteeth. But it was the reaction of her innocence that broke me down to sadnessand even anger if I am honest.

“Uh-oh, Mommy… Uh-oh, Daddy…” As she tugged on her ears, shekept expressing her feelings with the phrase, “Uh-oh.” Think about the wordchoice. She knows “ouch,” and she also knows how to express pain by simplycrying. Instead of choosing to say, “Ouch, Mommy… Ouch, Daddy,” instead ofsimply crying, she chose to say, “Uh-oh.” In other words, “This pain I feel isnot natural. It is a mistake. Something is simply wrong with this situation.” Iam not being overly sensitive here. I know my daughter, and I believe at thedepths of my being, this is what she was communicating. As I said, in the lightof all the real suffering in the world, this was nothing: A little Tylenol, andpresto! She feels better. But the simple fact that she hurt isn’t the rub here;is it?

As elementary alevel as it might have been, my daughter came to recognize and express the humancondition in her little, heart-felt, “Uh-oh.” She knew that the pain she was feeling was not right. It didnot have to be so. What breaks my heart all the more is that, while sherecognizes it does not have to be so, she does not know why it is now the casethat it is so. While she feels it in her being, she still, in some years to be,has to come to know our fall, a reality I do not want her to come to know. Shehas to learn of her exile from Eden. My heart melted in the knowledge that thisis just the beginning of my daughter coming to know that all is not right inthe present reality, and anger even filled my heart as I realized that sin isso pervasive that it will not leave her alone with a cold and tooth ache.

It took some time of real grief and anguish, but oh the joythat continues to fill my heart when I realize she will also hear the good newsof Jesus Christ and His love for her. No one can take that away. The cruciformheart that led Christ to the cross, which is the same heart at the core of theFather and the Spirit as well, loves Audrey in her brokenness, like this heartloves every child born into this broken world, and one day, when she choosesHim for her Lord, her little “uh-ohs,” will become, “halleluiahs.”

I know this: As my heart melted in my chest from Audrey’slittle “uh-ohs,” God’s heart melted as well. I am a father, but He is theFather. The goodness dimly reflected in my love, shines forth from Him at everymoment. What my fatherly love draws to the surface of my broken heart isalready at the core of His. In her little cries, I am sanctified, becoming moreand more like my heavenly Father. My selfish heart fades away, as all myconcern and love is lavished upon Audrey. God hears our cries, but He need notbe moved to tears to be pulled from selfishness into outwardly focused love.This is just Who He is, and it is who He is making me in the most unexpectedways.

I can only hope that my heart would continue to bleed inlove for the hurting children of the world, the hurting children in all of us.It is in the furnace of this love, the love afforded to us by His grace, thatwe are purified. As much as it hurt, I am glad that I was not too obtuse to hearthe depths of her little “uh-oh.” It was not merely a recognition of pain, butof hurt on a deeper level, a recognition that not all is right. I can hardlywait for the day that I share with her the love that calls her out of thisreality into His great adoption.

Lord, continue to sanctify me unto entirety through thelittle “uh-ohs” of the world. Amen

Why Is The American Church Losing Traction?

2012-01-26T20:30:00.000-05:00

“We have to learn how to evangelizeand plant churches again, and do it from the prophetic margins, not the center,of culture.” –Dr. Timothy Tennent

I was first introduced to the term ‘Christendom’as a referent to any place in which Christianity has pervaded culture due to adense Christian community when I read “The Next Christendom” by Larry Jenkins.These communities are those in which Christianity does not exist on themargins, but is a majority view highly acceptable by persons of that region. Ina more strict sense, the sense I was more familiar with, this term refers to anofficial church state, but the broader term, in relation to the more narrowedsense, makes a great, correlating claim about the area being considered.

If we are labeling a state or nationwith the term ‘Christendom,’ even while that country is not officiallyChristian by governmental proclamation, we are saying much about what we thinkthis area of the world is like, and we are saying it is something like theofficial states in some sense. First, as stated above, we are suggesting thatthis is a place where Christianity is highly accepted and even assumed to besocially superior to other religions or worldviews. Moreover, since this is astate in which Christianity is not persecuted, it is a place where Christianscan relax and interact openly in politics and cultural decisions as aChristian. It is a place where being a Christian, in an openly religious senseis not difficult.

As nice as this is, it does come withdangers, and this is where I think lumping these sorts of nations in withofficial church states is fitting. Tragically, being declared Christian by associationwith a certain culture leads to nominal Christianity and to an erosion ofevangelical priorities. Whether one is declared Christian in the Constantiniansense, or one adopts Christianity because it is a social norm, a muddling ofchurch and state can lead to true faith taking a back seat. Note that I am notsaying that Christendom is or is not a totally negative phenomenon. That is atopic for another time. I am simply pointing out the fact that Christendomcomes with its risks. Social engineering often replaces moral formation, andtrue faith is replaced with religious pretext.

Unfortunately, we are seeing thefallout of a failing Christendom project right here in America. It is not onlyillustrated by the daily decline of evangelical Christianity in the West, aplace where Christianity used to be an assumed reality for almost every citizen.It is seen in the failings of the church in holding our ground due to theblindness of many church leaders to the fact of the condition of our society.There is a glaring neglect for missions and evangelism in so many churchesstill today, even while our part of the world is the fasting growing missionfield in existence.

I have heard so many speak of feelingblessed to have lived in a time when morality in America was taken for granted.While ‘bad people’ were present, the vast majority of Americans had a respectfor one another, at very least as a social pretext. I acknowledge that this wassurely a blessing in a lot of ways, but, in some ways, I feel blessed to havebeen raised during the fallout, where TV is full of pornographic images, evenon regular cable, where men openly treat women like objects, and women speakwith tongues formally reserved for the most base individuals of society.

I certainly do not say this for shockvalue, nor do I delight in the openness in which people of today participate inimmorality. Instead, I see a blessing in the fact that I have not been madedelusional by a past that no longer exists except, perhaps, as a façade incertain areas of the country. Nor am I victim of to that which some of theolder generations fell prey, which is lethargy and negligence due toill-conceived assumptions. Christendom can lead to unwarranted assumptionsconcerning the need for effective evangelism, or lack thereof. In a culture inwhich everyone is assumed Christian, our missional call as the church takes aback seat. This is surely a huge problem here in America.

There was a time in which I almostfell into this line of thinking. I was only a child, perhaps just before thefallout in my area of the world, which might of held on a little longer, but Ican remember coming home from Vacation Bible School in a panic. I figured if Iwere really called to evangelize to the lost like the Bible says I should, Iwould have to become a missionary, because everyone in my world, so I thought,was a Christian. It did not take much time out in the real world for me tobecome disillusioned. Unfortunately, there are those of generations past thatare still living in the past because they do not interact on a social levelwith younger generations that are giving way to pluralism. Instead, these oldergenerations grew up in an assumed Christian culture where missional thinkingwas fanatical or exotic, and church programs and social events replacedeffective evangelism. For many, the church gathering on Sunday morning is as italways has been, a nice sermon, some songs, shaking of hands, and a fillinglunch with acquaintances, and the true state of Christianity and thesurrounding, declining culture is easily ignored. The assumption of a Christiannorm still persists.

For my generation, at least thoseinvolved with the surrounding culture, we can no longer assume, as once was thenorm, that those we engage with on the streets are Christian. Pluralism is onthe rise, and evangelical Christianity in America, as has already taken placein Europe, is on the decline. Older generations who still are involved with thesame friends they have always had, the ones they grew up with, do not see thelash back against Christianity amongst members of my generation, but people myage see it everyday.

Why is Christianity losing traction?In our comfortable Christendom, we lost discipline. Comfort led to nominalreligion. Christian education is almost oxymoronic in many minds. The churchlost much of its missional talent and we no longer have persons who are willingor educated enough to address a non-Christian, post-Christendom world. Frantically,my generation is trying to make up for lost time, the time in which we shouldhave been discipled to have a missional heart and real intelligence.

The church by and large does not knowhow to be on mission right here at home. For too long we took for granted thestate of the culture, and we are having a hard time fighting for the faith inthis postmodern, pluralistic society. We do not know how to live on themargins, to be those ostracized for our opinions, and this only compounds theissue and makes us more and more marginalized. In our blessed comfort, weunwittingly became indolent and forgot catechesis, the raising up of disciplesthrough disciplined, robust Christian teaching.

So, when my friend comes to mefrustrated that his church is more concerned with fixing the television in thesocial hall than they are with working with a failing budget that gives littlein the way of missions, and this friend only sees a sense of entitlement comingfrom an older Christian concerned with secondary concerns over the true missionof the church, my response is not merely to say that this is one bad eggamongst well-intentioned Christians. The question my friend is asking of thischurch leader is a common question that my generation has concerning many ofour superiors: “How can you not see that you are not focusing on the mission ofthe church.” It is a matter of living in two different worlds. We grew upduring the fallout. Many leaders older than us are still living under oldassumptions. It is not a matter of one individual being stubborn or one beingmore intuitive or idealistic. It is a matter of generational assumptions,perspectives, and experiences.

Certainly, we have gained much fromour elders, and many of our elders are just as missionally minded andexponentially wiser than many of my generation. We owe much to those who raisedus up. But, now we have something to offer back, a new perspective, a call toregain our missional purpose. We need to call attention to the real state inwhich our American finds itself. Some truly do not realize how bad it is outthere. All is not lost, but we must fight.

-TM

The Effectiveness of Prayer

2012-01-24T13:58:00.002-05:00

“If God knows all that has ever been, all that is, and allthat ever will be, including the little desires of my human heart, then what isthe logic behind petitioning prayer? How can I change anything?”

This is certainly a human question that arises often in manyof our minds. It is an issue of logic, and logic often serves us quite well.So, it can seem counterintuitive to the logical mind of the devout Christian topetition God for anything. Even so, He asks us to pray nevertheless, evensaying such things as, “Give us this day our daily bread.” In other words,“Lord, please provide for me those things I need for sustenance, for withoutYou, I will perish.”

Now, we might suggest that such a petition is to be givenso that we might remind ourselves of our utter need for God, that prayerbecomes a didactic tool God gives us so that we can verbally acknowledge ourdependency, and this certainly might be the case, but not merely so. Prayer ismore than cathartic; it is effective (I Chron. 28:9; Matt. 21:22; Luke11:9-13; James 5:16).

Now we have reached a seemingly paradoxical reality.Before we pray, God knows all that ever will come to pass. Nonetheless, theBible suggests that our prayer has an actual effect upon reality. A basicresponse might be to suggest that God has answered our prayers beyond eternity,that time as we know it is not a limiting factor upon God.

I have another response to the Christian who questions hisor her need to pray based on a theological understanding of the pervasiveness ofGod’s knowledge and, perhaps, will. While the one making this argument mightwithin his or her own mind be suggesting a limitation on the human end,suggesting that because we are limited by our place in space and time we cannoteffect the decisions of an eternal God, what the person is really suggesting isa limitation in God’s ability.

If we suggest that God’s nature is such that it limits ourability to affect reality through prayer, and yet we note that God says that Hewishes for us to pray, what we are saying in effect is this: “While God mightwish for us to make meaningful petitions, He cannot respond to the prayers offinite man due to His eternal nature.” In other words, God’s nature is alimiting factor upon what He can do. Is this the case? I do not assume so…

Think about it.

The effectualfervent prayer of a righteous man avails much. James 5:16

-TM

God’s Sovereign Election Demonstrates His Grace

2011-11-16T12:14:00.001-05:00

Note to reader: This particular post is very theologically charged and focuses on a very specific stance on certain theological doctrines. This point of view can best be categorized as Wesleyan. I often reserve such posts for a separate blog site, but I am making an exception this time for several reasons. If you do not feel that you can read such commentary without offense or the like, I recommend skipping this particular post. This is meant to spur on healthy thinking, even if the reader does not agree with my point of view.

Some time ago, I watched a video posted on an oldacquaintance’s blog with the title “God’s Sovereign Election Demonstrates HisGlory.” I am probably parodying the points within since it has been well over ayear since viewing the hour long video, and I do not have the time nor patienceright now to review, but, in short, I remember the speaker, Thabiti Anyabwile,suggesting that the ninth chapter of Romans is meant to suggest that, while wemight not wish it so, God is glorified by his choice to pick and choose whodoes and does not go to Hell without any basis in human response orresponsibility. So, he concludes, by the sheer fact that God is in suchcontrol, one should respond in worship. I believe that video was what spurredme on to write a previous blog, “Glorified For Our Sakes,” in which I arguedthat God needs not be glorified by us yet chooses to be so that we might beblessed. I guess this blog is somewhat a continuation of such.

My concern for such topics was once again ignited when Iheard another famous pastor pointing out, to the chagrin—so he suspected—ofmany of his audience members, that election can be found throughout the Bible,and such stories demonstrate that God’s grace certainly is not based on meritof any sort. His main example comes from the OT, which was the topic of histalk, and revolves around the election of Israel, especially some of Israel’smain figureheads. He began withAbraham and pointed out that Abraham was doing nothing to merit God’s election.Instead, it was by God’s initiative that Abraham was chosen. Likewise, Godchose Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau. Certainly, these are biblicalexamples of God’s sovereign election. No theologian of any orthodox stripe shouldfind offense to such. However, this pastor also invoked the name of JohnCalvin, which gives the term election a certain spin does it not? Now, in themind of the listener, this preacher is suggesting that God elected thepatriarchs and Calvin taught election, and, therefore, this proves Calvin right.

So, does that settle it? Does God’s individual election ofthese Israelite leaders prove that there is such a thing as Calvinisticelection, predestination typified by double, individualist election of who goesto Heaven or Hell merely based on God’s pleasures, or is there more to the factof God’s election of these patriarchs? If we are going to use these patriarchsand there counterparts (those who God passed over in order to choose theseindividuals) as our examples of election and/or double predestination, then letus also get at the heart of what the Bible says about God’s choosing thesepersons.

Let us begin at the logical starting point, the Patriarch,Abraham. God certainly plucks an unsuspecting man from history with no coercionon the part of the human individual, and if this was all the information wehad, we might rightly conclude that all there is to being of God is His mereelection, unbiased and without basis. However, the Bible makes it clear thatwhile God’s election is necessary and is certainly of His own accord, it is notthe only factor, as if election was an ends within itself to gathering up apeople for His own. No, it is a means with another end. While God’s election ofthese individuals certainly has profound consequences for the electedindividual, God uses election for a further purpose:

Now the LORD had said to Abram:

“Get out of your country,

From your family

And from your father’s house,

To a land that I will show you.

I will make you a greatnation; 

I will bless you 

And make your name great; 

And you shall be a blessing.

I will bless those who blessyou, 

And I will curse him who curses you; 

And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

(Genesis 12:1-3 NKJV)

Here the Lord’s election of Israel is played out in real humanhistory. The Lord is choosing Abraham, at this time known as Abram, and iscalling Him to be set apart for the Lord. But, is this being set apart, leavingall that he knows, simply for the fact of being set apart. The Bible clearlysays, “No.” God has elected Abraham for a purpose beyond individualpredestination. God has chosen Abraham to be a blessing to “all the families ofthe earth” through a great nation that will come from his seed. So, yes,election of the patriarchs continues. Not only is Abraham chosen, but also ishis son Isaac, and Isaac’s son Jacob. Can you guess what happens when Godchooses these men? He promises them the same promise He promises to theirfather, Abraham (see Genesis 26:1-4, 23-25; 28:14). To all these men Godsuggests that they will be blessings. God’s election of individuals throughoutScripture then is surely to be seen as a blessing to the individual, but moreimportantly, it is to be seen as a blessing to the world, not an in your face,“the elect are in and you are out” statement.

Three elections come to mind when I reflect upon the great blessing ofGod’s sovereign election. Thefirst election that comes to mind is the election that was mentioned andsparked this whole blog, the election of Israel. Israel was certainly electedas an unassuming people. They were slaves. They had not merited any right ofelection. They were not overly pious people seeking the Lord at the time oftheir deliverance. No, they were simply making bricks, but God had chosen themlong before they had even became a people, and not simply from whim. God hadchosen them for a purpose that He soon reveals to them.

Picture the scene. A group of slaves have just been delivered from thehands of their oppressor by feats of strength only the Most High could perform.The supposed God-man pharaoh has fallen, and the people of Israel have donenothing but follow the Lord to gain refuge. They are at the foot of Sinai withno reason to boast in themselves, and God reveals His purpose in election:

In the third month after the children of Israel had gone out of theland of Egypt, on the same day, they came to the Wilderness ofSinai. For they had departed from Rephidim,had come to the Wilderness of Sinai, and camped in the wilderness. SoIsrael camped there before the mountain.

And Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from themountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell thechildren of Israel: ‘You have seenwhat I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings andbrought you to Myself. Nowtherefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then youshall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth isMine. And you shall be to Me akingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which youshall speak to the children of Israel.” (Exodus 19:1-6)

God has thus reminded Israel that it was He alone that brought Israelto Himself. Once again, God not only points out that He has elected, but alsoreveals his purpose for such: “And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priest and aholy nation.” Israel has a role and purpose to play. They will serve as priest.In other words, the nation of Israel, through their holiness, shall be God’smeans of mediating His blessings to all the nations of the earth, for “thewhole earth is mine,” says the Lord.

Before we discontinue our discussion of Israel's election, I must, onceagain, address the original discussion that sparked this whole conversation. ThabitiAnyabwile suggested that Romans 9 is a demonstration of God’s sovereignelection of some individuals over others (Calvinistic election), a factAnyabwile thinks we Christians must come to grips with. However, from what wehave been reviewing, it does not seem that election has always if ever beenused as an end within itself for Israel or individuals within, and Paul iscertainly addressing issues concerning Israel in chapter 9 of Romans (see vv3,4). In fact, as Mr. Wesley points out in his NT commentary, individualistic,double predestination is far outside the scope of Paul’s purposes here. Paul isaddressing the concerns of many who say of Israel, God’s means of salvation,redemption through Christ, seems to fail many of Israel since they do notbelieve. But, as Paul points out, God’s Word has not failed as some assume. Itis not as if God was simply scrapping Israel and starting over with the church.Israel, through election, was meant to serve a purpose bigger than themselvesand they had and were still serving that purpose. In fact, Christ came fromIsrael, the greatest blessing of all. Paul is defending the election of God andits effectiveness to serve its purpose, blessing the world. If there are thoseamong Abraham’s physical progeny that are willingly rebelling, they are nottruly Israel, who had been called to be holy so that others would know God asholy. So, their place in God’s fold did not merely depend on God’s election ofAbraham’s physical offspring, but upon their response to such. Only thefaithful remain, thus God’s words in His original covenant ring true: “…if you willindeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasureto Me above all people.” Thus, Paul is not here focusing on Calvinistic,individual predestination at all, but whether or not God can be understood asfaithful to Israel, even when His decisions seem to be precise and some vessels,individuals within the nation, are used for greater purposes over others. Paulsuggests that God is faithful and who are any of us to say, “Well, if you wouldhave just willed for me to be as great as so-and-so, I would believe.” Electionis not merely about who is in and who is out, but who will be the one to bestfulfill God’s will in election. So, once again, election is God’s means ofmercy, mediated to the families of the earth, and Paul is out to defend such. Muchmore could be said about the individual arguments of Romans 9, but I have donethat elsewhere and we need to move on.

The second election that comes to mind is that of the church: “But youare a chosen people, a royal priesthood,a holy nation, God’s specialpossession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darknessinto his wonderful light” (I Peter 2:9). Like Israel, God has chosen the churchto be His, but, once again, this is not an end in itself. There again is apurpose for our election. We called to be a priestly nation, a holy nation thatshines light into a dark world. Our calling is not simply a blessing for us,but a blessing for others, a blessing for the lost and hurting world who findsitself in darkness.

The final election that comes to mind and speaks volumes to thepresent discussion is that of Jesus Christ who “was chosen before the creationof the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake” (I Peter1:20). This verse really speaks for itself. The Father did not choose Christ sothat only Christ would be blessed through this election. He was chosen andrevealed for our sakes. In Christ, the predestined one, those who repent andbelieve find their redemption.

In the end, election is God’s means to bless the world. Throughelection, grace is poured out, not merely on the individuals elected forcertain purposes such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus. Those who are chosenare given a great responsibility, to mediate God’s grace to others as priest,Christ being our High Priest. So,when preachers see election in the OT, there is no need to give a wink to thosewho cringe at the idea that God gives some no grace to choose Him. There is noneed to mention Calvin in passing, so as to suggest, “Well, although I do nothave the time to explain all the passages here, election is evident, and,therefore, Mr. Calvin must have been right.” The question is not whether or notGod uses election. The question is, “for what purpose does He do so?” It is todemonstrate His grace. We should give Him all praise and glory, for election,even when viewed through this lens, proves our need for God. Without Hismediation of grace, we have no hope. He alone decided we could receiveredemptive grace, and we all have been given a blessed opportunity to receivegrace through those He has elected: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Israel, the Church,the Disciples, the Apostle Paul and Jesus Christ.

As your Wesleyan friend, I implore you: Praise God for His sovereign election!

The Missional Church (Part 2): Identifying Our Gifts:

2011-09-01T11:05:00.000-04:00

Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. -I Corinthians 12:1-14

I hope that any given gathering of believers has a wide variety of members that encapsulate what it means to be eyes and ears and feet and hands, and, for that matter, armpits and ankles, and so on and so forth, and I suspect that this is a reality for most churches that have a thriving congregation. With this as a reality, the local church has the ability to do many and varied tasks that promote the kingdom. It is my prayer that we (i.e. each local church) would have a robust and well-rounded view of our mission as the Church (i.e. the body of all believers), and that we would be mindful of all the parts of the body and their talents as we pursue and follow the missio dei. This is certainly a priority given to the local church and its congregants by Paul (I Cor. 12:1-14), and we need to be ever mindful of it.

With our diversity in mind, the local church needs to be well rounded. However, is it the case that each local congregation has to do all the tasks that their neighboring congregations perform, as if we are in a competition? While I believe wholeheartedly in the need for a well-rounded body, I also find myself believing more and more that each local community has its own strengths that others do not. In other words, it is perhaps the case that while one congregation is filled with people of various talents so that we find all sorts of varying body parts within, when these parts come together as a whole within the local body, the whole, which is still a part of a much larger body (the universal Church), might best be described as a body part, having a few great strengths, rather than a lot of average strengths. I hesitate here to give an example because I hope that each church would be able to find for itself its own unique strength that could contribute to the whole, and I in no way wish to influence the discovery of such a call and gifting.

Certainly, no church should ever settle by saying, “Well, we have this down and not that, and we are satisfied with feeding our strengths and ignoring our weaknesses.” I certainly am not suggesting we ignore our weaknesses. If a church feels it can ignore any facet of ministry that might utilize one part of the body over others, then there might be several people in the congregation that have their unique gifting ignored. Even so, there is nothing wrong with admitting that, as a whole, the church body can be used most efficiently for this or that Kingdom task. I am merely saying we come to grips with our strengths and try our best to serve others (individuals or other local bodies) in these areas that might not be as strong in that given area. There are certainly varied attributes that should be held by all local bodies, and this is not a denial of this fact. I am merely speaking of those gifts God gives above and beyond the general gifts promised to all who are faithful. Let me see if I can show the practicality of what I am musing about at this moment:

For the past several years now, I have been involved in a project to raise awareness for the needs of the Navajo Nation and its people. Some time ago, I felt God speaking to me and asking me to stop with my normal pitch, which involved sharing with various church and organization leaders all of the various good deeds my organization was able to provide to these people, which was geared to convince others to support our own efforts, and, instead, God asked me to share the overwhelming issues that we (as a small organization) are unable to touch. So, instead of asking for assistance in the form of support for what is already being done, I was commissioned to ask for help for the Navajo apart from what we were able to do. When God first asked me to change my approach, I was a bit frustrated and did not understand why He would ask such, but I reluctantly followed, and I was often met with the same question.

Although in years past I have found this question to be quite ligament and still find it has its place, I have nonetheless found it increasingly strange for a church leadership to only ask others who are looking for missional assistance: “So, what do you want from us?” As one who has been asked this question several times now, I find it somewhat cutting. It carries with it, most of the time unintentionally, a sense of superiority. Once again, this is not to say the question does not have its place, but, perhaps, it could be reworded to be more servant oriented: “How can we be of help?” Even still, I find this question, no matter how it was framed, frustrating in light of the new approach God had given me.

Before I share why this question became increasingly frustrating, I must make certain I am not heard as saying it is totally without warrant. Certainly, this question might reflect the reality of the reason the person who comes soliciting church leaders is asking for help in the first place. In other words, the person might be coming with a particular need in mind, such as financial support, and it helps to prevent beating round the bush. This question swiftly moves all involved to put all their cards on the table. The Church need not waist its time tiptoeing. But, what I often found is that, while I did my best to convince others I was not looking for direct support, unless that group felt led above and beyond my petitioning to do so, I was still heard as asking, “Support us,” instead of “Support the Navajo in the unique and special way God has given you, if He has indeed given you such gifts.” Much of the time, certainly not all the time, I was speaking past my audience because they had a preconceived notion of what I was looking for. So, the question should be asked, and if that is what the person is looking for, then the cards are down, but perhaps, that is not what is being asked, and the conversation needs to continue by a discussion that demonstrates the local church’s understanding of its own call and unique gifting to help promote the Kingdom.

So, why was the question: “How can we help?” so unhelpful to the particular pursuit I was engaged in? Simply put, that was the question I was asking them. God was not interested in my sharing what we were doing so that the local body would know what they were supporting if they simply donated. He was interested in me presenting the issues beyond our control so as to say, “Does this church know of a way to move towards assistance in this or that area that we at my organization have no means to assist in at this time?” I would much rather hear the answer, “We do not feel called to help the Navajo, but we will pray that God calls out a group to assist them with their needs,” instead of “We do not think we can help you at this time.” Believe it or not, I was their asking on behalf of a needy people, not on behalf of a Christian organization looking to improve their own efforts in assisting others.

So, what am I trying to say? What was God trying to teach me by having me present these issues to church leaders, instead of giving them precise ways I, and the organization for which I work, planned to help? I think He was, at least in part, trying to share something of a need within the church on local levels: If the church has a very well-rounded understanding of its own strengths as part of a much greater whole, the leaders might best serve other’s of the greater body and the causes they present by being able to truly say: “We cannot do everything, but we certainly can help with this or that area.” Even here I do recognize that churches can become stretched too thin, even in areas of strength. However, if the body being asked for assistance cannot physically or financially support, I cannot help but think they could, if they knew their own gifts well, help those looking for help, by teaching them to strengthen their own body in this area by saying, “While we know how to help, we cannot physically do so without weakening the areas of ministry we are already involved in, but we would be honored to help you think this through and teach you what we have learned in this or that area of which we are very proficient.”

I certainly do not think this is outside the scope of Paul’s purpose for speaking of gifts and our need as local bodies to recognize that God gives us unique gifts for a specific purpose. While I recognize here that Paul is speaking about individuals, his argument is based on the fact that the individuals are part of a larger body. If this is at least one of his premises for arguing for the individual accepting his uniqueness as part of a bigger whole, I simply wish to use that same premise as it applies to the local church, which is certainly a part of a much, much larger whole. Isn’t it likely that He gives us these unique gifts so that collectively we can complete a specific purpose as well? Our church will most certainly be more affective if we know who we are and what we are called to do. This is not to neglect that each local body has callings that are shared by all local bodies, but it certainly is not limited to the general call, and the general call is certainly not an all inclusive call so that each church must do this or that at every turn. It is not as if we are failing in our outreach if we do not have a mission for every single need that exists. How wonderful would it be if local bodies would share one with another, “Here are our strengths so that if one local body was presented with a need that they where not called or equipped to help, they could tell the seeker: “We know where to send you for help!” Could you imagine what a larger community that houses such local bodies would look like? Instead of having ten churches all serving the food bank and none serving the women’s shelter, the community’s needs are met by the larger church working as a body made up of cohesive parts…

Just something I have been considering…what do you think?

The Missional Church: A Reflection

2011-08-22T13:38:00.024-04:00

Recently I have heard a lot of discussion swirling about in evangelical circles that suggests that the Church needs to refocus its idea of its own purpose and identity. Church leaders, in light of the burden brought about by the current confusion that suggests that the church is a place and is run and cared for by a select few, are now on a mission to reorient the lay persons' minds to the radical truth that the church is not a place, but exists as the community of all believers, that its purpose hinges upon all our participation. With this in mind, I want you to watch a quick yet moving video that demonstrates the church leaders’ attempts to refocus and reorient the body:

What if…? What if we actually mobilized like this and acted as the early church, organically. I hope that this reality really catches on. I hope our church leaders are successful in their endeavor to promote this Kingdom work that reflects the missio dei. I will pray until we find success through His grace and power. Will you join me?

...On the other hand...

Now that I have shared my heart on the issue, I hope you will hear my earnest plea to not take what I am about to say as a critique of what our leaders are doing through this message. I am merely trying to promote a proper understanding of what is being said.

In light of this video, and in light of what church leaders are saying concerning “how we do church” today, it can become easy to become cynical concerning what we still do on Sunday morning (worship, listening to sermons, serving in childcare-see note at end for a deeper look at this issue). If we are being told as a congregation that we have the wrong idea of church, we might miss the point and think that Sunday morning service is the issue. Sunday morning service does not sum up church, but it is a part of church, a part of what we do, gathering.

So often in the history of the church, reformers, as they are called, have come to bring a corrective to the body’s mindset, to call the church back to its rightful place and purpose. Usually these reformers are acting because of some extreme shift church leaders have allowed and perhaps even encouraged to happen that molds the church body's understanding of itself and its faith in a negative fashion. In an earnest attempt to right the wrong, these God-sent activists preach vehemently about the way the church is behaving, the result sometimes being an extreme shift in the other direction.

This need not happen in this case. In fact, I am of the opinion, right now, that it should not happen. We need not jump out of one ditch into the next. Yet, I am afraid that church member malaise, when and where it happens, might, in some cases (certainly not all, and probably not the majority of the time) stem from a lack of purpose, from a lack of understanding of who we are in light of all the ideas that are floating around. Some might feel that what they do on Sunday mornings matters little in light of the missio dei, and they might develop this understanding from a wrong attitude towards the proclamation that "how we do church" is wrong. They might assume that what is being said is that unless they are "out there" in the world, there service amounts to little. Certainly going out should be a large part of what we do. As the video above suggested, Jesus commands us to, "go," But does this mean that gathering and serving the gathering of believers is not a worthy cause. Certainly not:

And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching. Hebrews 10:24-25

Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith. Galatians 6:10

What I am trying to say is this: What this emphasis on identity seems to suggest is that we do church wrong because we do not understand the identity of the Church. In fact, that is exactly what is being said, as illustrated by the video, which suggests that the Church should look more like a mobilization than a mere gathering of people on Sundays, more of a servant movement than a concert, and certainly there is cause for a shift. Clearly the Church needs to understand that "church" is not a building or a once a week gathering. The Church needs to know it is the Church. We must have identity to properly act. However, does this mean that we must drop everything we are doing on Sundays for this re-visioning? By no means… I certainly do not believe that this is what the church leaders are suggesting. It would make no sense for them to say such while still doing the normal Sunday routine. Instead, I believe what is being called for is a shift in mentality concerning our purpose.

We still need to gather. Gathering is not the antithesis of going. Going is something that needs to be the overflow of our gathering. The idea of “going” stresses the fact that we need to impact the world outside our church walls. But, I think that this stress of going as a means to reach the world can cloud, if we let it, the fact that gathering, as we do, can be impactful, even for those of the world. Our community can be a reflection of something great. Make no mistake. The world watches us, even coming inside our walls to see what we are up to. To better understand what we are doing in the here and now as we gather together, maybe we need a clear vision of where we are going:

What Wright is saying here is that we will be active in the life to come. We will not get a personal cloud with a harp. In fact, Wright points out that we will be leaders in the New Earth. We will have something to do. However, do not be confused; we will lead in the manner that Christ has already demonstrated for us in His first advent, not the way humans are accustomed. Jesus had a radical idea of leadership that certainly did not reflect the Greco-Roman model of leadership of the day. Instead of an idea of absolute, heavy-handed ruling, we will lead through our service to one another. So, what does this have to do with the role of the church in the here-and-now?

What Wright will also say in various places is that the Church is to be a reflection of this reality about the life to come. In other words, our job here on earth is not simply to ensure others will make it to a heaven, which has little to do with what is going on here and now. In fact, the New Testament is clear that heaven is not some ethereal and eternal resting point. Instead, heaven and earth will be joined together, as the Kingdom is consummated. In light of this great fact, we mustn’t forget that we are the representatives of the Kingdom. The good news that Christ shares and has appointed us to share concerns the reality of the Kingdom (Mark 1:15, Matthew 4:23). Our role is to share this reality with the world. In other words, part of what we do now, if not all that we do, is doing Kingdom...

One of the greatest proclamations of the Kingdom of God is the living example of the Kingdom, embodied by believers (Matthew 5:14-16). Through our service, one to another, we exemplify the truth of the Kingdom. When we gather in worship on Sunday morning, we are, if in the right spirit, a glimpse of the life to come. Through servant-leadership, we speak to the world, and we say, “This is how life is to be done, now and forever.”

At the local church gathering that I attend, Saint Simons Community Church, the leaders have been in the pangs of recasting a vision that holds together the truth of our calling: “Reach Up, Reach In, Reach Out.”They are doing exactly what I am musing about above: holding together the reality of gathering together (RI) to worship God (RU) so that me might be ready and refreshed to go out into the world (RO). The leadership has been tirelessly seeking after the body’s heart to capture it and proclaim to it: “We, all of us, are the church.” We are the priesthood of all believers. We must go. We must reach out. We must act. In light of this, I have been reflecting on this call to be better at reaching out, and I have come to the conclusion I hopefully fleshed out above: While reaching out means we go beyond merely reaching up and in, it does not preclude these efforts. Instead, the beginning point of reaching out is reaching up and reaching in. By our worship of God and service to others, we speak to the world in a soft, but clear voice, saying:

“The Kingdom of God is like this, that we love God and love others, and through this love, a radical new way of living is discovered. Don’t you want to be a part?”

Let us not give up on being this picture, but let us be enlivened by this picture so that we might go and make disciples, so that the picture can spread across our globe.

..................................................
A Further Reflection: This blog has already overreached the comfortable reading length for a blog, so, if you are already fatigued, I apologize and suggest you take a break and come back to read the rest. The following is simply an application to the above. It is part of another piece I am working on, but I thought it would fit well with the above:

From "What Good News is This" -Essay by Rev. Tab Miller, TSM Inc:

As the Church, in everything that we do, we act out of one inspiration given by God, to proclaim and demonstrate the good news. It is often the case that we perform service projects and volunteer our time at church because of some sense of obligation, and, at these times, we need to remind ourselves of the truth of the good news, that we, through service, are not merely fulfilling an obligation to help out, but we are reflecting the reality of the Kingdom of God in a lost and broken world, that something has truly happened that has called us to action. Through our care one for another, we show the world another way, the right way, His way.

I know at times people serve in areas such as, let’s say, child care at church, and they might wonder, “What does this have to do with the good news of Jesus Christ," and even a sense of guilt might wash over them when they think, “I could be out there really proclaiming the good news right now, out in a lost and hurting world, and, yet, here I sit allowing people the luxury to sit in a service while I watch their kids. Could we not do better than this? Should we not be out in the world acting instead of shutting ourselves in this building away from the world?” I certainly cannot help but think that this sense of guilt is not proper, but it might be the sense that some gather by many evangelicals' attempt to reorient people away from the idea of the “church, as it exists today.” I think some might be moved to throw the baby out with the bath water. I think that this misunderstanding is damaging to the call of the gospel. So, where is the disconnect? Have we really understood our call if our understanding of the call becomes burdensome instead of exciting.

What we must do at these times is go back to reflecting on the good news, the good news of a kingdom where people do not race to the top to be first, a kingdom where the last shall be first, where people will rule by washing feet. Instead of feeling burdened, live with a Kingdom heart, because, in the Kingdom of God people selflessly serve one another. With this at the forefront of our mind, childcare, that seemingly lowly act of service, becomes a reflection of the heart of the Kingdom, that heart being service. The good news is a radical proclamation of a “now, but not yet” reality. The Kingdom of God resides in the heart of the Church, and we live as resident aliens in the world. When we serve one another, we testify to the world: “The Kingdom of God is like this.”

In light of this reality, it is always beneficial to remind our selves about the radical reality of the good news and why we serve...

My Soul Is Haunted and Hurting for the Navajo

2011-08-10T11:35:00.001-04:00

I woke up this morning and rolled out of bed, taking for granted the quality of sleep afforded me by my tempurpedic mattress. As I sat at the edge of my bed, I wiped my eyes and silently thanked God for the day, taking for granted the fact that I knew God was available to talk and actually wanted to hear from me. I stumbled into the kitchen and poured a glass of water because the air conditioning I take for granted had been so cold throughout the night that my throat was dry. I drank the water from the tap, taking for granted the ease of access and the quality of the contents of my glass. By this time, my body was warming up, and so my stumbling turned into a walk. As I went back into the bedroom, I opened my drawers filled with the multitude of clothes I take for granted. After I was dressed I slipped out the door telling my wife and daughter, those healthy and loving family members I take for granted, that I love them. I hopped into the car filled with the gas that is nearly four dollars per gallon, and, even so, I took for granted, even at such a premium, the fuel that I burnt between home and here at the coffee shop. As I sit here and peer out at the sun light, I am struck by an eerie reality.

The sun that has been pouring out over this little south Georgian island for almost two hours now is just now peering over the ridges of the Navajo Nation’s plateaus, spilling into the valleys, and crashing into the little tin roofs that cover the precious heads of the people called Navajo. For so many, there is no mattress to awake upon. There is no knowledge of the Holy One who wishes to speak with each of them. If water is available, which is not always the case, it is full of uranium and e coli. As they sip the water before passing the cup to their siblings, the heat in the house slowly rises, and the window unit is out today, as it is so many days. Each child goes to his or her designated corner and does not have to dig through piles of clothes to decide what to wear. All that each child owns is right there before him or her in a small stack. It is now reaching temperatures in the nineties, yet one of the young boys slips on his North Face jacket that some kind soul from thousands of miles away sent him at Christmas. It is his prize possession, so he wears it. As he turns around, he sees his mother drinking out of a cup, but he knows it is not water. She’s doing it again, which means he is in charge of taking care of his siblings. There is no car to drive to the nearest hangout. It is just the family, alone in the dilapidated singlewide trailer in the desert. And the sun relentlessly beats at all sides.

It is easy to feel passionate about the peoples of the world right after feeling the spiritual brokenness afforded by a short-term mission. Piety fills the veins and righteous indignation strikes to the bone and shakes us to our core. We shiver when seeing the waste of our own culture, including our own. Resolution to be better sets in. We walk and talk a little bit differently, and this is good. However, those children are still out there, and we are here. Fear sets in because I know the routine. The wound is fresh in my heart, but it will eventually close up, and, while the scar tissue remains, I will become use to it again. I do not want it to close; I want to bleed. Although it hurts, I do not want to forget this pain. The wound beckons me to action; my mind moves a thousand miles a minute, revolving around the needs of the Navajo, but, again, I am here and they are there, and I wonder, timidly, how God is going to use this pain. I have yet been called to move my family to full time missions, but I know the need is there and my heart sinks into my stomach when I think of how forgotten the Navajo really are.I wonder respectfully what God is up to with the Navajo, and the "Whys" fill my mind...

Sunday, I awoke from my post-mission trip crash, and had yet to fully recover. As I walked into the church, I knew my eyes would grow increasingly heavy. I resolved that God would understand if I dozed off here and there. While God understood, my wife did not, and she jabbed her sharp elbow into my rib cage. I came to just in time to hear the preacher introduce a couple who will be moving to Haiti for a life of mission work. As I heard of the call that God had placed on their lives, and the deep understanding they had of God’s mission in and for the world, I began to covet, for the sake of the Navajo, the call they had for the Haitian people. Do not misunderstand what I am about to say. I know God has called these people to Haiti, but I cannot help but wonder. In light of the massive influx of missionaries to places like Haiti and Kenya and China, when is God going to call for such a convergence upon the Reservations of the Native Americans who are as lost, if not more lost, than the peoples of the foreign world. Why are the Navajo so forgotten? They sit in our backyard, hopeless and ignored. HOPELESSNESS. For even very young children like Sabrina, who was fourteen the first time our team reached out to her family and community, suicide seems to be the only option out of the hopelessness they awake to every day. Hopelessness over took this child, and she did that thing most of us find to be unimaginable. I once heard it said that when we wish to ask, “Where is God in this place,” our question should be, “Where are God’s people?” God resides in our hearts, and He goes with us to the far reaches of the world and even to the backyard. Who will God send, or even more to the point, who is God trying to send, and are they listening?

I have been sitting here writing for some time now, trying to express this painfully consuming thought that I just cannot express, because it is more of an emotion than an idea. I am not sure I will ever be able to express what I feel, but I think I can tell you an idea that it elicits each time it washes upon the shore of my heart. This feeling is closely associated with the realization that, while I am home safe and sound, the reservation is still there. It is a real place where real people live, precious people, forgotten people. For so many, it is an uncomfortable home and not a place to visit like it is for me. At this very moment, some two thousand miles away, those precious children are living, breathing, feeling, wanting, and many feel hopeless. Right now, as I think about these children, they are living. Even outside my reach, they still exist. Savannah and Eli are out there, in need of help, in need of love, in need of God, and here I sit, heart broken and bleeding. And I wonder, whom will God send. Is it I Lord? I know He has a plan for the Navajo, and I must take solace in His love and provision, but I am begging you, Oh, Lord, my God, do not allow this wound to close. I wish to bleed.

For now, God has me where He wants me, but He has called me to raise awareness for these forgotten souls, these precious people:

I, the Lord of sea and sky
I have heard my people cry
All who dwell in dark and sin
My hand will save:

I who made the stars and night
I will make the darkness bright
Who will bear my light to them?
Whom shall I send?

Here I am Lord
Is it I Lord?
I have heard you calling in the night
I will go Lord
If you lead me
I will hold your people in my heart

I the Lord of snow and rain,
I have borne my people's pain,
I have wept for love of them,
They turn away...

I will break their hearts of stone
Fill their hearts with love alone
I will speak my word to them
Whom shall I send?

Here I am Lord
Is it I Lord?
I have heard you calling in the night
I will go Lord
If you lead me
I will hold your people in my heart

I, the Lord of wind and flame
I will tend the poor and lame
I will set a feast for them
My hand will save:

Finest bread I will provide
Till their hearts be satisfied
I will give my life to them
Whom shall I send?

Here I am Lord
Is it I Lord?
I have heard you calling in the night
I will go Lord
If you lead me
I will hold your people in my heart

("Here I am Lord" -Dan Schutte)

He is calling, and we must listen. His heart breaks, and ours should as well...

TM

How it happens to be:

2011-07-11T14:30:00.002-04:00

This blog is an addition to the last post…

Since the Scripture is such a large body of work, albeit telling one grand narrative-the narrative of redemption, we do not receive the story in a unified whole, and this is only practical. Instead, we are given bits and fragments to digest. Practically speaking, devotionals, sermons and teachings can only be so long, and we can only read for so long in any given sitting. So, there is no possible way to study Scripture in full at any given time. While we must study in small sections so that we have time to digest what we are trying to understand, it is not practical to only think of our study of the Scripture in bits or fragments. Instead, we should work towards being able to place each bit or fragment we come to reflect upon into a much larger context of the one story line. When we hear a message we should ask ourselves, “Where does this fit into the grand narrative of Scripture?” By asking this question we dive to the root of the issue at hand, and we are able to better apply it to our lives that are to be modeled after God’s great story for our lives. If we are unable to answer the question of how a particular topic fits, we come to realize one of two things. Either what is being taught really does not apply to Scripture and therefore it does not apply to the Christian, or we have yet to understand the fullness of the story, which should not be discouraging in the least, but a motivator to seek more and more. The better our understanding the better we can test the words of those who teach us about Scripture, and the more framework we are able to see in light of the grand story of Scripture, the quicker we learn the importance of the tidbits we receive each time we turn to the word or hear a sermon. The quicker we learn, the quicker we realize we have so much more to learn, a beautiful cycle indeed.

The Need for Christian Identity

2011-06-24T12:05:00.002-04:00

A vision for a step towards church revitalization…

Note: This is a rough draft of a much larger document I am working on, but I wanted to go ahead and share my initial thoughts. Any ideas are welcome. Keep checking for more updates to this particular post

There are countless numbers of voices in our culture that affirm the church needs help, needs reform. To be a little more specific, most of these voices are referring to the American Church, which is simply a portion of the church, but a portion in need of help nonetheless. The voices are certainly not speaking of the Global Church, for it is in light of what the other churches of the majority world are getting right that we can see what we are not getting right. However, we must not assume that the majority world would not benefit from a revival of the American Church. It most certainly would. The stronger the church is across the globe, the stronger our impact will be. The voices are not really speaking about the local church either. However, as I see it, it will be revival in local churches, spurred on by awareness, that will change the overall American Christian culture that is in such desperate need of change. However, just as there exists countless voices crying out for change, there are countless suggestions on how this change needs to happen, and here I sit, wanting to add my voice to the confusion, to a conversation in which that “thing” that needs to change has yet to be agreed upon, because the problem has yet to be fully identified. All we see are the symptoms, the decline of Christian adherents and social morality and the rise of pluralism in an emerging, postmodern culture.

So, why do I think that what I have to say has any more merit than what is already our there? In short, I do not find my ideas any more or less profitable than many voices that are out there. I am sure that there are some that are quite better and others that are not. However, since I have a voice and vision, a voice and vision that I truly feel comes from beyond myself, I need to speak and raise awareness where I can, for what I know does not belong to me, but to the church. I do not find my ideas to be new, but they are ideas passed through my filter, a filter that no one else has, and, in that way, God, through me as His instrument, gives them new life. For what if I, repeating what has already been said, say it in such a way that it finally finds the ears of those who have unwittingly ignored before. Whatever the case, we cannot be idle when we observe problems, especially when we have ideas that we find might be beneficial to the discussion. If we have ideas, we must find a way to give them strength and life, blood and sinew. We must find ways to give feet and hands to those ideas in our minds, even when we as individuals do not find within ourselves the right hands and feet for the job. If the idea is worth anything, there will be someone suitable for the task.

The true key to the issue of our church malaise will be solved, not primarily by words, but by actions. There needs to be a group of people, perhaps a local church somewhere, that gets it right, whatever “it” might be, and in turn wants to share their success with others, not for the benefit of their own local church and its notoriety, but for the benefit of the American Church as a whole. While words are not the primary solution, they may be the catalyst, the fire, to ignite the process, and right now, all I have are words. My hope is to share my concerns with as many as possible, so that someone or some church body will put hands and feet to the ideas given me, that they will take my words, refine them by removing any me that I might have inadvertently left behind, and live them in truth. So, maybe, just maybe, the words to follow will help some ball somewhere to begin rolling. By God’s grace alone…

Time will tell.

I do not imagine there exists one person who has complete knowledge and vision for every aspect needed for growth. Some have more clarity than others. I have quite a little, so that, what I do say should not be heard as if I am giving a full treatise on church revival. There is always another side to any given coin and issues and needs that I will never consider on my own. But, what I do know I do believe in as a means to assist the conversation, and what I do know is this:

The starting point for positive church life is developing and sustaining Christian culture. For people to operate well, they need identity, and one gains identity by relating to his or her own community and culture. The Christian Church cannot merely be part of a culture. It must be a culture itself, a community with its own unique story and purpose. The church has always had the story and purpose; this is not something we need to manufacture. Simply put, the American church just has not paid enough attention at all to the story and purpose of faith, for if we did, church would never be something we merely do, but it would be the primary identity of those who rightly call themselves Christian. For so many Americans, church is something that we happen to do, but the reality should be that for so many Christians, America is somewhere we happen to live. We have not negotiated this reality very well, often times moving to one extreme or other, either hating the world and those in it, or being so much a part of the world that we become indistinguishable from the world.

“Christian culture” denotes that Christians should share in a bond, a bond beyond mere apostolic affirmations (although these affirmations are crucial), but also a bond that lends to true brotherhood through true brotherly love, one for another. In a world that does not share one’s cultural habits or convictions, people find great comfort when they happen to find another who is also an alien from his or her common land. There is something energizing about such discovery, such as when I might find a fellow American while visiting places of the Middle East. The two of us might have never met before, and he might be from Boston while I am from rural Georgia, but, somehow, when we cross paths in a foreign land, we do not feel so alone anymore, as if we have a friend with us now. Our only bond is a common culture, but what a bond it is, and it is a bond that many Christians lack when they, walking as strangers and aliens in the world, cross each other’s paths.

For Americans, it is not an effort to be part of American culture, to know what it means to be American (or to at least have an opinion of what it means). We grow up knowing our identity, learning it as soon as we are able to learn. This is not as true for the Christian searching for a Christian identity, and this is understandable. Before becoming a Christian, what it is to be Christian is completely foreign. Therefore, the convert must learn. It is imperative. There is no other way about it. We must be taught our identity, but this is not as big of an issue as we might at first assume. People long to be a part of their community, even if the community is a new one. People want common identity and brotherhood, and so college students leave their colleges calling themselves by the name of whatever the schools mascot might happen to be and knowing much about the history of the school. When alumni happen to cross paths, while they might have never met before, they often recognize each other by the patriotic colors they happen to wear as part of identifying themselves to their alma mater, and they are not without much to discuss with one another.

The key to all of this, helping the church discover its identity, is information. We must be taught our identity. It does not merely come to us when we receive Christ; we are to grow and must be made into disciples. In other words, and as Dr. Timothy Tennent so succinctly put it in a title of a recent blog post, “The First Step in ‘Making Culture’ is Catechesis.” Too often seekers approach ministers, church leaders, or other persons of vocational ministry suggesting they want to accept Christ and the minister’s response is to pray and send the person on his or her way, maybe adding something about the need to get involved, as an afterthought. However, the primary thing that should be on our mind, and the primary thing upon the minds of the early church fathers who instituted catechesis, should be explanation and clarity. What the seeker really needs is honesty and clarity about what it is that he or she is truly accepting, and this cannot happen in an hour-long counseling session. Christ told us that the way to make disciples is by “…teaching them to observe all things I [Jesus] have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20). This does not seem to be optional. If we want to make disciples, which should be our goal for any seeker ready to accept Christ, we have an obligation to teach them. If they are not ready to learn, they are not ready to accept.

When the seeker comes, have them pray for Christ’s salvation. We need not make obligations to becoming Christian that are not there, but, at the same time, we need them to know that it is an expectation of the church, even our local church, that they grow through learning. It is imperative, and we have let way too many people slip through the cracks. Our churches are full of persons that at one point in time expressed the want to know Christ and yet have never once been to any sort of class or received any sort of true instruction, and they have led mediocre Christian lives, maybe even content in their ignorance. We do not want to tell those in our congregation who do not care to be a part of something completely new, a new culture, that they must leave, but we do need to do a better job explaining the reality of the church to those who attend our local congregations each week. If enough people begin to align themselves with our true identity and culture, then those who are sitting on the fringes content in ignorance will begin to see the movement and will react, maybe not always for the positive, but things will be change for the better overall. People need to be brought out of their ignorance. It is crucial to culture that Christians gain identity.

I have yet to explore how this learning that I suggest is at least part of the solution to the issue of church malaise should look, and I do not think this post is the place to do such. The point of this post is not to give a concrete “how to,” but to cast a vision for the need of proper education within the church. Of course all learning of Truth needs to be understood as coming from God, knowing that it is God that even prepares the hearts of others to learn, but we have a responsibility as well. We are commissioned to make disciples by teaching. The point to all of this is to say that I see a need, and while there are surely many other needs that I have yet to perceive, the need to instruct is imperative and can be enacted at any time, even if we do not have all the other kinks worked out. Teaching (catechesis) does not need to be an afterthought of the church. It must be a top priority for it is Christ’s commission to us as disciples. While it might be true that we change lives, we see conversions, one life at a time, this does not mean that the church does not have a social agenda, a part of this agenda being the uplifting of its own society, its own culture, so that it can be more affective in the world. People need identity to operate effectively, and the church is made up of people. Therefore, go and spread the vision.

Approaching A Lost and Hurting World:

2011-05-23T10:50:00.000-04:00

Note: I am aware that this post is a bit wordy and needs some serious proofing. I allowed a bit of stream of consciousness to take priority over style. I plan to go back and refine this post a bit, but in light of the last blog that urged us to be loving toward the lost and hurting, I wanted to give some practical advice for application. I felt the need to provide advice in a timely manner was more important than refining before posting. Make no mistake, sharing a rough draft is difficult for an English major.

I wanted to dive a bit deeper into some things mentioned in the last blog post. I mentioned the need to reconsider our method by which we approach the topic of homosexuality and the homosexual in particular. We should not buy into the world’s caricature of our approach, a false dichotomy in which Christians either ignore orthodox belief in favor of tolerance or spew hate by condemning and judging the homosexual community. These are certainly not our only two options. When broaching the topic, especially with a homosexual, the Christian must keep in mind that this is a person with feelings and understandings that might not be equal to our own. We are not simply trying to excise a sin from a life, but we are trying to reach out to that life itself. How, then, do we lovingly approach those hurt and in need of Christ yet hindered by a calling to let go of that which they do not want to give up because they cannot yet see the reason to give up that which they have come to understand as a part of their life (In context of the last essay this thing is, but is not limited to, sexual preference for the homosexual. But this can apply to anything that a person of the world puts before Christ)?

There is a right time and place, just as there are wrong times and places. One must make sure the Spirit is guiding and is in the conversation. To imagine any good coming from a Christian who wishes to fully take on the task of explaining Christian ethics that have been instilled in the Christian by the transcendent Spirit of God to a person who is not willing or being made willing to listen is to think too highly of our powers of reason and powers of conviction and too lowly of the need for God’s grace to go out before us. The Scripture seems clear that some persons, who have yet to submit to the Lord, the natural man as they are called, not only will not understand the ways of God, but also cannot understand the way of God (I Corinthians 2:14).

Once again, I must stress that the Spirit must be involved. Therefore, when I suggest that there are times that people will not understand our message, this is not to suggest that Christians should never attempt to explain our position or try to promote them as reasonably as we can without coercion. We are called to proclaim His way, and we are called to move towards seeing His will done on earth as it is in heaven. Often times, it is the case that we should speak forth His truth even to someone who has yet come to have a relationship with God because our vary proclamations, as guided by the Spirit, are the tools God uses to soften the heart of the seeker. However, with this all in mind, there are times when trying to explain God’s way is futile. If we do not feel called to speak, then perhaps God has not yet made this person ready to hear. Be certain to listen for His call to move before acting rashly.

Even when we do feel called, we might not be called to give our full reason, but called to share, in a more pastoral manner, the human need to submit to God. From the Christian perspective, each person is born into a state of self-centeredness and must begin a process of deliverance from such reliance before he or she can obtain the knowledge of the Kingdom of God. In other words, to truly know Christ and His ways is to walk with Him. Before such a walk, full spiritual explanation is not always beneficial. This is nowhere more evident than in the conversation Christ has with the rich young man who cannot let go of the self’s want for riches in order to follow. At this point in the conversation, Christ does not go into a long treatise concerning the evils of the reliance of riches. Instead, He tells the young man that if he wishes to see the Kingdom, he will simply give up his riches. Indeed it is not only explicit evil that man must let go of in order to commit to Christ. Any person, object, idea or the like that one holds as more important than Christ must be given up or at least put in proper perspective. This is seen in Christ instruction for persons to hate their family (Luke 14:26). Of course this is a dramatic statement, but it is deliberative in that it stresses the importance of placing God as first and only in our heart. While we will still love others once Christ is first, our love for others then flows, not from the self, who is selfish and manipulative, but from Him. If there is any one thing that a person decides is too important to give up for Christ’s sake, that thing, no matter what it is, is a hindrance to relationship and has one remain in rebellion against God. It is our roll as followers of Christ to explain this reality boldly, yet lovingly. We do not speak up because we hate, but because we love.

Understanding takes time, but commitment does not demand full comprehension. One does not have to accent to some understanding as to why this or that is not good before coming to Christ, he or she must simply follow Christ, giving up whatever is asked of us for the sake of obtaining life hidden in Christ. This is a matter of trust and not understanding. True understanding cannot happen until the Spirit fully enters the heart, and the Spirit cannot enter when some other thing is in His rightful place as Lord of one’s life. In other words, until God has been given room to work, and conviction is allowed to soften the heart, one cannot come to know God and why He asks of us what He asks of us. It does little good for someone to say, “Before I allow God anywhere near my life, I must understand why He wants to do with it what He wants to do with it.” It does not work that way. God does begin to convict the heart of humanity before acceptance and salvation, but He is still involved and the heart has to be willing to listen to His urgings. There is still interaction, and as long as one runs, He cannot be heard properly.

Even when a self-centered being is beginning to break in light of the revelation that the self’s ways are insufficient, sometimes a straightforward, “this is why you should not do this or that” is not the proper approach, for they are not quite ready to go so deep. Basic steps are often needed before bigger steps can take place. Instead, a loving approach in which one simply encourages the seeker to trust, to trust that God knows best and that he or she will be fulfilled despite giving up one’s self-wants, might be the best approach. In the end, we all come to realize in light of spiritual maturity that there are several areas of life that we do not at first understand why we must give up, and there are even areas of life we do not realize are sinful until we have spent some time walking with the Lord. If this is true for all Christians, then every Christian should be understanding when one is frustrated and even hurt by the idea that God would want one to give up something the individual has come to feel affection for.

Even though, for discernment’s sake, we might choose to limit our conversation on how we feel upon this or that, focusing on the love of God, this should not ever lead us to feel ashamed of our beliefs. If asked, we should feel able and willing to tell the truth about our beliefs. Often times, Christians who adopt a platform of love and acceptance for the sake of the hurt and infirmed of the world, begin to let this tactic be harmful to their convictions instead of being a proper expression of discernment. I have often taken note of the psyche of pastors, whose focus to be inclusive to all people, showing the good new is for all. At first they simply begin with that good messages of acceptance for all who repent and turn to God, but, as their fame leads them into the public spotlight, they allow their passion for the message of acceptance to bring shame to the truth of the exclusive nature of Christ’s message, that He is the only way. While Christ’s message is for all, it is a narrow way. We must not allow our approach, becoming all things for all people, to begin to reshape our convictions. We must not be like those pastors who shudder and stutter when a non-believing talk show host asks if he or she needs to accept Christ’s message to be saved. If we really care for that person, we must be bold.

Remember it is the Spirit’s role to convict, not ours. While we may and should remain firm in our conviction, in the end, all the yelling back and forth about why this or that is wrong or not does very little good. While deeper relationship that is being promoted by the Spirit might one day lead a Christian to share exactly why he or she affirms this or that as something that must be given up for Christ, the starting point should be one of understanding, sympathy, and love. Our role is to share what Christ has done for us and what He has taught us. It is not our job to force an opinion on another. Once our case has been made in love, it is then the Spirit’s job to work on that person’s heart. If the Christian sharer begins to try to convict, He or she is stepping in the way of the Sprit’s work. Once the case has been made, it is not our job to rub it in, but to support the one who hears, for conviction can be a painful experience, and we all need someone present when we are in pain. Simply put, many times all one needs to hear is that no matter how they feel at a certain point in time, God’s will still demands us to let go, and this letting go, whether we see it this way or not, is for our benefit and will be rewarded by God who wants to be first, not because He is selfish, but because He knows what is best for us. We need to be those persons who remind others that we too know the pain of letting go of our selfishness, for all of us at one point or another must let go to be His. The pain should not be lost on us. We should be sympathizers strong in our convictions not condemners strong in our judgment, and never allow our need to be sympathizers strong in conviction be confused with tolerators strong in our self-righteousness.

In sum, Christians do not have to accept the world’s options of letting go of conviction or remaining bigots. We can be loving while firm in our convictions. We must remind ourselves that the Spirit is and always should be in control of our calling to go forth and tell the truth. With this in mind, we must wait upon Him, for His timing is not always our own. Even when we know the time is right, we must remain aware that He should be in control of our words. We need not always give a full treatise on our beliefs, but we must meet people where they are, sharing in love above all else. We rail against the world’s way because we love those in the world. We must remain patient with the seeker. If they are listening, then they are where they should be. We should never try to accelerate the process beyond the pace the Spirit wants to work, lest we run the seeker off. Our role is to help the person understand that coming to understand God’s ways takes a submission to God, a readiness to listen to Him. Yet, even though it is our role to love, we must not allow this want to limit our words for others’ sakes to lead to embarrassment of belief. We must be bold in our conviction. In our boldness, we must also constantly remind ourselves of our place. If true change is to take place in the life of another before our eyes, it is not because we changed the person’s life. It is because the Spirit changed the life, and we were just there as His instruments. What a privilege, a privilege to be Christ for others in need. Remember this: The world is hostile to the Truth. Our attempts to be loving towards the lost can help soften the worldly hearts that approach us, yet our message is still hostile to their way of life, and, in the end, no matter how loving we are, our need to remain firm in conviction will mean that we will be hated by some. But, take heart, for it is our love for those who hate us that allows us to be hated and vulnerable. It is this vulnerability that shows that we are the true humans, awakened by the Love of God. It shows that love fills our hearts.

Born This Way?

2011-05-11T12:31:00.001-04:00

Born This Way?

Christians are finding themselves under much scrutiny and pressure, and since it is our nature as American Christians to blend our faith culture with our national culture, we have allowed the voices of our larger community to impose an unneeded guilt, telling us that we are not tolerant enough, not understanding enough, and not compassionate enough because we affirm our orthodox position against certain ways of life. We have accepted this false dichotomy between reactions to such issues. Christians are presented with two opposing options as if these options are our only two choices. Either we shut our mouth in acceptance and tolerance, or we shout hate as judgmental bigots. There exists no real model for Christians to be loving and accepting while remaining firm in conviction and adamant to help any who wishes to be helped. Our culture has hounded us so mercilessly that many have set aside doctrines because society says such ideas are outmoded and biased. But, are the popular arguments valid?

I was recently checking in on friends (creeping if you will) on a popular social network, and a particular comment by a long forgotten acquaintance caught my eye. I do not know much about this person, so this is no real comment upon this particular person, other than to say that I regret that she has bought into this position that the only way the church can be credible is for it to be acceptable to modern sentiments. Her post read as follows: “This is absolutely incredible. Such a beautiful, loving message from a church - imagine that. I wish more would see it this way. There's still hope.” Of course, such a comment caught my eye and I was eager to read the link, until I saw its title: “Being Gay is a Gift From God.” This church, whose desire to show love to hurt and marginalized persons, has allowed the predominant, cultural claims to define how they should demonstrate this love: by taking a stand against the majority, orthodox church. Oh how I wish this church would have taken its drive to show love to hurt persons and used this drive to start a campaign to show how orthodox believers can be loving in light of biblical truth, instead of going against it. My heart further broke when I saw this church was a part of my beloved denomination and had modified our symbol to promote this campaign. The United Methodist cross and flame now displays a rainbow colored flame; a flame that is meant to represent the Holy Spirit is now used to represent an alternative lifestyle not supported by the orthodox church. And what is their main argument to support their claims: “You were born this way.”(Note: The purpose of this post is not to explore the truthfulness of this claim.)

In an age of political correctness, persons have been given much leeway to be who they wish to be and/or act as they wish to act. In reaction to abusive comments that in the past were allowed and even commonplace, reactionism has swung the pendulum to the other extreme as persons are more and more censored in what they are allowed to say concerning the moral development of others, and the faith community is taking the brunt of the censorship, either through explicit censorship or implicit ignoring of our voice by mainstream media. This censorship is not just a silencing by the media. Instead, the media often finds the extremist who will spew hatemongering, and they will make fools out of the rest of the faith community that has really little to do with this or that extremist. In times past, society had expectations of others and these expectations were transmitted to others as ‘what it takes’ to be in. Sometimes these expectations were damaging, but, often, they were character forming. The task of correcting the wrong doings of others who abuse the privilege of admonishment should not have been to throw the baby out with the bath water, but that is indeed what has happened.

The PC crowd has offered many counterpoints to mainline thought, shifting societal positions on certain topic under the guise of being tolerant and accepting, and some of these points have conceivably reformed society in a positive manner, helping to rid society of certain forms of prejudices. However, often times, the PC arguments have led to the stripping of character forming beliefs, and have demonized well-intentioned persons. Perhaps the most forceful argument that has arisen in recent times concerning certain social hot points, as demonstrated by the church mentioned above, is that people should be accepted for who they are based on their predetermined dispositions. In other words, determination and perseverance to overcome one’s birth state is no longer valued, but seen as an insult to others born like you. On the surface, this seems right and good. If it was indeed the case, and most persons think this is certain, that Michael Jackson had his skin color altered based on popular notions of society telling him his color was inadequate, then we must question the sensitivity of that culture and the message it is sending to others. If I am white and you are black, should we be blamed for this? Of course we should not. But, does this simple example somehow prove this argument is valid and useful in all situations relating to all topics.

What society seems to miss is that certain dispositions people are born with are not always valued and cannot be used as an argument to silence others for wanting to help others change. For example, it has been well known for some time that there is a direct link between genetics and heart disease. Are we to then tell the cheerio eating runner who has based his life habits on altering his predetermined condition that he is an insult to heart disease suffers worldwide and that he should be happy with his high cholesterol because, “Baby, you were born this way”? Should parents belonging to a long line of alcoholics not warn their children of the dangers of their genetic predisposition to alcoholism because, “Baby, you born this way”? Should a person predisposed to violence be allowed or even encouraged to act out his or her rage simply because, “Baby, you were born this way? Should we shun prenatal surgeries that can extend a child’s life by years, telling the child when he or she is old enough that the reason we did not help is because, “Baby, you were born this way”? In a simplistic way, all these examples show another side of the coin, that the argument of birth disposition does not always warrant lifestyle.

It should be obvious by now that I am speaking most specifically of the argument against the Christian orthodox position concerning homosexuality. Certain persons reading this blog might wish to argue that certain dispositions, such as sexual preference, should not be compared with heart disease, alcoholism, violence, prenatal malformation or the like. Instead, certain dispositions should be compared to the first and only positive analogy given above: race. Perhaps it is the case that the church culture's position against homosexuality is like taking a position against skin color. However, is it sufficient to tell someone feeling inadequate due to his or her race that it all is okay because, “Baby, you were born this way”? I think not. Would not the conversation include much more consideration such as ethnic heritage, cultural uniqueness, beautiful diversity and the like? I think so. In other words, the argument that, “Baby, you were born this way,” is, at least in many if not all cases, insufficient when trying to affirm someone in their dispositions. Much deeper consideration needs to be pursued.

While this argument does not prove homosexuality as implicitly immoral, since this is not the nature of this argument, it does prove that arguments for a positive outlook based on disposition are lacking, which is the purpose and nature of this argument. In other words, I wanted to show how the pressures of the predominant culture are, while seeming valid, not always as valid as they seem. The church should not be bullied without thinking the issue through. Whether this blog changes others’ minds or not, it does throw strong doubt towards the argument: “Baby, I was born this way,” and shows that this 'obvious' display of the outmoded state of orthodox Christianity is not as strong as some assume. So, in closing I will sum up what I have argued thus far:

(1) Some have argued that disposition lends to proper behavior and lifestyle.
(2) However, many dispositions have led to improper behavior and lifestyle (e.g. predisposition to alcoholism and violence)
(3) Therefore, not all dispositions lend to proper behavior and lifestyle, and such argumentation is inadequate.

In the end, persons may wish to argue for the validity of certain dispositions based on claims other than disposition itself, and that is precisely my point. This is not an entire treatise against certain immoral actions, merely a rebuttal to some existing arguments for the disposition.

In other words, try again, Gaga.

In closing, I want to be clear. I hate no one. I love people no matter their sexual preference. I also want all to be a part of the faith of which I am a part. It is not lost on me that it is difficult to give up our desires, and it is sometimes hard to understand why God would ask persons to suppress their predisposed desires. I myself have had to give up certain wants to follow God. While I have never struggled in this particular arena, I certainly have given of myself in ways that makes me sympathetic, but that does not change my understanding that one still must give up certain wants for the sake of following Christ. We must count the costs. While you might not understand now, if you will give of self for Christ, you will be blessed and might even, through relationship, come to understand why He asks of us certain things.

Humbly,

-TM

A Review of Bell’s Reviewers (Picking My Wedgie)

2011-04-27T12:53:00.003-04:00

The latest Christian controversy surrounding pastor Rob Bell’s book, “Love Wins,” demonstrates a scary reality among the Christian community. Here we have a book with no footnotes and only one text in the bibliography, which happens to be a work of fiction, and those within the Christian community that disagree with the message are, for lack of better terminology, “freaking out,” as if this book is the undoing of everything we stand for. How can such a “lightweight” book, as I have heard it called, cause so much drama?

Should we ignore simple reads as if they have no real means to influence? I am not saying that. Bell meant to write a simple and accessible book so that others would consider his position. Surely people can be influenced by simple reads; just look at the “Tao Te Ching,” the “Gita”, or “Your Best Life Now”. Whether this books warrants a reaction or not, I must say that the sort of reaction that seems so pervasive does not seem to work. Does not such uproar generate more interest? Although I believe Bell is genuine when he states that he was not attempting to cause a firestorm, I can bet that it has helped his bank account as well as helped to disseminate his message. Good job, protestors. I bought the book thanks to this publicity. Now I support the enemy; Bell can get a Big Mac meal on me now…What have I done!

Last time I wrote about the common reaction to the book, I had not read it. I have now, and I was right in my assumption: I agreed with Bell in many of his statements, and I disagreed with him in others. No big deal…I am sure that others sometime agree and at other times disagree with me as well. But, I will tell you this. I am not quite ready to tie him to a stake and burn him. All the man really says is that he hopes that everyone makes it to heaven. What is so wrong with that? While he suggests that he sees this as a great possibility, he never comes out and says it is for certain. So, sue him. Does his book downplay the important doctrine of Hell? Maybe. But then again, I find people of varying backgrounds to downplay doctrines I find important, even vital, all the time. Do I discredit all that they have ever said? I would not have much to read if that were the case, except for the things I write. That would be a bit repetitive…

Before I go much further in my critique of the responders to the book, I must say this. I am not trying to suggest that this book does not warrant a response, even a negative one. Most every book warrants a response, and if one disagrees, so be it. However, these public denouncements of Bell and his book are uncalled for. Do I think that this book is great reading for the seeker wanting to be grounded in biblical theology? Maybe not… But, there are many books written by fine Christians that I would say the same about. Heck, I have written things I would not recommend to certain people. As I said in my last blog on this topic, our response should not be to outright condemn the book. A better approach would be to highlight Bell’s concerns, and then offer an alternative solution. (Dr. Timothy Tennent has demonstrated this sort of model very well in his blog response to Bell: timothytennent.com)

What is my point? Well, I find this controversy to be revealing of our Christian culture, and church leaders’ view on said culture. Here we have a non-scholarly take on heaven and hell, in that it was written from a more pastoral and not academic stance, and Christian leaders are worried that their flocks might be led astray. Can such a simple book lead people in certain directions? Surely it can. Just look at all the persons who flock to the messages of Joel Osteen. What does this say about the foundation that we are giving our community of believers? Is it our job as the church to censor any threatening reads that come down the pipe? If so, we would be exhausted in our efforts. There would be no time to preach. Our primary problem is not misleading readings, but our response to such: *Gasp, “Don’t let them see this. It might ruin them.” Instead, we should ground our community in proper and rigorous theological training. This should not be reserved for the seminaries. This should be the Christian reality. If people knew right doctrine, then we leaders could rest easier knowing that they, having the same faith, mental capacity, and education as we, could see what we see, if we indeed find so many flaws in a text.

We should be less worried about Bell and more worried about ourselves. Why are young Christians leaving at an unprecedented rate: they have no theological backing to sustain them in light of defeaters, arguments against the faith. They fall apart because they are ill prepared. We should spend less time censoring books and more time training. We cannot hold everyone’s hand in his or her walk. We have to prepare through proper discipleship: “Teaching them EVERYTHING” Christ has taught us.

Wow…I feel better. I feel as if I just picked out a wedgie that has been bothering me all day. What a cathartic experience…

Where Have all the Miracles Gone?

2011-04-26T12:25:00.000-04:00

A dear friend of mine posed a question that is tough to answer: Why does God not perform miracles any more? Of course there is an assumption being made, but in reality God does not seem to interact with us modern folks as He did with the ancients. Could it just be that we are more mature in all our knowledge than these ancients who might have been mistaken about the reality of God? Maybe, but could there be another valid conclusion as well. I think so. I have mentioned it before in my article, “Divine Hiddenness,” but I wish to revisit the thought today.

Why do miracles not happen before our eyes so that we might believe? Those who pose such a question will say that they would believe in God if God would but provide inescapable proof. One obvious rebuttal is that this would then preclude the need for faith, but that is a discussion (with certain objections) for another time, that discussion being the very reality of faith itself. Nonetheless, these people wish for an outward sign so that they might form an inner relationship. They want the flesh to experience the spiritual, but what the flesh experiences cannot create a spiritual experience. Flesh begets flesh, and spirit begets spirit (John 3:6). These people who wish to seek Christ on their own terms, wish to seek God apart from His spirit, and all they can discern in this state comes from natural eyes (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, all the fire and smoke that God could conjure will benefit men nothing if the Spirit is not involved in the process, opening spiritual eyes as well. This was the mistake of the rich man spoken of by Christ in Luke 16:19-31. To wish for God to create a supernatural sign before one is willing to seek His way is to place God under the human. The hard reality is that we must seek God on His own terms. Moreover, when unspiritual eyes take hold of spiritual realities, it does not take long for the human mind to begin to discredit what has obviously happened.

Some would suggest that the time for God’s vocal interaction and miracles is consigned to the past, a dispensation now gone. There are many in the Christian culture who want to affirm this point so that they might retain some perceived credibility, only to have the skeptical community mock their belief. Christians with good intentions will use this excuse that they derive as a matter of observation, and the skeptic will say, “How convenient?” In an attempt to not be seen as fanatical or crazy, this Christian makes a mockery of his or her belief. What else can well-intentioned Christians say in light of the reality that they have never seen a miracle, right? The truth is that miracles happen all around us, and it often takes a spiritual eye to be seen. This is not to suggest that supernatural phenomenon do not break into the natural realm so that even unbelieving eyes can see. But, in a society of skeptics as our own, God will often refrain from such demonstrations in order to protect the skeptic and His order of salvation (see essay “Divine Hiddenness”).

No one must assume that they can come to Christ apart from Christ simply because they are able to, in light of new evidence, accent to truth. We cannot come to God apart from God and His work in the heart. While His outward work might serve as confirmation, it is not the same as His inner work that brings forth salvation. The first step is God’s and our call is not to demand how He must work for us personally, but to submit to His work in our lives. It is hard to let go of control, but that is our call.

A dear friend of mine posed a question that is tough to answer: Why does God not perform miracles any more? Of course there is an assumption being made, but in reality God does not seem to interact with us modern folks as He did with the ancients. Could it just be that we are more mature in all our knowledge than these ancients? Maybe, but could there be another valid conclusion as well. I think so. I have mentioned it before in my article, “Divine Hiddenness,” but I wish to revisit the thought today.

Why do miracles not happen before our eyes so that we might believe? Those who pose such a question will say that they would believe in God if God would but provide inescapable proof. One obvious rebuttal is that this would then preclude the need for faith, but that is a discussion (with certain objections) for another time, that discussion being the very reality of faith itself. Nonetheless, these people wish for an outward sign so that they might form an inner relationship. They want the flesh to experience the spiritual, but what the flesh experiences cannot create a spiritual experience. Flesh begets flesh, and spirit begets spirit (John 3:6). These people who wish to seek Christ on their own terms, wish to seek God apart from His spirit, and all they can discern in this state comes from natural eyes (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, all the fire and smoke that God could conjure will benefit men nothing if the Spirit is not involved in the process, opening spiritual eyes as well. This was the mistake of the rich man spoken of by Christ in Luke 16:19-31. To wish for God to create a supernatural sign before one is willing to seek His way is to place God under the human. The hard reality is that we must seek God on His own terms. Moreover, when unspiritual eyes take hold of spiritual realities, it does not take long for the human mind to begin to discredit what has obviously happened.

Some would suggest that the time for God’s vocal interaction and miracles is consigned to the past, a dispensation now gone. There are many in the Christian culture who want to affirm this point so that they might retain some perceived credibility, only to have the skeptical community mock their belief. Christians with good intentions will use this excuse that they derive as a matter of observation, and the skeptic will say, “How convenient?” In an attempt to not be seen as fanatical or crazy, this Christian makes a mockery of his or her belief. What else can well-intentioned Christians say in light of the reality that they have never seen a miracle, right? The truth is that miracles happen all around us, and it often takes a spiritual eye to be seen. This is not to suggest that supernatural phenomenon do not break into the natural realm so that even unbelieving eyes can see. But, in a society of skeptics as our own, God will often refrain from such demonstrations in order to protect the skeptic and His order of salvation (see essay “Divine Hiddenness”).

No one must assume that they can come to Christ apart from Christ simply because they are able to, in light of new evidence, accent to truth. We cannot come to God apart from God and His work in the heart. While His outward work might serve as confirmation, it is not the same as His inner work that brings forth salvation. The first step is God’s and our call is not to demand how He must work for us personally, but to submit to His work in our lives. It is hard to let go of control, but that is our call.

Scripture in Context of Ancient Near Eastern Religion

2011-04-20T11:52:00.004-04:00

The Scriptures cannot be separated from the historical, religious, or cultural setting in which it was written. If it is, then an essential message is missed. A vital importance as to the purpose of Scripture goes unrevealed, and thinkers then hold a lower view of Scripture than is warranted. This is not to suggest that its context as it relates to space and time has no real bearing for those of another space and time, like the modern reader. On the contrary, Judeo-Christian theology is set apart in that it uses history as a vital vehicle to teach theology. Just as a nations history is of utmost importance to the future decisions of that community, so the Scripture is of utmost importance to the Christian community, giving us a trajectory and purpose. Without historical context, we might wrongly appropriate or miss portions of Scripture for our life today. Furthermore, and more important for this particular discussion, if the historical context is ignored, then one will never see the stark contrast and uniqueness of Scripture as compared to the various pagan religions of the day when Scripture was actually written, a contrast that is purposefully demonstrated by the Scripture. By coming to understand that much of what is said in Scripture, although applicable to the modern reader, was primarily important for the purpose of giving the ancient reader a set-apart worldview from the entire rest of the world, we might come to understand how the Judeo-Christian faith differs from all other religions of old, and seeing this contrast demonstrates the importance of the Judeo-Christian worldview.

Many persons see the emergence of all religions as coming from some common and basic human need to explain reality and have comfort or control. In other words, all religion is just an expression of an inner desire to have purpose and guidance. In light of this claim, many have come to the conclusion that religion is a manmade device and is a hindrance to coming to know truth. In many of these persons’ minds, humanity needs to come to grips with our finitude and take responsibility in light of such truths. One of the biggest proponents of this worldview is Simon De Beauvoir. In her book, The Ethic of Ambiguity she contends that humans, as the highest life form, have a responsibility to develop an ethic that benefits life in general. Other’s of the same mindset that religion is a ploy for control/comfort and that human life has no purpose or value assigned by a creator differ from Beauvoir and the like and simply suggest that life came about by chance and has no real purpose and cannot be given any value by any means. Nihilism then becomes their lens to view the world. Either conclusion makes since in light of the assumption that all religions are essentially the same and that humans are alone in their intellect. One simply demonstrates a more optimistic view than that of the other. However, is it true that all religions are the same? And what would it mean if one foundational, ancient religion were different than all other ancient religions?

The earliest historical worldviews, other than those given in Scripture, that existed revolved around the influence of paganism, and monotheism did not take hold until the Israelite community was formed. Some might suggest that the only distinction between monotheism and the polytheism of the pagans was the number of gods. This is a very uneducated claim, and has little to do with reality. There do exist others, scholars at that, that suggest that Hebrew thought did emerge from ancient near Eastern (ANE) myth, but over time they developed their own thinking, paganism evolving into monotheism. To suggest such comes from a philosophy that all religion emerged from the same origins, and this too has little to do with reality. To think that the Hebrews ever borrowed from others to create the basis of their culture is to misunderstand the Hebrew people. They have always distinguished themselves, and they account all their misfortunes to times when they have assimilated. There is almost no illusion to myth in Scripture, and when there is, it is contrasted with the transcendent thought of the Hebrews. Thus, the theory of myth as foundation for the Hebraic worldview has to contend, with little backing, that the Hebrews’ thoughts over time changed so drastically that they swiftly and completely ridded themselves of this mythical undergirding. In other words, while the Hebrew sources for Scripture and earliest thoughts revolved around mythic thinking of the pagan world, the Hebrews eventually completely removed all this talk as they developed their own religion. In other words, they eventually removed their whole foundation. This fantastic view of the development of Hebraic thought is all based on a philosophy, and this is proven by the claim that, while there is no evidence anymore due to the radical stripping of all evidence by these Semites, the foundation used to be there, even if we cannot see it. Now that is faith, misplaced as it is.

The reality is that it is much easier to affirm Hebraic thought was radical and revolutionized thought. Monotheism did not just bring with it a new idea of the number of the gods, but the idea of God as transcendent and the creator of nature, not nature itself. This idea was revolutionary for human thought. It was completely different than anything ever thought of before. Before talk of the uniqueness of Hebraic thought might be expressed, we must first speak of the worldview of pagan myth, a reality very often not understood by modern thinkers. It is truly foreign to our thought process, but it used to be all that existed, as far as broad sweeping worldviews are concerned. History is clear on this fact.

The Pagan world did not distinguish between subject and object. People were simply part of one great whole. Individuals interacted with the world and saw the world as an extension of everything else. The world, and the things in it where not just things for the ancients. They did not see things in nature as objects, but other individuals like themselves. The overwhelming reality for the ancients was a sense of continuity. While there was recognition of nature, humanity, and deity, there was not a distinction made between the three. They are all parts of one whole. The conclusions that are made from this sort of thinking lead to a wholly different worldview than that of the modern thinkers’. For example, since all things are essentially the same, human value is downplayed (this view of religion is still evident in Hinduism). For the vast majority of the ANE, with the one exception of the Hebrews, the reality was that everything is in the same realm and somewhat connected to the divine, pantheism. Therefore humans had some interaction and bearing on nature and the divine. This is why they created idols. If something looked the same or sounded the same, then it was the same. If the idol represented a god, and looked like that god, and the ANE pagan thought it did, then the idol bearer could manipulate the god by manipulating the idol. Incidentally, this is why one of the Ten Commandments suggests that humans are not to make idols. God is saying that such an idea is wrong. God cannot be controlled. For the pagan, this intellectual idea had a very practical function. If I am like the gods, and my reality reflects theirs’ and vice versa, then I have some control. If I do something here, then it is done in the heavens. This is the thought behind magic as a religious practice.

Two of the greatest distinctions for the ancient thinker were 1) their view, or lack thereof of history, and 2.) their idea of continuity. For the ancient pagan, the only reality that had any bearing upon the person was the present. There was no value given to human history. While there was a primeval history of the gods creating this realm, that had no bearing on reality in the present. It was the only recognition of past events, and it did not even relate to this present and only reality. Neither did the future have any value. Only what happened to “me” had any bearing on the self. Greeks did find social value in history, but not in any real transcendent sense. History did not pertain to the gods as a tool to teach humans. The Oriental world also recorded history, but found no eternal value in history because it always changed. The idea of God and history as intricately related was unique to the Hebrews.

Continuity, as previously explained, meant that there existed in the earliest history of the world no distinction in the minds of people between subject and object. There was only continuity, and this recognition was of utmost importance for the self. Others had no real value since they are just a small part of everything else. When God reveals Himself as other and distinct from the world, the Hebrews begin to understand themselves as distinct as well. For the first time, people were observing objects as other, and they contemplated how things worked. This is the most fundamental realization for modern science, and it was the Hebrews who first made this distinction. The Greeks later develop this thought from their own philosophy, but it is the Hebrew people who, as a whole, first note this as a reality. The majority of the people who upheld myth denied the early Greek philosophers their recognition. Only the Hebrew culture can claim that as a people they were the first to introduce the importance of history and subject-object distinction. And this reality is attributed to the event, some merely recognize it as a story, of YHWH’s revelation to Abraham. The Hebrew Scripture stands alone in the ancient world as holding a subject-object distinction, which is the common view of the modern world that we take for granted. Without the contribution of Monotheism no one can be sure when a high regard for history and subject-object distinction would have entered the world.

The Greek philosophers were the closest to the Hebrews in thought, but the Hebrew people still hold the genesis of many thoughts we take for granted today. No other ancient people other than the Hebrews thought of the idea that reality had a beginning. For the Greeks, the world was assumed eternal. Today most persons believe in creation ex nihilo, whether these persons are atheistic or believers. Moreover, the Greeks were trying to figure out who their gods were. The Hebrews knew their God and worked from there. Their God was the maker of all things, and He was not that which He made. If God made humanity, humans have worth, and if He is personal then He is part of history, and history is important. With all this in mind, we can explore our world, but we cannot manipulate fate. On so many fronts, the biblical worldview, first revealed to the Hebrews, stands alone as a way of thinking in the ANE. Thus, the Bible is not just one of many books written, but it stands alone as a whole other system of thinking altogether. Therefore, one is not warranted to toss out Christianity based on his or her view of religion as a whole.

Many scholars will point out that the myths of the pagans and the stories of the Bible have similarity, but they do not continue to speak to the differences. When the stories seem to have similar qualities, the thought that should come to mind is to see where they differ. For example, most ANE creation accounts, which do not really focus on creation at all, but the gods’ interactions and the accidental making of humanity, focus on gods creating reality from chaos and battle. When the Genesis account opens, God is not at war. There are no other gods over which he must establish Himself. He does not have to struggle to create, and He creates all that is, not just placing things into some order. Where else is this expressed in the ANE? On a superficial level, similarities can be seen, but the messages of each are completely different.

The Bible stands alone, and any self-respecting scholar should deal with it as such. This means that the Bible has a whole separate genesis than all other religions and that the Hebrew people, by some means, became the first people of recorded history to make the subject-object distinction, the distinction we base most of our value of truth (especially in the practice of science) today. Were the Hebrews just that much more in tune with reality and smarter than everyone else? That is a possibility. However, it is unlikely that these people that spent so much time in captivity would find the time to philosophize on their own. It is much more likely that someone revealed to them these truths, and since there were no ANE contemporaries in their world that held this belief and the Greeks only developing similar ideas later in history, there were no people capable to give the Hebrew people such a thought, a more plausible idea is that it came from elsewhere, and the Hebrews suggest that this elsewhere is the mouth of the divine, transcendent God.

For more on this topic: Oswalt, John: The Bible Among the Myths (Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 2009).

Love Considers: A Blog About Job, Bell, and the Concerns of Every Person Who Ever Lived.

2011-03-28T12:53:00.002-04:00

In recent weeks, there has been a firestorm of controversy surrounding the latest publication by pastor Rob Bell. Bell has recently felt led to write a book entitled, Love Wins. His critics have called Bell a “universalist” and the like and have condemned this work. My purposes for this particular blog post are not to explore the particulars to Bell’s theology. For curiosity’s sake, I will tell you this. I have not even read the book, but I suspect that there would be aspects of his writings that I would agree with and others I would not. In his last book, Velvet Elvis, I came to understand some of Bell’s views, and I find him to ask proper questions while giving less than proper solutions. Often times, he presents one side of the coin while only alluding to the other side, creating in others’ minds, those who come unwittingly to the reading, a theological provincialism.

For now, that is enough criticizing Bell. I want to use our reactions as a catalyst for another topic altogether. Before I begin, I do not suggest that everyone who has had something to criticize about Bell’s book has done so unfairly (For example, I find Dr. Timothy Tennet’s blog post to be very gracious.). I merely write this as a reminder, mainly for myself. However misplaced one finds another’s ideas to be, and I use Bell as an example, one should also consider the concerns of the other that led him or her to his or her “ill conceived” ideas. Sometimes it is a deep concern, even a painful concern, which leads to these thoughts. Some people, instead of being attacked, should be heard. They speak from pain or concern, and what is worse than being overrun during times of real concern. I really feel that Bell has a painful concern in that many Christians are too willing to be satisfied with a narrow doctrine of Hell, so much so that they would say, “Well, they [the damned] deserve what they get,” as if some of us do not deserve such. How does that demonstrate love? How is this Christian? Are we not to be a people that promote love and grace? Would we not rather err on the side of grace? Is universalism the answer? No. Does Rob Bell think so? Maybe, I have not read the book. Is his concern legitimate? Most certainly. Do I have an alternative answer at this point? Maybe, but that is not the purpose of this particular post.

We all know the story of Job. Here is a man who has lost everything, and, in the end, all he wants is to be heard, to even submit his grievances before the Almighty. And then comes his comforters. In light of Job’s devastation, they sit silent for seven days. But, then they open their mouths. They tell this man that it is his sins that led him to lose all. But, Job knows, according to the wisdom of his days, that he is innocent. His comforters have good motives, to clear the name of God. But, instead of listening to Job’s case, they just steamroll right over him, and there are many Job’s comforters that are out there today, too quick to speak (even after seven days of silence) and too stubborn to listen. If we are to offer a corrective, might we offer it in love and with consideration of the catalyst for the misplaced idea? Let us consider the pain and concerns of others. And that is pretty much all I want to say on the topic for now.

Bright blessings to you all

Rev. Tab M. Miller

The Spirit of Dialogue: How Should We Act In Light of Theological Differences?

2011-02-28T20:53:00.002-05:00

In our interactions with others, whether they be Christian or otherwise, we need to set boundaries. With this in mind, I submit the following exercise of setting my own personal boundaries implicitly based in biblical foundations, as I prayerfully understand them, for others to glean what they will. We must keep in mind that the theological liberties (in an authorized, not inherent, sense) that are afforded us, specifically those that allow us to hold to our differences concerning the faith, are given, not as an inerrant right, but as an allowance of grace. The Lord is very aware of our inadequacies and, more to the point, our stubbornness.

Since it is not a right that we disagree, but an opportunity (for one or both sides to be incorrect without being subject to complete consequence) given to us as a concession for our deficiencies, we must not be content or complacent in our disagreement, for proper/right understanding is at stake (See note: The Importance of Right Doctrine). Instead, we should work diligently with each other through study, prayer, and healthy dialogue to try to bridge the gaps and to try to establish more faithful perceptions of truth that can be agreed upon if enough patience and explanation take place within healthy dialogue.

All involved must remember that if we are to truly consider ourselves brothers and sisters in the faith, then it is our duty, an obligation we owe to each other in the name of love, to treat each other as such. If we are children of God, adopted by grace through faith in Christ, then we all (Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Wesleyan-Arminians, to name a few) must be concerned for the well being of each other, wanting God to be exalted in proper understanding of His divine truth. We are not each other’s enemies. It is important that we keep an openness, realizing that each side potentially has something to offer.

Often times, our theological differences are a matter of semantic over-emphasis as a matter of protecting our own position. In other words, one might choose to use a term (e.g. prevenient grace for the Wesleyan and common grace for the Calvinist), simply because it leans toward one camp over another, but the same person might hold a very nuanced definition of the term that other's might never realize if they do not ask. Just as we should never pigeonhole a person based on their affiliation to a particular political movement (e.g. calling all who are concerned with social and/or environmental justice “liberals”), we should never assume we know all there is to know about a person’s beliefs because he or she considers himself or herself a Calvinist or Wesleyan (or anything else for that matter). Moreover, if time is taken to fully listen and attempt to understand others' positions, instead of wasting time coming up with a counter argument that might be gratuitous, missing all that the person is saying in the first place, then one might (in many, but certainly not all cases) come to realize that the other person’s views are not so different after all, and might not differ in the least, except for emphasis and terminology.

On the one hand, one should not presume to know the extent of another's theological understandings until that person has thoroughly exhausted all the resources that the person in question has provided. Keep in mind, there does come times when there is a need to argue for one's own side in light of another's statement, even when one has not read all that the person whose position is in question has provided. In those instances it is important to note that the position that one is arguing against is an assumed position, unless the person has provided concrete evidence on the particular topic, even if more is stated elsewhere. In other words, all theological dialogue (at least those conversations that do not include a heretical voice) should be participated in with a sense of humility by all those involved. However, because right understanding is at stake, this is not to say that dialogue should not be done passionately. It should. It should be done with a passion to discover truth.

On the other hand, as for the individual making the initial argument, it should be his or her duty in the first place to explain terms to the fullest extent that the individual is capable, especially for those terms that are central to the arguments. Remaining vague in order to maintain use of loopholes and to avoid entanglement is not respectful of the argument or the person one is trying to persuade. In fact, it might be deception. One should be willing to take his or her argument out its logical conclusion to test the strength of one’s case. To do anything less is to risk misleading others by an esoteric rant on tradition. This is not to suggest that one must be fully studied on any matter he or she wishes to discuss, only that they should have a humility in their words (even acknowledging gaps when they are apparent) if it is the case that there remains more to be gleaned, and is this not the case the majority of the time?

Often times, we hide behind the concession of grace that allows us to disagree, not wanting others to pop our theological bubble. We often agree to disagree before any discussion has ever happened, wanting to avoid all conflict. However, if one detects such a weakness in his or her own understanding, then the best thing for that person might be to learn from others, even those that do not align with his or her own tradition. This can be a painful process (I've been there), but through pain comes growth (I would rather betray tradition than betray/ignore truth).

Keep in mind to test the spirit of others who wish to dialogue with you concerning theology. Some are out there to cause dissension and not unity. Others are not spiritually mature enough to discuss disagreement without resorting to anger and/or ad hominem attacks. However, once you do decide to enter into dialogue, be sure to listen intently, not assuming you know precisely what the other is going to say before they say it, and always allow the other to have the chance to qualify any ambiguous statements.

As a final statement, I must recognize the fact that sometimes the only resolution will be to maintain disagreement. This is not the preferred outcome, but, at least until a later point in time when both/all companies involved have had a chance to reflect, some level of disagreement must be tolerated for the sake of brotherhood, and the greater good is being unified as the one body whose concern is not self promotion, but others, especially the lost, who benefit little from our internal bickering and much from our unified efforts. In other words, never allow the perfect to be the enemy of the greatest possible good. Sometimes, the perfect scenario is inhibited by influences outside our control, and, in those cases, we should not resort to an extreme in which those involved are stifled from any further dialogue or common work together.

Our Place as Participants in The Redemption Story

2011-02-21T16:43:00.001-05:00

Note: While I usually reserve my longer theological writings for the ministry website, I felt led to place this article on my blog as well. I felt led to do so because the following expresses where my heart is now in Christian ministry. Also, further revision might be made in the near future, but I was anxious to share as soon as possible. I hope you enjoy.

"...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." -The Apostle Paul, Philippians 2:12

For one to think that he or she as an individual is the end of the redemptive purposes of God, to think that the individual soul is that goal and beyond each of us there is no more concern so that we are not responsible in ourselves to move forward in the process of redemption (of self and others) is to think too highly of ourselves and too lowly of our privilege as believers. To put this a bit more simply, we should not assume that it is God's prerogative to set us free in salvation so that we might live in comfort knowing that we are "good to go," all the while living as we wish, wallowing in our sin. Salvation is the beginning to every Christian story, not the end. Once we accept Christ, we are not done; we are just starting.

If it were the case that God had no eschatological goal/s within human history, but only wished to set apart a people for future glory, the modern, Western equating of justification to salvation would be a much more viable option for coming to understand God's dealing with humanity's crisis of sin. In other words, if God had no particular will for the trajectory of human history, but only wanted to establish true relationship with each of us after death, then it would make sense that all He would need to do is forgive us of all our sins, past, present and future, and allow us to go on unchanged until death and glorification. This is not to say that this would necessarily be the case, only that it would make much more sense than it does in light of the way things really are. We are not in an intermission awaiting death.

The eschatological goals of God (the goals that bring this age to completion in harmony with God's will) are purely set on the redemption of all things. Moreover, all that is God's that pertains to this reality is called to join Him in this redemption process, and are we not part of this "all" as Christians? Are we not His to do with as He wishes? As we will further discuss in a moment, we are called as representatives, ambassadors, of our King to the world. Representatives must reflect the character of their king in order to demonstrate what they mean when they suggest that their king acts this or that way, especially if the king's ways are so totally foreign to the ways of the people the representatives are in dialogue with. And our King's way is certainly foreign to the world to which we present His message; is it not?

In light of this reality, Christian righteousness cannot merely be alien righteousness imputed by the blood of Christ through the forensic pardoning of justification. For to represent God is to be like God, and to be like Him, we must be transformed by Him. While it is certainly true that we are righteous simply for the fact that we are hidden in Him, this cannot lead us to believe this is all that God has in store for us in the redemption process. To be His representatives we must be changed to be made like Him. If it is our purpose in salvation to fulfill this call, then being made righteous has to be a part of that process so that others will take notice of what it is to be like God, and this is only done by the impartation of righteousness by the Spirit of God. In other words, this is not done by our own means; we are only being made in His likeness because Christ has afforded us the opportunity to be temples of the Spirit, where the Spirit has the chance to work in us in order to make us whole.

The majority Western worldview of redemption that has its roots in reformation thinking is inadequate when it suggests to the world that salvation is mostly concerned with justifying the sinner, as if we are an end within ourselves and have no real purpose once we are saved. At the time of the Reformation, it was the reformer's job, such as Martin Luther, to (in the words of Timothy Tennet) defend the doorway of faith. Justification is that work of God that introduces the believer into the faith. It is the entry into the faith. For so long, the church of that day had been preaching the idea that the church itself was the entry way to salvation, and the reformers were reminding the church that it is by Christ that we enter into the church. It is by grace through faith alone that we come to know Christ. This had been lost, and the reformers had to put all their efforts to reestablish this truth. This explains why Luther had such issue with the book of James, wishing to remove it from Scripture. To continue with Tennet's analogy, while Luther was in the doorway of faith, James was in the living room, teaching us, not how to become a Christian, but how to live as one.. In His faithful defense of the doorway that teaches us how to become a Christian, Luther began to ignore what lay in store for the believer. He sometimes ignored the fact of how we are to be a Christian once we are one.

Today, this reformational over-emphasis might not be explicitly expressed by the leaders of the Western church, but it is surely implicitly expressed when these teachers focus so heavily upon justification (what God does for us) with little to no mention of sanctification (what God does in us) when reflecting upon salvation, and what a danger it is to only tell partial truths. While justifying pardon is a crucial point within the order of salvation, we were not bought by the blood of Christ in order to be set free in a purely autonomous sense, even if only until death. In fact, humans cannot be purely autonomous. We must choose who we will serve. We will always be dependent upon the will of God (if we are to truly submit to Him). We were bought at a price for a purpose, to be God's, not our own.

It is not within God's eschatological, redemptive purposes to remove our responsibility and redemption from the realm of space and time, or space-time, however you wish to look at it. Instead, the story of redemption, which is His will, is unfolding around us, and hopefully, if we are submissive, through us. We are to be participants within the story. God has deemed it necessary that redemption break through in the here and now, and while sin, death, and the lost will remain with us, as the weeds remain with the wheat until harvest, we are called to over come sin in the here and now so that we might join hands with the Father as we serve His purpose in saving souls. Therefore, sanctification (actual change) is not an option, but a necessary part of salvation, if the saved is afforded the time here on earth to minister after justification (In other words, while we can be saved even moments before death, if we are given the grace to remain in the world, we must move forward).

Our call to be demonstrators of God's holiness in order to impact the world is given throughout the Scriptures, but for lack of space, I will give but a few examples. The first portion of Scripture that comes to mind explicitly demonstrates our playing a crucial role in the redemption story: "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:23). It is certain that we are called to forgive the transgressions of others when they harm us, but, as my pastor, David Yarbrough, recently reminded us as his congregation, this is not what our Lord is specifically referring to at this juncture. Instead, Jesus says this very thing after telling His disciples to receive the Spirit of God. With the Spirit, we are called to spread the good news of God's forgiveness to the world. We are God's agents of redemption. While, as Pastor Yarbrough reminded us that Sunday morning, we cannot forgive others their sins ourselves, we, as temples, have the ability to bring the Spirit within us out into the world and the ability to proclaim God's forgiving power as the Spirit speaks through us. Thus, our call within the redemption story allows us the privilege to share with new believers, as well as brothers and sisters who have stumbled, that by the acceptance of Christ, their sins have been forgiven.

The next portions of Scripture demonstrates for us that it is not our call to merely proclaim the good news, but to live it out, to demonstrate for the world that our sins are really forgiven and that God has the power to deal with them within us as we live set-apart, holy lives. First, let us look at the OT foundation for this concept: "...the nations shall know that I am the Lord, says the Lord God, when through you I display my holiness before their eyes...I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and [make you] be careful to observe my ordinances" (Ezekiel 36:23b, 27). Up to this point the Lord is admonishing His people, Israel, for not being good representatives among the nations of the world. Instead, they have made God seem weak and have profaned His name because they had not been living holy lives. In order for us to be representatives, we must take on that Spirit, which allows us to "follow [His] statutes and [to] be careful to observe [His] ordinances." This is affirmed in the NT by Christ when He tells us through The Sermon on The Mount: "In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven" (Matthew 5:16).

For us to be part of the redemption story has been God's intent since the beginning. His eschatological purpose for His people to be a part of the redemption story has been revealed time and time again, and has always been God's purpose for His people, as demonstrated in His promise to Abraham, the blood father of the nation of Israel and the Spiritual father of all who call upon the name of the Lord: "...in you all the families of the world shall be blessed" (Genesis 12:3b). God has called us, His people, for a purpose. We do not sit in waiting. We are to join in His work, for He has called us to do so: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19,20). He is with us to the end of the age, until His eschatological goal has been fulfilled He will be working through us for that goal.

In conclusion, I have often heard it said and wholeheartedly agree that Christianity is the only religion that concerns what God does for us instead of what we do for God/gods. However, we need to understand this in its fulness. While it is true that Christianity is largely about what God does for us, we must not allow that to make vague the truth that another aspect of the Christian life concerns what God does in us. Consequently, Christianity concerns what God does through us. For what would be the point of changing us in the here and now if this change was not to make any sort of outward, even social, impact. And this is why I suggest that it would be much more sensible to accept the equating of justification alone with salvation, if God had given no revelation of an eschatological goal in redemption. If I am not called to represent God, then it is not as important that I reflect His image. But, if I am, then it is of utmost importance, and we must dismiss any thought that would have us assume otherwise.

What We Lost and What is at Stake

2011-02-14T15:22:00.000-05:00

To say of humanity that we are lost does not begin to bring about the sort of anguish that should be brought about in light of our fall and depravity. The real question is this: What are we lost from? For it is not just life that we lost, but a sort of life, a way of being that is hard if not difficult to grasp by the sinful heart, but, if only glimpsed at, will create a deep and devastating longing that can last a life time. That our God is a God that would will our happiness forever is a concept that has been lost on humanity and even some Christians. But that is why we were created, and that is exactly what we threw back into God’s face when our own selfishness led to a desire for what was not ours to take. The tree and its fruit represents more than mere disobedience; it represents a whole shift in being, a gaining of a perspective, the knowledge of good and evil, which was not really a gain at all, but a loss. This tree represents division between man and God. It represents a division within man himself, man who was created to desire God now, through disobedience, has taken on a new desire, a desire that leads to death, a desire for self. The tree represents the desire of self over God. But who is capable of lifting himself up? Strong as one may be, no one can pull himself up by his own bootstraps. We were made to be carried by God, but we chose the fruit of selfishness which created and revealed in man a division between good, outward focused reality and evil, inward focused reality. If the fall of man, demonstrated in the selfish act of choosing from the one tree that man was to ignore, created a division, a break in the human nature, what is the nature that we lost? We lost the nature of God, being made in His image, and this being demonstrated in the separation of man from God. And what is the nature of God, the image, which we lost? God is love. We lost love. To make our fall anything less than the loss of love is to downplay the sheer horror of what was truly given up by our transgression. This is not to say that God stopped loving us, but something even worse. While God continues to love, we chose to set up a barrier so that His love could not reach us and fulfill us as it once did. If God would have just given up, it might not sting so badly, but in His persistence we see the horrible reality of what sort of love we transgressed. We have tried various theologies to numb and downplay the issue. In anguish, some have suggested we really did not lose much. We are merely pawns in God’s game. We shift the blame or make it trivial. But, we must face reality. We threw love back in Love’s face. How retched? But, hear the good news. We are called to return. We all are called. While love was lost, while love was stripped from Love, Love never stopped searching for the objects of His desire. While we did not want to have anything to do with Love, Love never changed. He still desires us. In order to turn from the sin that we fell into, we must turn from the self, and this is done by the grace of Love. Our own broken nature calls us back to Love, but we cannot tear down the barrier we set in place. All we now have is a plea to Love. Thank Love that it is the nature of love to return to the lost, to even those who have betrayed Love for spite. There is no other motive of Love, but love. Try as we might to shift the story, we will eventually have to accept the truth that what we lost was God, what we have lost is Love. Love is at stake, not mere life, but life abundant with Love. What is at satke is God, the God of our fulfillment. He seeks us all in Love, for Love does not discriminate or show favoritism. Oh how lost we would be if Love was not loving. Praise Him.

Considering Pleasure and Virtue in Service to Others: A Not So Obvious Conclusion

2011-01-24T16:52:00.001-05:00

Often times, situations present themselves that have moral consequences. As people concerned with morality, many Christians are quick to offer their opinions concerning what the proper response should be to these situations. We are quick to form ethical suggestions without fully realizing the intricacies of the situation or the affects of our decisions. Quick response is often unwarranted. Christians should never act nor decide without God. Instead of consulting God, many will jump the gun. I have been guilty of this on several occasions, but by the grace of God I am becoming more aware of my need to seek Him before I speak.. I think the following interaction will demonstrate how careful consideration and willful obedience can give us an answer that is not immediately thought of.

I recently had an interesting question posed to me by a close friend who likes to ponder life. We all know that helping others is seen as a positive action by most persons of our society and is a mark of good Christian living. Doing good is not just seen as a positive action by Christians, but the larger society in general affirms this as well. In light of this, my friend must have begun to ponder why people do good deeds for others. Therefore, he posed a scenario followed with a question that the scenario brings to light. In essence, he said that we often do good deeds for others by using our talents. Those who practice their talents often enjoy doing so. Therefore, we often help others, not for their sakes, but for our own. Thus, my friend posed the question: Is it a selfish act to help others when we do so because we merely enjoy the task that is required to assist those in need?

The scenario was a bit more specific, which helps with my answer. My friend framed his scenario in the realm of vocation. So, let us say that you are a computer expert. A person you know little about has a computer that crashes, and you quickly volunteer to help. Let us make the scenario even more interesting by suggesting that this person needs his computer to do some good will project; say he is the manager of a food bank. Now, while you are aware that your good deed will provide great assistance to the owner of the computer as well as a local food bank and all the people it feeds, you do not volunteer to fix the computer for that reason. Instead, you do it because you enjoy the work. You simply take on the task of fixing the computer because you like fixing computers, not because some kind soul is in need. Is there something wrong with this?

To our Christian sensibilities, we might, at first, wish to say that this self-fulfillment is not a good motivator for good deeds. Besides, our righteous acts are but filthy rags before God; are they not? But should we then assign blame to the person who does his work happily for no other reason than he or she enjoys it? In this scenario the act of helping is not done so for righteousness’s sake. Therefore, the person is not guilty of trying to please God by doing a good deed apart from God’s power. The wrong would be to pose as good Samaritans for praise, when one is not. If the motivation was not enjoyment of work but praise for the self by those the worker helps, then the person helping is in the wrong. This is not to suggest that we should not accept thanks.

Another wrong would be found in the person who has all means to help, enjoys his or her work, and yet still refuses for no other reason than spite. I might add that I feel it to be more morally insensitive and reprehensible to deny help simply for the fact that one does not wish to pretend to care. In other words, to deny help because one does not want to commit a selfish act due to the fact that he or she will only do it for the satisfaction of a job well done, is, in itself, a selfish act, a looking out for one’s own interest (not being seen as selfish) over the interest of others.

Surely selfless acts of love are greater than mere self-fulfilling actions, but enjoying the talents we are given is a positive attribute, as long as we do not use our gifts to the detriment of others, and, in the scenario provided, people only benefit. Finding pleasure in work is more close to redemption than we might think. God's plan for mankind was not for us to sit on a fluffy white cloud while playing a harp, as many envision heaven to be. Instead, when God created the good realm for which we would live, he intended us to work the land. In other words, part of our original design was to take pleasure in our work and in progression (Gen 2:15). Therefore, enjoying our talent because it makes us feel somewhat whole is, in many ways, praise of God and His purposes, whether we realize it or not.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with enjoying work. In the scenario given, helping others is an incidental. The bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with working for pleasure, even (or should I say especially) when this work is helpful. Now, after one realizes that he cares little that he is helping others, it might be advantageous to try to develop sensitivity for our fellow man, through God’s help. While there is nothing wrong with helping for the enjoyment of the work, it might point to the fact, if one does not care either way that he or she is helping, that another issue needs to be taken care of. But, that issue does not concern the enjoyment of work, it is only brought to light by the situation at hand. Moreover, one might need to be mindful to thank God for the ability to enjoy work and for the fact that this work does help others.

Once again, I do not find the motivation to help because we enjoy the work to be negative in and of itself, although it might be more virtuous to couple this desire with the desire to serve. In fact, in and of itself, I find this to be a positive sign that one is moving towards God’s purposes, God’s original intent being that we enjoy life and this life would include work. In fact, it might be a more negative thing for the person who helps others through labor and does so for some sense of wanting to do good deeds, but does so while hating what it is to work. Work is not punishment. It is fulfillment. Part of the curse of sin is that it makes work somewhat more laborious and difficult, but if we can rise above the difficulty to find pleasure in labor, we have returned closer to our original purpose purposed by God.

Overcoming Sin in The Here and Now Through Christ

2011-01-05T13:50:00.001-05:00

I have had this blog on my desktop for some time now. In a sense, I felt the content was too obvious to publish. On the other hand, the actions of Christ are always profound, no matter how many times we hear it. There are various angles that give us certain advantages that other angles do not afford. So, I offer this point of view concerning the Incarnation:

“I have said this to you, so that in me you may have peace. In the world you face persecution. But take courage; I have conquered the world!” –John 16:33

Christ promises His disciples peace. In a world that He admits Christians will be persecuted and will suffer, He also suggests that we will have peace. How can this be so? The two seem mutually exclusive. Nonetheless, Christ suggests that He has conquered the world, and this conquering is to be comforting. All this sounds promising; however, how can we take courage when Christ is telling us we will still suffer? How can we, who are subject to temptation and sin, overcome the evils of the world? What exactly does Christ mean when He suggests that He has conquered the world?

It was purely for our sakes that the Christ suffered. Having all the rights, privileges, and abilities of God. Being God Himself, as one distinct person of the Trinity and of One essence with the Godhead, Christ understood that we, as humans, could not abstractly grasp His power, and He, since He came for our sakes, did not assert His power that He has all the rights to assert. (Philippians 2:6). Thus, He denied Himself His high privilege of His Lordship in order to lower Himself unto the form of man. In this, we might know and relate with Him.

Many biblical exegetes have suggested that the Incarnation was necessary so that Christ might relate to us, to understand what it is to be human and to truly suffer. To an extent, it is absolutely obvious that this is the case. It is obvious that for God to have experiential knowledge of humanness, especially suffering to the extent that we do, He must lower Himself, since God Himself is not subject to the same sort of sufferings of which humanity suffers. Certainly, it would be impossible for God to be tempted as He is without humbling Himself (Luke 4:1-13; Matthew 4:1-11).

While it is obvious that Christ came to experience our suffering, one should not lose focus of the fact that His Incarnation was not an event merely so that His knowledge might be expanded or so that He could save us, as if He had no other option. This is not to deny that His action was not the best action to perform, just that He was not limited. The omnipotent God has limitless means to accomplish His tasks. We should not deny God’s power. While experiential knowledge might never be known without the Incarnation, I suspect God could have sufficient objective knowledge of what it is to suffer. If not, He might have never sympathized with us in the first place.

Therefore, we should not imagine the purpose of the Incarnation being merely a tactic of the Almighty to gain access to our mentality and an understanding of our plight so that He might figure out how He could help us out of our situation. Instead of the Incarnation merely being an act of God so that He might relate to us, it was an act that allows us to relate Him. Just as the Word of God was given in a written form so that humanity might have proper access, so Christ comes in a form to which we can relate, our form.

The bottom line is that the Incarnation was strictly for the benefit of man. Surely it glorifies God, but He is glorious even without the Incarnation. It benefits God only in that He wishes to benefit us. Thus, this is not to deny that it might please Him to do so. The arrival of Christ in human flesh was a coming to bless us. Imagine the Most High deciding to come to this earth to suffer, to take on our sin, when He does not have to take it on, and He does this for me. He does this for you. So, how does this Incarnation bring us the peace Christ has promised us?

Returning to John 16:33, we might understand that hope in Christ can help us overcome the suffering of the tribulations of everyday life. Looking forward to the joy we will experience when there will be no more violence, war, malice and the like, when we will all be together in the presence of God, we might agree with Paul that the trials of this life will be washed away from our minds as they will not compare with the glory we will have obtained (Romans 8:18). However, what of the peace that is to be brought in this life? When we suffer temptations, we have difficulty imagining how we might overcome. We know we do not wish to sin, but sin seems, due to the temptation within, inevitable, even willful disobedience. Furthermore, we might imagine that this temptation and the subsequent sin (which we wrongfully imagine is an inevitable result of temptation) might not go away until we are dead and glorified. We unwittingly hold a low view of God’s power when we affirm this. We somehow suggest that, although Christ lives within me, the power of sin within is greater.

However, true reflection upon the Incarnation reveals quite a different reality. Once we realize Christ too was subject to temptation, yet overcame, we might begin to understand our capacity to overcome, not a capacity naturally within ourselves, but of Him, since He is within the believer through the power of the Holy Spirit. If it is true that we can live by His power, and that we find our being in Him, then we might realize that, since He has, in human form, overcome sin, then He can do the same in us. When we are tempted, we should not imagine sin’s power being too great, for His power that resides within is unimaginably greater than the power of sin. He has even shown that it is powerful enough to overcome sin even in human flesh.

In the end, we are to find our peace in Christ Himself. While external realities pose threats of temporary physical and emotional sufferings, we need not worry about that which once pulled us toward death. Christ has conquered sin. We need not suffer its reign in our lives. In His grace, all else seems to fade. For the Christian, to deny a lack of ability to overcome temptation and sin is to unwittingly degrade the power of Christ that is supposed to be within. This is not to say we cannot willfully sin, but that we do not have to do so. Therefore, the Incarnation is a blessed revelation of the power of God to overcome human temptation and sin, as demonstrated in the mighty works of Christ as He walked the earth and was subjected to many trials, just as each of us are.

If He lives within and is truly the power by which Christians live, He can do what He has proven He can do: overcome sin. Praise His holy name!

Glorified For Our Sakes

2010-12-13T14:33:00.000-05:00

God would be glorious without us, an obvious statement indeed, but one that needs to be affirmed nonetheless. God need not be affirmed by humans or angels in order to remain the Almighty. Therefore, when we read in Scripture that God is concerned about His Holy Name (Ezekiel 36:22), we must ask the question, “why?” Why would a God who needs no affirmation be concerned when we are not glorifying Him? He does not seem to lose anything of necessity. It seems to be a loss for the human who does not uphold God in his or her mind and not a loss for God, and this is exactly the point.

God wishes to be glorified for our sakes. It is only natural that God be glorified. He is the most glorious. God is pleased by our praise, not simply because He is being uplifted, but He is pleased because, by our uplifting of His Name, we will be blessed. And a God of outward focused love is always concerned for the sakes of those He loves. While this at first glance might seem selfish on the behalf of God, we need not come to such conclusions. God knows that those who glorify Him will draw closer to Him through the recognition of sheer truth. As we draw closer to Him, we draw further away from sin and destruction. We draw closer to life. Thus, we are the benefactors of relating to God through worship. Look for a moment at the nation of Israel.

Throughout their history, Israel goes through times of obedience and times of rebellion. As Israel rebels against Yahweh, the Lord allows them to experience the inevitable results of sin in order to teach Israel its need for reliance upon God. Thus, Israel often finds itself delivered into the hands of its enemies. While Israel is supposed to be enjoying the fruits of the promise, including living within the Promise Land, instead, as a result of rebellion, they are often dispersed among the surrounding nations, often nations hostile to the Hebrew people.

While in dispersion, the people of Israel are living far below their privilege as the people of God. As a result, the surrounding nations see that the divine promise to Israel is not being fulfilled, and, instead of attributing the lack of fulfillment to Israel’s lack of obedience to God, the other nations assume this to be a sign of the weakness of Yahweh, of the true God (Ezekiel 36:20). Thus, God states that something must change. The people of God need to be holy so that God might be glorified. But, once again, what does it matter to the Almighty when mere humans misunderstand His glory; no matter what humans think, God is still glorious.

At first, it seems that God is simply concerned for His reputation for His reputation's sake: “It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you profaned among the nations to which you came” (Ezekiel 36:22). God suggests that He will send His Spirit so that Israel might have the ability to remain obedient (vv. 26, 27). While it is obvious that Israel will benefit from His outpouring, God suggests that He does it for the sake of His name, but why?

“I will sanctify my great name [through Israel], which has been profaned among the nations [by Israel]…and the nations will know that I am the Lord…” (Ezekiel 36: 23). God plans to pour out His Spirit upon Israel so that the name they profaned will be sanctified before the nations. Thus, while God says that He does not redeem Israel for its own sake, we should not assume that it is merely for His own sake that He acts. Remember, God does not say that He is merely concerned for His name, but for that name which was profaned before the nations. The corrective is for the nations, the whole world, to understand His glory. To further understand this point, we must look to God’s original and ongoing intent for calling out the nation of Israel. When God establishes His purpose for Israel in speaking to the father of that nation, Abraham, He suggests that Israel will be such a nation that it will bless the entire world (Genesis 22:18; 26:4). Thus, to redeem Israel is to continue this purpose of blessing the world. While the nations are now degrading God by their assumptions of Israel, the chosen people of the promise, God intends that the whole world know that He is the Lord, and when humans actually see the glory of God, they, more often than not, worship Him. Once again, through His glorification, we are blessed.

Our God is not a petty God needing us to affirm Him for His own sake. Instead, He is such a God that, by His outward focused love, He would will our happiness forever. He concerns Himself with our opinion of Him for our own sakes. Otherwise, if God were concerned merely of Himself, He could simply give up on us. As previously stated, to affirm God as glorious is to be blessed through a drawing closer to Him, the source of life. However, let me not be misunderstood. Should we merely worship God because it benefits us? Not at all…

By His very nature God should be glorified. Simply because I am highly valued by God does not give me any right to become prideful. It certainly does not mean I should hold a low view of myself or others as children of God, but glorifying God is a call to give God all honor and praise, to be self-forgetful and outward focused. Less of me is more of Him, and the more of Him I receive, the more blessed I am. If we are truly to display God’s love to the world and to glorify His name, we will be like Him in that we concern ourselves with the sake of others and not with the sake of the self.

Throughout the writing process for this blog post, I worried that I might overemphasize my point. While my point is to raise awareness concerning God’s purpose for our worship in that He is focused upon us, I, of course, did not want to in turn glorify man above God. We owe our all to God. However, as I see it, this understanding of God’s want to be glorified more honors God than merely stating that He needs to be glorified for the sake of being glorified. Honestly, what does a perfect being “need” anyway? Without understanding our need to glorify brings about joyful relationship, we simply downplay the personal aspect of God and make Him out to be vein. But, if we realize that God is concerned for our sakes, we begin to glimpse into His love, and realize He is anything but vein.

Praise Him!

Relational Holiness

2010-11-04T12:59:00.003-04:00

I am slowly working on an idea that makes so much sense in my mind, but is somewhat complex to express into words. Hopefully I will, in time, develop this thought further. The necessity to express this thought became very clear to me when reading a recent article in “Christianity Today.” The article “Hipster Christianity” told of a rising trend in the American Christian culture. While the whole of the article was not completely negative, it still turned my stomach. In an effort to be relevant, I am guessing, many young Christians are rejecting the attitudes of their elders for a more “edgy” demonstration of Christian life.

As for me, one of the most chilling aspects of the hipster movement revealed in this article was the fact that hipster Christians use foul language as a means of expression, even while in the pulpit or in meaningful talks upon the faith in order to relate to the people. I have never been one to concern myself when a fellow brother or sister uses certain words that are deemed negative by society. In fact, I have been guilty of such action myself. However, the true problem of this sort of habit became painfully clear when I realized that not only are some brothers and sisters allowing themselves to become a little too relaxed around each other, but they are openly using such language as a perverted evangelical tool, allowing the world to see that the hipster does not feel he or she is above others. In other words, they cuss so as not to seem “holier than thou.”

As I began to become physically ill at the actions of some of my fellow believers, I began to notice the plank in my own eye. (Do not allow my use of this description of my own fault as a plank have you assume that I see the adoption of worldly language by the hipster culture as a speck…It too is a plank, if not a whole tree house.) We must not allow people to think that relationship with Christ is anything less than an actual changing, a perfecting, from worldly negativity to Christ-centeredness. Thus, even the occasional relaxing of the tongue around those who know my true heart is living far below my calling and privilege.

To live a set-apart, holy life does not necessitate a “holier than thou” attitude. In fact, if holiness is the character demonstrated by Christ, humbleness is surely a large part. Would we ever say Christ was pretentious simply because He did not have a slanderous tongue?

One might say, “Well, you are not Christ, and to pretend to be is pretentious.” But is that not our call? Surely, if we were not asked to follow Christ, we would be pretentious, but we are begged to follow. We are dared to follow. And how might we follow Christ’s directive to be demonstrators of God’s holiness if we cannot truly, by God’s might, be holy (Matt 5: 16; also see Ezek 36:23). God is to be shown holy by the actions of His people. Becoming popular was never the point of the Christian movement. Using the world’s negative language is to ignore and profane the holy name of God. And while the hipster might imagine that his loose tongue makes the unbeliever more comfortable when being evangelized, in effect, they are only belittling the calling of God before the nonbeliever. There is no confidence in the Christian faith for the unbeliever if he or she cannot see any recognizable differnce in the faithful.

But why are my peers, the younger Christian generations, adopting this perverted style of evangelism. In my estimation, I think the problem is largely owed to a loss in the Biblical mandate to be holy. And so a secondary question has to be asked: why have we lost our stress on the doctrine of holiness. In short, I think it is out of disgust that many have turned their noses. Sometime ago, many advocates of Christian holiness lost sight of its relational qualities and made it into a legalistic lifestyle, and the larger holiness movement has suffered ever since.

Since the Reformation, Western Christianity has had little trouble accepting God’s imputation of righteousness to believers. Imputation of righteousness simply means that God, in a forensic sense, declares His followers righteous because they belong to and are covered by Christ. However, the Christian culture has had more than a little trouble accepting God’s impartation of righteousness to believers. Impartation of righteousness simply means that God not only declares us righteous after conversion, but actually begins to transform the believer into a righteous being, not only in word but in deed.

As I said in my opening, I have a lot I want to say on the matter, but I need more time in order to flesh it all out. Therefore, I do not want to belabor my point by offering partially thought out ideas. Instead, I will come to a more abrupt end by revealing what I see as the primary issue. Holiness has largely been ignored because of the perversions others have used to distort its truth. Legalism has made many in the Christian culture become reactionary against the holiness movement, instead of engaging in the movement while using correctives to keep it on the course. While some in the movement have remained engaged despite the narrow views of others, many more have ignored the movement altogether.

The real misunderstanding comes in peoples’ concepts as to how holiness is imparted to the believer. Many have assumed that holiness is an autonomous character gifted by God but exercised by the believer. We do in fact exercise this gift, but not in a completely autonomous fashion. It is not as if God gives us a holy character so that we might be holy apart from Him. This was never the intention for humanity. We were always meant to be holy as we relate to God, but this does not mean, as so many assume, that we are only to be called holy because we belong to a holy God.

We actually are made holy, and we are actually capable of living in action a holy life by the impartation of God’s grace. But this holy character is still incumbent upon God’s presence. In other words, we are capable of being made holy, for it is our focus on and relation to Christ that makes this possible. Instead of impartation of righteousness being a gift of an autonomous, perfect character, it is a reorientation of the being away from selfishness to Christ. As Christians are drawn away from the desires of the flesh by God’s transforming grace, they begin to focus on Christ and to follow His will. Therefore, holiness is relational, for to remove Christ from the center would be to remove that which guides us into holy living.

To live as if we cannot be holy, but are merely to claim Christ’s holiness as our own without allowing it to change our orientation is to fall short of our calling. The hipster movement has missed out on the fullness of the gospel. There needs to be a revival, a reformation of the emerging Christian culture.

“Instead, as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct…” I Peter 15

Idolizing God

2010-10-27T14:40:00.002-04:00

Being honest with oneself, a person may find that he or she is not so much in love with God, but, at least in part, his or her idea of God. This becomes obvious as one matures in his or her understanding of theology. As biblical truth found through Scriptural study begins to replace traditional thought instilled by others and/or self-referenced thought driven by desire, one may find his or her entire religious framework being deconstructed and rebuilt. The Christian faith is an entering into a relationship with a transcendent Being that cannot be entirely understood by the human mind. Thus, categorical knowledge of the being of God will forever be an unfinished area of understanding. It is often a painful revelation when one begins to discover that he or she does not have a true relationship with God, but, instead, has idolized God according to his or her own desires and understandings.

The action of idolizing is not often attributed to someone’s development of coming to understand the being of God, but humans are capable of doing so, nonetheless. Usually, idolization is thought of as the process of uplifting an object or person beyond its rightful status, many times placing its importance above God. However, one cannot rightfully suggest that a person is capable of raising God above His status, for He is the highest being in existence. Therefore, this cannot be what I mean by idolizing God.

In ancient pagan tradition, which is still represented in some religions today such as Hinduism, the worshiper would create an image of a god called an idol. This object would be used in order to worship and manipulate the god. Because this image was derived from the human’s mind, it represented the human’s self-projection of his or her desire of what this god might be. This is why God expressly forbids the Hebrews to create any graven images of Him, for God created us in His image, not the other way around. Therefore, humans are guilty of idolizing God when they create within their minds an image of God that pleases their liking instead of coming to understand God as He presents Himself.

Oddly enough, idolizing God has quite a different and almost opposite effect than idolizing any other object or being. The results are not entirely opposite because they are both negative, but for very different reasons. To idolize anything other than God is to raise that thing above its status, and is an injustice to that object. For example, many persons in a relationship, especially a relatively new relationship, will often idolize the other person, expecting the other to be the perfect match according their own desires. As a result, the idolizers will often become unfairly disappointed in the other when they do not act to desired preconceived notions. In fact, this is why many relationships end, even marriages: The person was more in love with an idea of the other than they were with the other.

On the other hand, when a religious person creates God in his or her own mind, the result is not a raising up of God beyond His intended position, but it is to lower God from His status, because human projections always fall short of His glory. While learning of God is an invaluable investment, one cannot presume that his or her knowledge of God produces any sort of relationship. Instead, true relationship should produce greater understanding of God. To enter into this relationship, one need not obtain a particular knowledge of God. Instead one must become submissive to God’s will. Through obedience we fall deeper in love and come to truly know God. Love is expressed not through a self-taught knowledge, but obedience and trust (John 14:15).

The Importance of Right Doctrine

2010-09-08T19:07:00.002-04:00

It has often been said that right doctrine is not as important to Christian faith as right relation. However, right relation seems to be based upon proper understanding. Assume that you enter into a relationship with person X. Let’s say that this is the common relationship of friendship. You might assume that X desires to share ideas, interests, maybe even sorrows, but X assumes that this relationship also entails that the two of you will participate in certain morally wrong actions such as robbing others of valuable items. Unfortunately for you, this assumption is only made clear when X steals from a stranger and you are obligated to respond justly, breaking what X thinks is a commonly held tenet of the friendship. Obviously, this situation was based on false assumptions of or ignorance to this facet of X’s character that might have been avoided if you had attempted to learn more about X.

Relational interaction between personal beings is heavily impacted by the shared assumptions of each person, and knowing each other’s character can help inform what the person might expect out of a relationship. If the character of God cannot be separated from the being of God, and I suspect it cannot, since God is defined by such characteristics as love, then right study of God and right understanding of His character will lend to better relation with Him. Being in Christian faith is being in a relationship with God, and for any two beings to be in proper relation to the other, it is beneficial for each person to understand the other, especially when one being offers relation based on certain principles to which he or she expects the other to agree. It goes without saying that God knows our character and what is best for us since He is our Creator. However, as humans, we often lack understanding or have misunderstandings concerning God’s character.

Christian doctrine helps us to rightly express God’s character as well as His purposes for being in relationship with humanity, but often we observe that many in relationship with Him do not hold to certain doctrines that have been affirmed by the majority of the church. Some presuppose that such lack of understanding in a saint points to the fact that doctrines are not important. In fact, the church at large has various denominations that differ on many theological doctrines. However, is unimportance the only logical inference that can be extracted from this sort of situation?

Doctrines are human expressions of a greater truth. The truth precedes our understanding. A truth does not depend on our ability to affirm such a truth. In other words, humans do not arbitrarily create doctrine, but form doctrinal understanding and formulas based on an established truth concerning God and His will for humanity, as revealed in Scripture. If there exists person who are in relation to the Father and yet are not willing to confirm or are ignorant to a certain doctrine, then they are in relation to God by His grace and mercy, not merely because the doctrine is of no importance. The truth that is affirmed by the doctrine still presses upon and has consequences for this person, whether he or she wishes to affirm this truth or not.

I suspect that each of us have certain misunderstandings because of our ignorance, and God is gracious enough to allow us an opportunity to learn, not before we enter into relationship, but while we are in relationship. Although God is gracious enough to allow us our ignorance, it is not beneficial for us to remain in such a state. It is better to come to right understanding of doctrine through study and prayer than to find out the hard way by assuming an incorrect reality of God only to painfully stumble when we wrongfully suspect we are in His will when we are not. Thankfully, when we wonder so far due to misunderstanding we experience pain so that we might realize our mistake, but I suspect each of us would rather properly avoid the pain in the first place.

With this in mind, proper doctrinal affirmations are of much benefit to the believers and can help believers in leading others into a proper relationship with God.

Christianity and the Reality of Death

2010-09-07T10:40:00.001-04:00

Christianity and the Reality of Death

"Die before you die. There is no chance after." C. S. Lewis

I recently heard some talk over a program airing on television that demonstrated that psychologist have the ability to manipulate and stimulate a subject’s mind in such a way, I assume through electronic signal, that the subject begins to believe he or she is having a religious experience. Specifically, the subject assumes he or she is in the presence of God. Once again, this is hearsay, but as it was reported to me, the thrust of the program was set out to prove that humans have naturally developed the concept of a divine being so that we might feel comforted in light of certain fears, such as the reality of death and persecution. Of course, this is nothing new. Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud are among many who have suggested such theories, both for various reasons.

I do not have much time to watch such programming, nor do I have much to say on the matter, mainly because I think these sorts of theories warrant little attention due to their distortion of the issue. However, out of frustration, I do feel the need to briefly address this topic and share what I think is an obvious, albeit theological, rebuttal to such notions. The one major fact that secular psychology is overlooking is that the claim that Christianity is a religion that somehow comforts us in the knowledge of inevitable death is a straw man. If one has this sort of understanding of Christianity, he or she is missing the point.

For many persons struggling with doubt or disbelief in the divine and the supernatural, this program seems to offer some major implications as to how we are to understand the phenomenon of religion. However, are the results from such experimentation really detrimental to Christian belief? Are not the scientists’ analysis of the results presupposing that such a result, manipulation of mind in a certain way produces the feeling of the divine, points to there not being a God. Why should it be the case that the “discovery” of the mind’s having a natural, built-in concept of God be understood as pointing to a mechanism developed by evolution that helps humans cope with fears? Have not theologians been suggesting that humans have the natural concept of God precisely because God gave humans this capability?

However, my own issues with this line of thought are not even based in the question of whether or not we are given this sense or not. I find the assumption that Christianity is a crutch for humans to deal with the concept of death to be a gross misunderstanding of the true message of the faith.

Christianity, in many ways, is a call to death. Death is not an avoidable reality. Instead, we are called to die to self so that we might become Christ-centered beings. We are to become so Christ like, as Saint Paul suggests, that when we act and live, it will be Christ who is living in and through us (For more on this topic, please refer to my essay, “If Christ is All, What Does that Make Me?”). Persons entering into the faith, as well as Christians at various points in our walk MUST face death. We are called to become radically new beings that result from a giving up of all the self wants and desires, which is to keep the status quo.

Secular psychology is not interested in this fact. Spirituality might be taken into consideration in evaluating humans, and I do not want to belittle any secular psychologist who does consider the possibility of the life-changing aspect of faith. However, I doubt many psychologists do take such accounts of one becoming a new creation seriously. Therefore, they study men and women in their natural state. In our natural state, humanity has been left wanting, knowing there must be something else out there, but also knowing of the ultimate reality of death. This does lead to fear, but Christians have never denied the fact, as these scientists seem to be presupposing, that each and ever person must face this fear and die. We only suggest that death might be more than what the secular definition seems to suggest. Death is frightening because we lose ourselves. The self wants to survive, but it cannot. Christians affirm this, and our faith does not suggest any way around this fact. We merely suggest that this sort of death can happen during this life. The natural self (the sin-oriented self) can, in this very life, die and be born anew, but we still lose that self that so desperately wishes to be in control, or at least we should.

Psychologists by-and-large have been suggesting, as the television program suggested, that humans must find a way to cope with the void left by the self-realization of our finitude, but Christians do not find that finitude is the root of the void. Instead, there exists a hole left by our separation from God.

Therefore, to commit to Christ, one must be willing to give up his or her life as he or she wishes it to be, and this is a very scary reality to face indeed. All the self-oriented desires must pass away. In a real sense, to pass into Christianity is to face, once-and-for-all, the finitude of the self. It is at the moment of committing to Christ that we die to self and begin life anew, reborn and converted to a new way of life. We do not die in a mere metaphorical sense; it is a true passing into another life. While physical death still awaits us, that does not deny the fact that we have already faced the reality of death. Maybe this reality is more hopeful than the secular understanding, but that does not mean it is wrong.

Thus, secular psychology gets it wrong when it suggests Christians are not willing to let go. For letting go is the very purpose we are called into this faith. It is the very essence of the faith. So, what then do I make of the claims of this television show? What if science has proven that it is in our very nature to have the desire for a divine presence in our life? Well, that makes sense to me. Does it not to you? God has given us the ability to desire and know of Him. As for such claims that we, or better yet, evolutionary process created our notion of God, well, I do not have much more time to discuss such nonsense.

Ever Strengthening Faith

2010-08-16T11:29:00.000-04:00

This post is a quick reflection on a philosophy class I just finished concerning Reason and Faith. I have not hammered out my thoughts nor did I proof-read this post. With that said, please read with mercy in light of that fact, and return in a few weeks for an updated version.

We know that belief-that God exists is not enough for salvation. Salvation is relationship with God. While I might believe that the president of the United States exists, this by no means suggests that I am in relationship with Barrack Obama. Likewise, one might know of God without knowing God personally. But many suggest that humans can only “know” things through natural inference. Natural inference does not allow for us to enter into spiritual relationship with God. There are some who suggest that faith is just a form of belief of the mind. However, many Christians suggest that faith is a matter of the soul/spirit and not merely a matter of the mind. If this is the case, can faith ever be effective? Can it ever overcome doubt?

There have been philosophers that have pointed out that we are only able to reason from experience. Our language is built upon experience, and we explore ideas by forming them into words. Thus, God cannot reveal anything to us that we cannot understand from experience. We cannot say, suggests this line of argumentation, that God gives us any special revelation that we could not arrive at from experience. And, even if He can, it does not do anyone else any good because we have no words from experience to explain what has been revealed. In other words, God cannot, or, at very least, does not have to, reveal anything new to us. With this in mind, these philosophers contend that all the knowledge that we can ever affirm, we learn through natural methods of reasoning from past experience. Thus, faith has little to do with the statement: “I know God.” Is this really the case?

Although the argument about beliefs might not deal exactly with faith itself, I find that it does have implications for some persons’ views of faith. For example, many Christians would argue that faith is a higher ability than reason. In addition, many would also posit that faith informs reason. In light of the above reasoning, can this be the case? Can we claim that “belief-that,” a product of the mind, can be informed by, “belief-in” (faith), a product, arguably, of a higher function? If faith is beyond humans’ natural experience and is not developed from experience, can it still inform the mind which understands from experience?

I think there is a way that faith can be helpful to reason, even if reason only affirms what we know from experience. Faith might be a quality that, among other things, somehow strengthens our already formed beliefs of the mind.

For example S might believe through reasoning from evidence that G probably exists. Let’s say that S was willing to place a value of 55% to this assuredness of G’s existence. Let us also imagine that S has tried with all his might to find evidence for G, but still is only somewhat sure and holds some doubt. Could it not be the case that G has a power to reward S if S chooses, on account of his desire for relationship with G, to trust G in spite of lingering doubt. Suppose G provides that faith, a quality He provides if S desires to exercise it, is such a quality that it causes the mind to become more certain in previously held beliefs. Thus, because S decides to place his faith by gradually raising S’s assurance of G’s existence, until it eventually reaches 100%. This could be accomplished by some relation of soul and body, in which a soul that has faith has the ability to cause the body to be a healthier functioning machine so that the mind can more easily replace doubt with trust.

I am not exactly sure how this might work, but let’s think of one possibility to show that it is at least logically consistent. It is natural for our feelings to play a part in the strength of our beliefs. Feelings do not have to be the direct result of beliefs. When I look at my wife and my heart flutters, I do not experience this love just because I believe she exists and loves me back. My feelings for her are deeper than my beliefs about her. If we believe in unconditional love, we must affirm this. Thus, feelings can be something other than beliefs that yet effects belief.

If faith is beyond reason, does that still mean it cannot influence our emotions? I see no reason that it cannot. When feelings are heightened, our beliefs are impacted. For example, when I hear a bump in the night, I might think nothing of it at first, but then I begin to think of the safety of my wife and daughter. The emotion of fear begins to drive my belief that there is someone in the house until I become almost certain of this.

Faith might not be a mere belief that God is present, but an overwhelming feeling that He is reaching out to our heart. While our mind might not think much of His presence at first, the feeling lingers and will not leave us alone: the stronger the feeling, the stronger the belief.

Thus, we do not have to affirm that faith is just another species of belief that is formed in the mind of man. It is a gift from God that is more likened to feeling than ascent to truth, seeded in the heart, to keep us grounded in His love. While there have existed times in my walk in faith that I might have thought, “what if God is not there?” there has been something much deeper within my being that has kept me rooted in my walk, and I believe this is the quality of faith. Praise God!

The Crutch of Inbred Sin

2010-08-05T13:08:00.003-04:00

“What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? –Saint Paul, Apostle of Christ

Reliance upon sin for the Christian is deplorable; we are surely to utterly rely on Christ and no other. Yet we often defer to our inbred impurity as excuse for wrongdoings. It is true that our perfection is not realized at the moment of conversion. Sin still lives within. However, while it lives within, it has no more dominion when Christ’s Spirit resides on the throne of the heart. Can we deny this? Is it not the case, as St. Paul suggests, that in light of the Spirit, if we focus upon Him, we remain in His will and do not have the opportunity to sin (Galatians 5:16)? Voluntary sin on behalf of the Christian is thus an act of volition in which one diverts His gaze from God Most High. In light of this, are we justified in the acclimation that “the Devil made me do it?”

As a matter-of-fact, I must recognize infirmities and psychological ills. In this consideration, I recognize such evils that result from these conditions of the human being to be involuntary and unrecognized as sin by the offender. In His mercy, God extends grace to us when we are guilty of such transgression. The above query deals with those sins that we recognize as such and participate in them nevertheless. This is the nature of such sin that we attribute to inbred sin. To attribute it as such is to recognize it as sin. So, I ask again, are we justified, in light of our known sin, to say, “I cannot but help to sin. It is in my nature”?

If it is an act of volition, how can we say such things? One might object, “I am weak, and my brokenness is such that I cannot help but sin. I would respond, “Do you not call yourself a follower of Christ and, as such, do you not proclaim to have Him living within? If so, then is it by your power that you live, or by His?” In light of the multitude of sin we are capable of committing in our life, it is easy to say that I might become overwhelmed and must submit to my nature at some point in time. However, think of each potential sin as it presents itself through initial temptation. Reflecting on each potential sin, one at a time, do we not have the ability to deny our temptation by appealing to the power of Christ within, or is that power too weak?

In order of the severity of their impact, think upon sin from least to greatest. The white lie: are you unable, with Christ’s power, to deny your desire to lie and instead tell the truth? The act of stealing: are you unable, with Christ’s power, to deny your desire to steal and instead trust Him for sustenance? The act of murder: are you unable, with Christ power, to deny your desire to kill and instead learn to love others as Christ loves you? When temptation comes our way, cannot Christ lead the heart away from such contemplations, or is His model prayer said in vein when we say, “Lead us not into temptation”?

When we approach sinful acts in this manner, we surely affirm Christ’s power over each, but in real life circumstances we too often circum to our temptations and use our inbred sin as an excuse. Sin has no power over those who are in Christ. While it lingers until we are perfected in Him, it cannot, or, at very least, should not reign. But, in order to realize this truth, we must trust in His power, and this is as much a plea for myself to follow as it is my message to you.

While we are capable of sin, even as Christians, and still have an advocate with the Father if we do fail, we do not have to do so. Sin should be the rarest of exceptions and never the rule. He has the power to deliver if we be vigilant enough to recognize our temptations and then lean utterly upon Him.

Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time: Casting all you care upon Him; for He cares for you. Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. But the God of all grace, who has called us unto His eternal glory by Christ, after that you have suffered a while, make you perfect, establish, strengthen, settle you. To Him be the glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen –I Peter 5:6-11

Is Equality an Established Truth?

2010-08-03T11:29:00.003-04:00

Most sane human beings have some sort of ethic from which to operate based in a phenomenon known as morality. Morality seems to be an inescapable quality that humanity upholds and from which we establish laws to which we hold each other responsible to follow. The ethic of equality that we, especially in the United States, hold seems to be a peculiar and particular assumption that must be firmly grounded in other beliefs (i.e. humans have value, etc.). Equality that grants each person a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness must be based on the fact that each human has been created with such rights. But, what overarching law demands this equality?

It would seem that if it were the case, as many assume, that humanity arrived on the scene through a very gradual, unsupervised process of natural selection (NS), there would be no other laws of morality than those created by the creatures that arrived from this process. Or, as the proponents of Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian suspect, NS might, out of necessity, demand “survival of the fittest” (SOF). The ethic of equality seems to assume a prior law set in place before humanity, not set by humanity, and although NS might precede humanity, it does not seem to grant equality; in fact, SOF seems to preclude such a law.

Most people base basic human rights on the basis of a divine authority. In other words, we establish our equality on the fact that we are created by a God who has established order as such. However, there have been some in recent times that have tried to establish the basic right of equality without the need for a higher authority. Can this be the case?

I might be able to write a lengthy dissertation on the topic, and someday I might do just that. But today I have a simple thought. So, for now, consider the following: There have been philosophers in the past that attempt to establish an ethic based on the ambiguity of our existence. One such philosopher Simon De Beauvoir claims that, since we are the highest being, at least that we know of, it is our responsibility to establish the rights of others and live peaceable lives based on our own ability to take charge of our fate. She argues that if there is no higher being, we are duty-bound to take control.

While these philosophers establish a need for humans to be responsible in forming ethics and laws, it still seems that the basic right of equality is not so basic without the assumption of the existence of God. Why is it my responsibility to establish equality for persons weaker than myself? If it were the case that there were no God and SOF was our highest governing truth, it might be argued that it is human duty to exploit and expose the weakness of others, ethnically or otherwise, so that we might weed out disease, figuratively or otherwise, that is spread by their weakness and incapability.

I know that the previous statement is a disagreeable one, and it is so for good reason. I submit that it is disagreeable because equality of all humanity is a basic truth grounded in God, otherwise it could not be rightly considered basic at all. If one believes in equality for all, the existence of God seems to be the most reasonable explanation of the existence of such a basic truth.

Faith is to the Soul as Reason is to the Body

2010-08-02T15:48:00.002-04:00

As a person’s body cannot rightly be said to be whole without both flesh and bone, so the human cannot be said to be whole without both body and soul. Like flesh and bone, these components cannot function properly without each other (at least in this life); however, we can, as we do with flesh and bone, speak of each separately and diagnose each part of the greater whole.

With this in mind, we must understand that each part works with the other for the good of the whole, yet they each operate with different capacities. The brain operates with reason and observation. When it ponders an object of its interest, it begins to formulate ideas based on previous experience and knowledge that can be expressed in language. The soul, on the other hand, operates with faith. When it ponders an object of its interest, it begins to form a relationship to the object that cannot fully be explained by human language.

Thus, doubt and faith are both capacities of the greater whole, yet each one works on a separate level of the human being. Doubt comes from gaps in reason. However, faith is a product of the soul. As John Wesley pointed out, faith lies in the hidden heart of man. With this in mind, we need not assume necessarily that doubt is to be an indication of “weak” faith, unless the doubt cripples the relationship between God and person (I will speak more to this in a moment).

Because of these phenomena of human function, we might better understand why the Christian who is plagued by doubt might yet hold dearly to faith. While the mind might have severe trouble in its understanding of God, producing doubt, the soul, in relation to the Father, has no trouble relying and trusting the object of its desire (if we can rightly call God object). As modern psychology has indicated, many factors can contribute to a strained mind. Thus, some people do not have the capacity to “believe” properly because of plaguing anxiety and the like, and the gracious and patient God of Creation mercifully understands such issues.

While I hope that this can be digested as a word of hope, I must not neglect a word of warning. This distinction between faith and doubt does not suggest that doubt cannot penetrate to the soul and hamper faith. Doubt can become cancerous if not rightly understood. If one allows doubt to overpower the mind, the person can become so obsessed that the heart has no power in which to operate. As bone cancer can cripple the whole body, so doubt can cripple the whole person, if he or she does not actively allow faith to inform reason.

Properly align your faith and reason, properly accepting the capacities of each so that common human malfunction does not cripple your joy in relation to the Father. He is patient, kind and loving. If your mind has trouble accepting, but your heart wishes to hold on, take this as an indication that He has your heart and smile because you are His beloved, even when this fact is almost impossible to fathom.

Is The Reception of Faith in Christ to Be Considered Works Righteousness?

2010-07-05T15:55:00.001-04:00

A Wesleyan’s Perspective Briefly Stated

Note: Below I describe a few select opinions of Christian understanding that differ from that of my own. These statements are brief and are not intended to sum up any one particular tradition of thought, nor are they intended to stereotype any particular person into one way of thinking. If it were my intention to discuss vast differences between my thought and the thoughts of others (although there are particular thought traditions below that I do wish to distance myself from, and these are the traditions of thought that contradict orthodox faith by either affirming works righteousness as a means of salvation or affirming universalistic claims of salvation), I would be sure to spend much time on the topic. However, it is my hope and desire to clearly express my own thoughts and maybe even demonstrate how similar they might be to those who differ in opinion, if only semantically.

In reading the Scriptural writings of Paul in his epistle to the Galatians (3:11-14-as well as many places elsewhere. I explicitly mention this epistle because it is the area of my study at this time), he makes clear the issue associated with works righteousness. Works is an attempt to perfect the will of God through an impossible task of the self trying to flawlessly obey the law. By this, the one performing the work hopes to enter into the will of God for the purpose of salvation. On the other hand, reception of faith is an act that is entirely other, if one wishes to call it an act at all.

Merely because something is an action does not constitute it as a work. Reception of faith is not an attempt by the individual to earn salvation. The one who truly receives Christ knows he or she has no means of saving the self, and it is only the grace of God that delivers us from sin. Reception is a passive act of submitting to God so that He might work in us (the term passive is not meant to remove responsibility from the individual. The term is used to denote that it is not the human action that is the active agent in salvation, even though it is a crucial aspect in the process). It is also important to note that it is not the human’s acceptance that is the initiating factor is salvation. The term “reception” needs to be understood as a response in that it is an action empowered by an already active action of God.

Many have tried to credit or discredit the action of reception by equating it to works righteousness. However, before one can categorize an action as a work, he or she must have a functioning definition of the term “works.” Merely claiming that a work is any action is to haphazardly dismiss the specifics that the scripture gives about the term. In our common everyday understanding of language, we hardly equate all actions with work. For example, we would hardly call the action of sleep an act of work. Similarly, we need to specify our theological understanding of works. To restate my definition from above: Works is an attempt to perfect the will of God through an impossible task of the self trying to flawlessly obey the law.

If we do in fact affirm along with traditional Christianity that we are totally depraved-we have no means of developing a healthy faith on our own- we must also affirm that it is only by God that we receive the gift of faith. With these affirmations, we are left with an inescapable consequence: Someone must be responsible for the detriment of those who never obtain faith.

In the opinion of some, it can be affirmed that God is ultimately responsible for the salvation and damnation of all humans. This affirmation is referred to as double predestination. Some assume that the sovereignty of God cannot be affirmed without this previous affirmation. A powerful argument used to affirm this assumption is the statement that God can do as God pleases, for He is God. There is not much that could be said to counter this argument, if it were the case that God did have such motives. However, we are given information about the resolute love of God by God Himself that seems to counter this claim.

For others, God’s sovereign choice of determining our ultimate fate does not leave man free from guilt. In this line of thought, even if God chooses to deliver some from sin, it is still the sin of the individual that made him or her guilty in the first place. Election is then a merciful act of allowing some to be pardoned for no other reason than it pleases God. Once again, if this was God’s prerogative, our protest would not mean much at all, for God is God. Yet, for many, including myself, it seems intuitive that the just God of Scripture would have the ability and desire to offer this gift to all.

Many, like me, that do hold this intuition that God wishes to offer this gift to all, unlike me, believe that no matter what one does, he or she will be saved by God’s divine election of all humanity. For the Universalist, God pardons all, no matter the condition of the heart. If this was the will of God, so be it. However, His holiness is described as such that this claim seems to contradict His very character.

There are still some that insist that works are a part of our way to salvation. While they might affirm that Christ is involved, some suggest that humans must grow into salvation, and once again, if this was God’s intention, I am sure it could be done in this manner. The problem with this thought is that it is a confusing of the Scriptural message of Christian life. Christian life is indeed to be marked by works of righteousness, but only after one is previously saved. There are no good works done by humanity unless the Spirit already dwells within, and the Spirit cannot dwell within until one has previously been justified by Christ. Never should we confuse the two crucial doctrines of justification and sanctification. Neither facet of our salvation should be ignored, but their proper order must also be understood.

Now that I have given a very brief and admittedly somewhat deficient account of what some Christians hold to be the proper means of salvation, I will leave you with my thoughts on the subject, thoughts not derived from my own imagination (not to suggest other’s thoughts are derived from their imagination), but from my humble interpretation of God’s will for us as I prayerfully understand it.

While humanity has been totally depraved of its moral image and has no means within its self in which to be saved, God’s grace is such that He might restore in each of us the ability to be called forth. If it is the case, as Scripture suggests, that God wishes for no man to perish, and if it is true that Christ’s sacrifice was intended for all, then all must have the opportunity and thus be held responsible for his or her eternal state (while there might be questions concerning those who never here the Gospel, this is not the time to discuss their possible fate. Although I will suggest that God’s grace extends to all, and He will fairly treat all He does judge). However, this responsibility is not to be accompanied with a pride of self accomplishment, for it is still by His grace that we are afforded such an opportunity. By His grace, fallen humans are given the ability to understand their hopelessness apart from Him and are given the choice to receive His will.

While works is a self righteous attempt to earn salvation, reception of faith as a gift of God is a passive action of allowing God to do for the individual what He has wanted to do for that person all along, but has waited for the person to want to rely on God so that he or she is not mandated into a relationship that is based on force, but rather based on love and dependence. True relationship must be a mutual interaction.

The submissive response of opening one’s heart to receiving faith is not an action of self-deliverance because it remains God who must perform this work. In truth, one could keep his or her heart open all he or she wished and it would amount to nothing unless God decided to act. Fortunately we are given the promise that those who are willing will receive.

However one may wish to look at the situation of faith, orthodox Christian teaching remains firm that it is not by any works that we are saved. We are saved only by the grace of God the Father through the sacrifice of His only Son, Christ, who sends us the power of the Holy Spirit to live as His people.

Now go and live in His promise as His people.

The Narrow Path… (as I see it)

2010-04-23T14:51:00.004-04:00

Note: When I write something that is somewhat obscure, which I think this post might be, and yet, at least in my mind, is somewhat eloquent, I pray I am not being merely clever, which is often the case for obscure writings (they seem to have substance, but they really mean nothing). I hope what I have to say has meaning. I hope that at least some who read my thoughts expressed here will be impacted in a positive manner.

While the path is narrow, it is deep. The depth at which one walks is not to be seen as an indication that one is somehow greater than those closer to the surface, for many on the surface may still be far ahead of many who travel deeply. Those who travel deeply might not travel at this depth for any other reason than they were created too heavy to walk on the surface. These who travel deeply cannot spend much time on the surface without frantically thrashing to stay afloat. It is within their very nature to sink deeply into their surroundings.

This might be a warning to those who travel deeply and are pessimistic about the quality of the faith of those who might not be so deep. While it might be human pride that tells us that the deeper we are in understanding the more important we are, the truth is that the deeper we travel the more fragile we become. If one takes stock of the believers around him or her, it becomes painfully obvious that those closer to the surface seem to travel the path of relationship with God much easier than those who might be deeper in understanding. The truth about understanding is that the more you have, the more you realize you do not know.

Our depth is dictated by our inner capabilities. Many intellectuals have no other choice than to go deeper so that they can move ahead, for if they remain at the surface, all their energy is wasted trying to stay afloat. While we might wish to stay on the surface, God draws us deeper, and as soon as we see the merit to this deeper journey, God does not allow us to go any deeper. While it is our decision to submit to our abilities and travel as deep as we are able, our potential is limited by our Maker who keeps us from going too deep so that we might realize that we must rely on Him. It is His prerogative. Going beyond the point God has dictated leads us into blindness. For, if we do choose to go beyond where He intends, He will not travel with us, and we have no light to understand true reality. This, I fear, is the condition of so many intellectuals of today.

Here I must carefully clarify what I mean by depth, because there exists various types of depth. This depth has little to do with our depth in relationship with God. The depth I speak of is vertical. It is the depth to which we understand our point on the path. The depth of our relation, on the other hand, is more of a matter of how far we have traveled with God in faith and has little to do with the depth at which we understand, other than the fact that the being at the correct depth of understanding for each individual is a matter of faithfulness to God.

I have no all encompassing final application to make here. However, I do hope that this is not the end to your thought on the subject matter. I hope this is a kick-board for further meditation.

God bless.

-TM

Life Or Death?

2010-04-20T15:06:00.001-04:00

If you died today, would you go to heaven? This is a popular question that many of us evangelicals like to ask of those we are concerned for. But where does this lead the mind that has been inquired? This projects thoughts of the future, the life to come. But our salvation is now; our reality of citizenship in the kingdom, although not yet consummated here on earth, is a truth we live in now. It is our present concern. Sure, this question implies one’s condition for the present moment in that it refers to today. Ultimately, however, the question concerns one’s status as a child of God, and the focus of this status is one’s security in the afterlife. In other words, this question reveals the inquisitor’s view of the purpose of salvation and the end goal of faith, which is going to heaven, and this assumption is almost blasphemous. Christ’s purpose for dying on our behalf is not to give us the gift of heaven, as if heaven is nothing more than a peaceful retirement community for the dead.

Christ did not come just so that we might live forever. He came to transform us into His image, to redeem our brokenness, not only in the future, but here and now, to bring us back to His original purpose of being in relationship with Him, to make us holy. This is the end goal of our faith. Heaven is the place where God and His holy people dwell until the restoration of all things when we shall once again live on Earth as citizens of the fully restored New Jerusalem. It is not a prize for simply claiming to be a Christian. I am not accusing everyone who asks this question of denying this reality; I have asked the question myself, and I have done so out of genuine concern for people I love. However, what I am suggesting is that this question can lead to false conclusions that have little to do with the redeeming cross.

Maybe the better question is this: Are you who God has called you to be today? Are you living a life of happiness in relation to God at this very moment? Does His Spirit witness with your Spirit today? In its best possible sense, the question of heaven is asking whether or not we will be in the presence of the Holy God in the future, in the life to come. However, the question should really be: are you living in His presence now? There is no future hope without present salvation. Present salvation is by no means a mere promise for a future life. Present salvation is given to us so that we might grow in holy love now. This is not a call for us to forget our hope for the future. Yet, our hope for the future should not be a cause for us ignoring our present reality before the Living God today.

In life or death our purpose is to, by His grace alone, be truly holy.

My Fear of Being Happy

2010-03-19T14:16:00.005-04:00

The following is an excerpt from a soon to be published TSM theological essay, "The Proper Acceptance of Assurance." I have not had time to proof, so forgive any grammatical mistakes. -TM

There is a particular professor at the seminary I attend whose disposition and approach to faith I have found a bit perplexing. This is not a commentary on the quality of his faith, only his manner of thinking, which is neither inherently good nor bad, but fits his quirkiness well and, for that reason, is very good (in the highest sense of the word). I am not sure why I bring this up other than to introduce my story. While some of his statements cause me to lose total track of the conversation in order to dissect his thought, whether that be good or bad, I never find myself drifting away during his prayers. His prayers are such that they captivate all who listen, but not so that one is amazed by the teacher himself, but, rather, they are such prayers that one can meditate on them and talk to God about them all day.

Today’s prayer was no exception. Now, when I give you the gist of the prayer, you might not be blown away. However, if you could but hear them in their context, you might be amazed at the depth that flows forth. While I will not attempt to recreate the whole prayer, here is the main message: While we are so amazed at God’s creativity, his power, his intelligence, and so forth, what is even more so amazing is His goodness. We are foolish in that we do not understand such goodness. His goodness is so great-and here is the part that really shook me-that He would will our happiness forever.

I tell you that story, to tell you this. My reaction to the last statement-that God is so good that He would will our happiness forever-struck me in a profound and even disturbing way. It is not that I did not already know this, but for some reason, in that moment, the reality of God, as it sometimes does, became so real to me that I found myself frightened. In a real large sense, this fear was that healthy fear we often read of in the Old Testament; however, there was yet another side to this fear. Something in me, something dark within me, was frightened by this proposition. It was not merely fear of ending up on the wrong side of eternity, missing the boat, if you will. That is to say, I was not brought to fear because I was afraid of not obtaining this happy state of eternal bliss with God (which would suggest the alternative-damnation), and it was not that, in that moment, I feared my professor’s words to be empty so that what he spoke of did not exist. It was something much worse, for I believed precisely what he was saying.

Before I tell you what this feeling was, I must tell you why I offer this thought to you. As a (forming) minister, the last thing I personally want to do is show you my weakness, especially when it comes to the faith that I wish to present. I am called to be a shepherd, and I cannot afford my flock not feeling safe with my leadership. However, my flock must also know my sincerity. Thus, in order to honestly speak of my knowledge of the darkness that sin brings, I want to relate to my reader through showing the severity of the darkness sin sometimes brings me.

So, without any more delay, I will tell you what I fear about the statement: God wills our happiness forever. In short, I fear exactly that, that God would will my happiness forever. I fear the idea that I am going to exist forever, even if this forever is to be spent in utter happiness. I do not wish to analyze this fear in depth, and I do not wish for you to worry about it yourself. That is but a part of who I am, the old self. The old self wishes not to be ruled by God, but loves autonomy, to be master of its own reality, but this leads to death.

While I am a child of God, I am still tainted by sin, and that which sin infects is dead. Thus, the dead, false self fears its ultimate demise. It knows the power of God, and it knows that His ultimate will for my life is to strip my true self-the self hidden in Christ-of the dead self. All that the self loves for its own sake will perish, and this old self does not wish to be let go. The curse of death is so great that even that which is already dead fights against it in a futile effort of self-preservation. In light of God’s goodness, I let go more and more of the dead self, and when this happens it screams out in fear. I experienced my deadness today, and, praise Him, I think I experienced it because I was letting it go just a bit more in light of my professors prayer. So, I must say: Thank you Dr. Stone...

Contemplative Awakening

2010-02-26T10:04:00.003-05:00

I am not a poet. I work much better in the prosaic realm. However, lately, I have been inspired by a friend who is a poet by nature. Since I have no natural talent when it comes to poetry, I decided to model my work after Zach's. Now, you must understand that I do not presume to suggest my work is near his level by any means; however, since his work was my inspiration, I must give credit.

Since poetry can be obscure and since I am a novice, I must give direction to my intention to this poem, or at least share my heart in this work. For some time, I have been thinking about prayer. I have wanted to express my feelings, but for some reason, I could not do so in prose. Therefore, I turned to poetry…

This poem is for anyone who has felt lost in prayer. I wanted to express something I find God has been telling me: Prayer has many obstacles. The imagination begins to run wild, and we feel guilty for this. Why? Why do we allow our thoughts to stop us? Another obstacle is the feeling of being lost. The mind begins to fail us in prayer, and we assume we are doing something wrong when we are in darkness. But, what if it is the case that we are in that exact place that God wants us to be? Think about this: If God is transcendent and beyond the senses, how will He appear to the mind in prayer? –As absolute Darkness. We let this blindness scare us away. But, what if we were to stay and listen to the heart, that place where God speaks to our being?

I am not suggesting that this place of darkness is all prayer can be or should be. I only suggest that it might just be a good thing, instead of that dead end we have always assumed it is. I do not know if you will agree with what I have proposed, but I hope it will stir thought within your soul.

Contemplative Awakening

I close my eyes once more,
But not for sleep.
Here I am again,
Staring out into Darkness.
My soul at the edge of this Undefined.
How many times have I stood here?
How many times have I walked away?

The familiar clouds swiftly pass over my being.
Anxiety fills my veins.
Open your eyes,
The mind is screaming.
The heart wants to stay.
Eyes clinched,
I remain.
What will happen if I stay?
What if this is not the dead end I assumed?

This place is confusion.
I seek deeper things;
Yet, I cannot help but notice the trifles that dance about.
Dancing across the grounds of my soul,
They bring with them guilt.
Why do I pay them attention?
Why do I find guilt in what I am unable to control?

I am astonished that I have yet given up.
Here I stand.
I remain at the edge.
I have been here before,
But have always turned back,
Assuming there must be another path,
Assuming You are somewhere else.
What if I have always been wrong?
What if You are this Darkness before me?

All I can do is choose once again.
I can turn back,
Or I can stay.
My senses fail me,
Yet I am engaged in the deepest thought
I think not with my mind
Where have the dancers gone?
And why does this darkness seem tangible to the heart?

I go forward,
But you cannot go with me.
Words cannot go with me;
Therefore, they cannot come back.
I have no more questions.
Yet, I remain in wonder of this Mystery.

Remaining Aware of the Doctrine of Sin

2010-02-14T15:43:00.001-05:00

It is important for the mature Christian to return to the doctrine of sin often, not only as an area of study, but as a reminder of where God has taken him or her from. At a certain point, a Christ-filled being grows evermore disgusted by sin; at least this should be the most natural result of desiring the will of God. This disgust with sin does drive this person away from the desire to sin, but the disease of sin remains and can find subtler ways in which to manifest its self.

As strange as this may seem, the gulf between the person and sin can become a hazard for the individual, if perceived incorrectly, especially when any amount of credit is taken by the individual. The most dangerous result is manifest when the self begins to become comfortable in its self-perceived distance from sin. The person can begin to forget the severity of sin, how sin once was such a destructive force within, and the reality of the sin that is still within. Thus, this person begins to look down on the world, effectively damaging his or her own testimony of being once a part of the world, which should be the very reason for compassion. Eventually, the omission of admittance of lingering sin, that sin that might not be acted upon, yet still infects the person, causes the person to downplay the doctrine of sin altogether. One can even forget that sin was ever really a problem for the individual in the first place. Thus, the person has unwittingly allowed sin to once again rule the heart. Pride has once again snuck in.

Only the sin of pride tells a person that he or she does not really have a problem with sin, that sin was never really in control. Forgetting the potential of sin, this person has let down his or her guard, and sin has crept back in, making the person prideful of his or her lack of outward sin. Since the doctrine of sin is such a basic of Christian doctrine, this person finds his or her study focusing on the more ‘lofty’ things of religion. Talk of love, tolerance, and acceptance becomes the norm for this person, and it is not too soon after, that ideas of universalism begin to take hold. Of course, love, patience and tolerance are good attributes, but mere human love, patience, and tolerance cannot deliver humanity from sin.

Only the Spirit can provide such love, and the Spirit is only accessed through faith in the One who came to pardon us from sin. Without remembrance for our need for Christ, humanity begins to form its own religion. We must never forget where we come from. Yet, this is not a call to continual guilt. This is a call to remain in awe, a call to remain mindful of He who has saved us, a call to rejoice in the One who has conquered sin. Therefore, return often to this most basic of Christian doctrines, and rejoice.

Entering the Throne Room

2010-02-05T14:39:00.002-05:00

Christians often speak of the ease of entering into the presence of God now that He dwells within the hearts of those who love Him. Respectfully, I sometimes question this optimism. How frightening it must have been for the priest of old to enter into the Holy of Holies. Death could be a result of such an encounter, such a journey into Yahweh’s throne room. Those who dared to enter His dwelling place painstakingly searched their being to make sure they were clean. They feared that If they dared to enter unclean, death would result. This same God is He who lives in the heart of the Christian, and any sensible Christian has an overwhelming awe for the Almighty, even for the One who dwells within. Only a brief contemplation of His reality can engulf the seeker in overwhelming mystery, for His power in unfathomable.

Thus, whether admittedly or not, many individuals would rather keep distance from the throne room within. Once the Spirit of the Lord has descended upon the self, the heart seems to be a mysterious place with the ability to radically reorient the self. The old man wants nothing to do with this change because change is terrifying. The power that lies within, the power of the One who dwells in the heart, has the power to strip the self of the dead flesh, the old man that surrounds the heart. This old man is the one who tells the self that control is everything, self-orientation is key to survival, and autonomy must reign at all cost. This death, even to sin, is a death the self fears, for loss of any part of self is loss of control, loss of autonomy. However, autonomy is not freedom! Freedom lies in being exactly who we are supposed to be in His presence, letting our will go so that His will might become our own.

The throne room of the heart beckons us to enter in. However, travel inside the self to meet with the One who dwells within is to face a reality many of us do not wish to face. Who has the courage to enter into His presence?

Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place?
-Psalm 24:3

To travel into the heart and to ascend to His throne room within, we must enter into our own self. This journey is to pass through the self, past all the deadness within. We cannot enter into His presence without the admittance of such dieses within, for filth separates us from our God. Thus, who will enter into His holy place?

Those who have clean hands and pure hearts, who do not lift up their souls to what is false, and do not swear deceitfully. -Psalm 24:4

Only the humble have the courage to admit the rottenness within, to allow God to cleanse within. Only the humble will have the courage to look inward, instead of living a life of denial by never turning inward to see what our true priorities are, to see who or what we truly serve. This is a sad life that many Christians live. We often lie to ourselves, telling ourselves we have made the journey to meet God, even when we have not really begun. Acceptance of Christ’s gift is the invitation to walk with Him, not the end to the journey. Those who walk have admitted their weakness and need for the Lord, and their reward will be great:

They will receive blessing from the Lord, and vindication from the God of their salvation. –Psalm 24:5

This is a journey that the self has to go alone. No other can enter the self to journey to that unique throne room where God has chosen to dwell with that self. However, there does remain companionship, for others must also travel their own journey. We share in this bond, and there are certain burdens that we can share in, each lifting the other up because of the knowledge of the sort of pain that can come from such a journey of ridding the self of the death, the sin, that plagues each of us:

Such is the company of those who seek him, who seek the face of the God of Jacob.
-Psalm 24:6

Therefore, the ease we speak of can often be misleading, yet the journey is worth taking and maybe even more so, for the pain that accompanies the journey testifies to the work the Lord is doing in our lives. Sin has been conquered, and there is no reason to hold on any longer to parts of the self that are already dead. Amen.

-TM

God’s Sovereign Decision to “Harden Hearts”

2010-01-25T22:50:00.004-05:00

This is certainly not a full treatment on the subject; of course, I don’t imagine anyone could ever accuse me of writing a full treatment on anything, especially not this. These were just passing thoughts as I was reading Joshua 11, and I recorded them mainly for the sake that I would not lose them. I share in case anyone is interested.

The Lord’s decision to harden the hearts of certain figures throughout the biblical history, most notably that of Pharaoh, has perplexed some and led others to come to less than reasonable conclusions. Some of these conclusions were, of course, based on the already established hermeneutic of the theologian reading the text. In short, some have used these examples as proofs that human existence is (pre)determined (if only as secondary proofs).

Consequently, the determinist continues to suggest that life is so determined that even our “choice” of accepting Christ’s gift of salvation has already been decided, with no concern to the heart of the individual. Indeed, the Lord’s sovereignty is demonstrated in His ability to “harden hearts.” And no matter how much one might try to stretch the text, there is no denying that God does, in fact, determine His desired outcome in these instances. However, do these instances in the biblical text give warrant to some using them to support such a radical claim as predestination, as defined by the determinists?

Read the following accounts for reference: Joshua 11:19-20, Exodus 14:17, Exodus 4:21. You may wish to read the whole account in each of these cases for fuller understanding.

In these stories, God is using evil men, men who do not serve Him, to fulfill His will. In each instance, it seems that the person the Lord uses could have chosen another path for the sake of self-preservation, allowing Israel to do as it pleased. However, the decision to do so would not come from a moral desire to help Israel. Instead, it would only serve to protect them, an already evil people. It does not seem that these men were kept from choosing the good. For example, even if Pharaoh had decided to release the Israelites without further protest, he would not have been choosing to do the “good” thing. The only true good humans can do comes from following the will of the Lord. Pharaoh, the Egyptians, nor the Kings of the cities of Joshua’s conquest were kept from choosing the good. If they had wanted to serve the Lord, the story might be different. Instead, God’s will required a certain outcome, and if these rulers had chosen self-preservation and God had not intervened, His ultimate will would have been defied.

The Lord’s decision to intervene in these instances in no way interferes with the doctrine of free will. Those who hold that God gave humanity free will as an expression of His image have never suggested that this free will does not have its limits. In fact, true freedom comes in following His will for our lives. However, we are capable of choosing our own will over His will for us to a certain degree, the degree to which He allows us (thus insuring His sovereignty is not brought into question. This is known as God's permissive will.). For example, we can choose not to follow Him, which is the sad choice of damnation. However, God has an Ultimate will that cannot be transgressed by humanity. For those who are followers, we do not have to worry that God will harden our hearts, for followers of God are followers of His will, and “heart hardening,” as we see in the text, is a power used to keep evil men inside the confines God has chosen for humanity and not an expression of total determinism.

So do the episodes of God’s hardening hearts have any correlation to predestination? In each instance, God uses evil men for His own good. From this, there seems no reason to make a connection of God causing men to perform evil tasks against their will. Their will was already set on evil. Furthermore, if a person wanted to suggest this was an example of God forcing man to do evil and this was an example that could be used to demonstrate predestination, it seems quite one sided. There is no evidence of God forcing men to become good (the closest event to this being Paul’s conversion, and even here Paul does not seem to become possessed and forced to choose good).

As stated above, God does not keep evil men from changing their hearts to choose good, to choose Him. Just as with many other instances in the OT, these men had chosen evil lives and at this point in the story judgment is passed upon them. God only keeps them from escaping their judgment for motives of self-preservation. In fact, there is no suggestion of these men ever wanting to choose good. He only keeps their hearts on a course they had already chosen (and I cannot stress enough the fact that if they had chosen the alternative from which God was preventing, they still would not have chosen good, only self-preservation).

In point-of-fact, to suggest God had to harden their hearts to perform certain tasks indicates that they necessarily had freewill. Thus, “heart hardening” is a rare occurrence to prevent the freewill of humanity to interfere in God’s ultimate will. God had chosen for certain events to pass for the sake of Israel, and He would not allow evil humanity to stand in His way.

In conclusion, although there is certainly a certain level of determinism for certain moments in certain figures in the Bible (however, note that their prior choices led to this point of determinism, and there is even textual reference to the person himself hardening his own heart along with God doing the hardening: See Exodus 8:15. Thus the judgment passed is related to the choices of man and God, not God alone), there seems to be no correlation between these events and the determinist view of predestination. God does not make these evil men evil; He only uses them for His good. There is no prevention of these evil men to choose Him as Lord, no forcing them away from salvation; however, their evil does seem to cause the Lord to finally pass judgment upon them as they fall under His might and Israel’s sword. The fact that God hardens hearts suggests prior free will ability, and the explicit mentioning of these few cases shows this intervention as selective and rare. Theologically, these verses do demonstrate the mighty sovereignty of the Lord by demonstrating His power, even over free willed humanity. Thus, no theologian can ever claim that freewill is an infringement upon His sovereignty, for He can take it away in an instant, just as He can with any other gift He gives.

Where Is God When We Pray?

2009-07-29T13:01:00.003-04:00

Prayer is essential to Christian life, but many of us are discomforted by the idea of entering into prayer. Somehow we assume that if we do not experience something “magical,” then we are not really praying at all. Thus, we attempt to connect to God by strenuous efforts to transcend this reality to enter into another. However, the realm of prayer is not like Lucy peering into a strange new world from a wardrobe or Wendy first entering Neverland. These worlds are only spruced up versions of our own. God meets us here in this world. He listens to us, even if we must pray from a gutter. We do not have to figure out a way to disconnect from our bodies to enter His transcendent presence; He comes to us when we go to Him in prayer. What we must realize when we pray is that begging for Him is not how we must find Him; we must realize that He is already there. When we beg for Him to show up while He is right next to us saying, “I am here,” we miss out on what we are really looking for: a connection with Him.

Too much effort to discover some transcendent mindset causes one to become introverted. We begin to ask, “What must I do?” Thus, our very effort to become enlightened forces us away from God. To follow God is to obey Him, and obedience entails a life of outward, self-giving love. We do not draw away from the world to find God. A life of constant prayer does not mean that we are given reason to remove ourselves from the world. We must learn that our relationship with God does not depend on how often or long we can get away from “life” to enter into quiet time. Quiet time is good and necessary, but so is reaching others. Prayer and communion can happen in the midst of the ordinary. God can speak to us in the mundane. Does God work only in the mundane? Can I not have a miraculous experience in prayer? Surely we can, but if that is where we assume we must start, we walk right past God on our way to find Him. If we need a miraculous event, God knows and will provide. We need not try to conjure it up for ourselves.

We may even speak with God in our own language. Christ taught us to do so; therefore, it must work. It is God who will answer in the language that surpasses our minds' understanding but touches our heart in such a way we understand without hearing a word. Can God speak to me in an audible voice? Surely he can do all things. But, does this mean I am somehow closer to God than my brother or sister who has not heard His voice? Not at all. In fact, it might just mean that we were too stubborn to listen when He spoke to our heart.

Our eyes do not have to roll back in our heads as OMs flow from our mouths and we enter some semi-conscious state. God is not an elusive being that we must catch in order to speak with Him. We do not have to figure out how prayer works before we can partake in it. God knows how it works, and He will deal with any complications that it might take in order for us to connect with Him. In fact, He has already done so. Christ sacrificed Himself so that we might enter into a relationship with God. Let us not insult His death and resurrection by assuming that there is yet another task we humans must figure out before we can speak with the Father.

Reflecting Christ

2009-07-28T13:22:00.003-04:00

Often we define God and hope that our definition of Him will give us purpose and meaning. We then seek proofs that reflect this God; however, even when our definitions are correct, we miss the point. We are not to live the life we think God wants us to live. We are to live the life God calls us to live.

We learn about who God is, not just so that we may emulate HIm in hopes of being holy. We learn of who God is so that when He instructs us to act, we might recognize His voice. Many live a religion that imitates Christ, at least in word and deed, yet these same people do not think it important to give one’s life over to Him, though they call themselves Christians. This is altogether a mistaken understanding of the faith Christ presents to us.

Surely we are called to be reflections of Christ, but a mirror reflects not by viewing and then morphing into its likeness but in reflecting the object's light. Similarly, we don't become like Christ through a "see and do" relationship. We become Christ-like when Christ offers Himself to us and fills us. Christianity is genuine only if Christ is intimately involved.

We do not reflect God by following law, by becoming what we think God is like, but by submitting to His guiding and loving Holy Spirit. If we live out our faith through Him, we are truly Christians and can say along with Paul, “I no longer live, but Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2:20).

The Need For A Reversal

2009-07-26T17:34:00.002-04:00

Reflecting on how to live the proper Christian life can be an arduous and even dangerous task if we imagine we can figure the mystery out on our own. One thing is for certain in my mind: the heart is the true and hidden locale from which the Christian operates. Christ’s teachings often return to the heart. In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ time and time again brings to light that it is not our actions themselves that we must concern ourselves with when it comes to evaluating our character; it is the motivations of the heart. The condition of the heart is the true litmus test of the soul's relationship with God. We cannot assume that if we somehow discover our heart's true desires, then we will find that pure inner core of the self. The heart is just as diluted and diseased as the mind. However, with the atoning work of Christ and the inhabiting of the Holy Spirit, the heart may be transformed.

Therefore it is with the heart that a person must be guided, not because the heart is somehow intrinsically pure, but because it is the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. Often we allow our minds to control the heart. When the heart is calling for us to cry out to God, to become indignant before Him, our minds tell us that this is not proper and that these desires are strange. There is a reversal that needs to take place; our hearts must inform our minds.

How is this possible? Even while I write of the importance of the heart, the mind, which is forever engaged in this realm as the part of us that gathers information, conveys this message into words. My mind is forever churning while the heart speaks to me in fleeting moments, in soft whispers that I not so much hear but feel. The mind is not the enemy. Rather, it is a powerful tool, even weapon. When used without a guiding force, when left to its own devices, it becomes a source of destruction, but it is not evil in itself. The mind is not something we must discard or transcend to realize Truth. It, too, is a gift from God, a part of the human identity that we need in order to be whole. However, the mind must submit to the heart for our being to function properly. This does not mean the heart is forever engaged while the mind whispers. This would be silly, for we could accomplish very little in our day-to-day tasks.

The task of allowing the heart to lead is not so much an active attempt to force feelings out of the heart at every turn of the day, but an active submission to God. For if we are truly born again, and if the Holy Spirit lives in our hearts, then it is not so much a listening to our own heart as much as it is a listening to His Holy Spirit. To recognize this voice, we must continually learn about its source, God. Through prayer, study, and living a life called to be holy, we can know more of Him. We can find freedom in submission to Him, for once He has our hearts and our attention, He will guide us to our purpose, a life hidden in Him.

Lessons from an Unexpected Opportunity

2009-07-24T19:52:00.003-04:00

I recently had an opportunity to embark on a short journey into the unknown. Actually, I had known this place before, but now I would be looking at it from a different point of view. When God first offered me this opportunity, I wished to deny Him, but with my wife's firm yet kind urging, I agreed to go. Now that I have come out of the other side of this journey with a still deeper understanding of the work of God, I laugh, perhaps along with the Almighty, that He would take someone so ill prepared to speak forth His word. The journey I took was to a three-day youth retreat at which I was to be the speaker. Not too long ago, I was part of a youth group, but not as its organizer or leader. I was part of the chaos, and I loved every minute of it. However, as I grew older, I realized that I wanted nothing to do with trying to lead and teach a group of adolescents like my former self.

God has a funny way of doing things and as it happens, I have come across many ideas in seminary that I have quietly reflected upon and then lamented that I had not heard them as a youth. These ideas have sat on a dusty back shelf in the corner of my mind, for I never imagined God would call me to share them with the group for which they were ultimately intended. Never say never. As the weekend progressed, I shared God’s desire to make us Holy. I wanted them to realize that our call to holiness comes not from a God who demands His people to jump through hoops because it pleases Him. Rather, it emanates from our God, who calls us to holiness as a means to demonstrate His love. Our potential lies in becoming like our loving Father, allowing Him to take control in order to show us adventures of which we could never dream.

As the talks unfolded, God spoke through me. I know I could not have reached these youths on my own. There has been nothing inside me for quite some time that was interested in youth ministry. But, as He often does, God wanted to share with me in an area of His work that I had written off long ago. Thus, one lesson that I received was a reminder that although my heart might not be called in a certain direction, it is important for me to praise God for the work He is doing in that area and never assume that what I am called to do is any more important than the work of my other brothers and sisters. However, that was not the biggest lesson God would teach me.

As the last night’s session came to a close, many of the youth stayed in their seats even after being dismissed. Many shed tears and shared with each other the feelings God had stirred within them. I know the Spirit of the Lord was there with us. We stayed as long as we could, but we had to be out of our meeting room by a certain time. Before we left, one youth pastor asked the group if any of them would care to say anything. One student wanted to share but did not want to do so in front of the entire group. A core stayed behind to hear from this young man, and my heart was racing to learn what he had to say. Because of this youth’s desire to share with only a select few, I assumed his testimony would be something that would sweep me off my feet. As he began to share, the anticipation grew and finally he told us of the sin that he had struggled with for some time. Because this young man told us in confidence His testimony, I too will keep it a secret. But I will share with you, with much shame, my initial reaction to his confession. I wanted to laugh. There was something inside of my human false self that told me that this was an insignificant problem. Since the sin was not sexual or harmful to others, I wrote it off as nothing, and my cynical old man wanted to surface his ugly face in laughter.

Here I sat thinking for a moment that this was unimportant just after telling these children that they could give over anything to their loving Father that was separating them from Him. It was a fleeting few seconds of ignorance that I will never forget, for as soon as this warped idea entered my mind, God cut to my heart to show me my error. Surely certain sins have more severe consequences on our lives than others. Surely some sins indicate a deeper sense of separation from truth than others. However, sin is not just a matter of outward effect. It is a cancer of the heart, the inner self. In a way I was reminded, and in a way I realized for the first time, why all sin is equal. This seemingly insignificant sin, an act, might I add, in which many Christians participate without regret, had kept this young man in hiding from God. This sin separated Him from experiencing the full love of the Father because this young man was serving this sin instead of God. It had plagued his heart so that he could not share in full relationship with his Father. I pray that I never again, even for a moment, assume that someone else's struggle is insignificant. Any sin that we allow to be bigger than God in our hearts is devastating to our relationship with Him. This young man let go of his that night, and God worked in an exciting and mighty way.

Are We A Broken Community?

2009-07-12T12:05:00.001-04:00

Christians are called to be the light unto the world, but, the way I see it, we are, at best, many scattered and fragmented lights. I have confessed my belief in one holy, apostolic, and catholic (universal) church; however, many times I fear that I speak of an ideal, not a reality. I have never experienced a church that does not exist in the splintered, denominational form of today. I have always had an us versus them mentality, not as in Christians versus non-Christians, which is a very problematic thought within itself, but as in this denomination versus that denomination. While I lament the issues that separate us, the pit within my stomach grows, and my heart aches as I try to understand why we fight. Some issues are so petty that I am ashamed I ever took part in a “defense.” Other issues, however, are of great importance, but are these issues so important that I should feel uncomfortable in the midst of my brothers and sisters who have a different perspective? Whether I should or not, I do, and that is my confession this day. My issue is not that I hold any grudges, but that I often feel judged by those who think differently. We have all heard it: “Oh, so you are a(n) “X” (fill in your own denomination or theological view). So often, in the midst of discussing a theological difference with another, something inside of me just wants to enfold the person with whom I am talking in an embrace that would arrest the expansive chasm I perceive growing between us. That, I imagine to myself, would be much better than debating. I never walk away from a debate feeling as if I have won. I may feel I presented a better argument (And let’s face it. I always feel that I've presented a better argument.), but I walk away feeling as if I have lost another opportunity to share in God’s love with a fellow Christian. Do I suggest that we should not attempt to discuss these differences? Not at all, but not at the expense of spending quality time in holy fellowship. Although my eyes are welling with warm tears and my stomach is churning as I write about the condition of our (the church community's) relationship with one another, I cannot help but be reminded of an encounter I had a few months ago that gave me a greater faith and a reason to carry on.

I met Father Aldrich, a retired Episcopal priest, at a friend's wedding. Before we met face to face, we had already talked on the phone because we were going to work together at the wedding. I was officiating, and Father Aldrich was helping me administer communion. On the phone, he expressed to me his desire for us to talk about my decision to enter into ministry. He was interested to hear my thoughts about the faith that we share. To be honest, I was not looking forward to our encounter. Instead, I was intimidated. Here was a well-educated man who had been in vocational ministry for so long that he had retired. I was a boy not even out of seminary, yet he wanted to hear my thoughts. But when we met, he had so much love and joy in his eyes and smile that the wall I had built in defense instantly melted away. He did not spare me the difficult questions, but I knew that he was talking to me because he wanted to share his love with me. He did not want to prove himself nor challenge my opinions. He genuinely wanted to encourage me. When we parted ways, he embraced me as a grandfather would his grandson, and my heart was warmed. I determined then and there that I would try to model this man, for he was surely modeling Christ.

For those of you who are young, do not be so quick to build up barriers to protect your heart or defend your perspective. You may just pass up an opportunity to learn. For those of you who are older, be mindful that those young in faith or in age need to be encouraged and reminded that you love them before you attempt to teach them. You never know when a warm embrace might change someone’s life.

The church may not be in the condition that I wish it to be, but I am encouraged that there are men and women out there who, although they do not know me, care for me because Christ’s love fills their hearts. It is in their eyes and smiles that I see the church, the church of which I am proud to be a part.

God and Silence

2009-07-10T21:26:00.001-04:00

How long, O LORD ? Will you forget me forever?
How long will you hide your face from me?

How long must I wrestle with my thoughts  
and every day have sorrow in my heart?  
How long will my enemy triumph over me?

Look on me and answer, O LORD my God.  
Give light to my eyes, or I will sleep in death;

my enemy will say, "I have overcome him,"  
and my foes will rejoice when I fall.

But I trust in your unfailing love;  
my heart rejoices in your salvation.

I will sing to the LORD,  
for he has been good to me. Psalm 13

I really enjoy the times when God speaks with me in such a profound way that everything I learn of Him changes almost my whole view of reality. I have always assumed that the world around me is not actually reality, or at least my perception of it is not reality. The world that seems to spin without paying much attention to its Creator cannot be the real world. So, when God is revealing to my heart His furious love and constant involvement among a people that do not even realize He is there, my heart rejoices, and I feel that I am finally getting the big picture. But what of the times when God is silent? My confidence begins to spiral, and I find just how weak I am without Him. I begin to wonder if all that I had learned before was just something I came up with. How foolish of me to assume I could paint such a beautiful picture? But, nonetheless I question. Such a time of silence came not too long ago, and when I had gotten deeply into feeling sorry for myself, I began to realize how foolish I was being. So I asked myself, "Why would God be silent?" Does He want me to fall into sorrow? I think not." Does He want to remind me that I am helpless without Him? I think that is part of it. But maybe it is not just that He wants me to become somber and reclusive. Maybe He wants me to join Him in silence to enjoy what He has done for me. Maybe He wants me to take a retreat in which I calm my mind from its constant learning. Once, in the midst of a very stressful week at seminary, I said to a friend something that most would not understand except for those of us who were in this particular position. I said, “Have you ever wanted to take a vacation from all this, just take a break from all this Christian stuff?” Of course, my friend understood exactly what I meant, but allow me to clarify. I had been spending all day being stretched and then pouring my heart out to others. I was tired. I did not want to not be a Christian for a week or something like that, but I wanted a break from ministry work. At the time I assumed that was a foolish desire and that to be a “good” disciple, I could never stop. But, as He often does, God shattered my assumptions. Spending time with God does not always mean that I have to be engrossed in the Bible until I learn something new. Maybe God just wants me to enjoy what I already know. More importantly, maybe He just wants me to enjoy being in His presence.

Be still, and know that I am God;  
I will be exalted among the nations,  
I will be exalted in the earth." Psalm 46:10

Balance

2009-05-29T13:51:00.001-04:00

In reaction to those who think logic is the ultimate pursuit of truth, many who suppose that emotions are the entity that brings us to a broken state of acceptance are in such opposition to the philosophical camp that their arguments lead them to assume there is no need to think beyond emotional experience and to therefore reject the role that logic may play in their faith.

I, however, do not believe that human beings are capable of riding upon an exclusively emotional experience indefinitely . Although higher emotions do set humans apart as special creatures, we are also equally endowed with rational cognitive thought. Once the emotions erode, which they will inevitably do, reason begins to scrutinize the situation. If one is not prepared to think through the logical side of the faith, he or she often falls away. I believe that this precarious approach to faith is precisely the idea behind Jesus' parable of the seed that sprouted quickly but soon faded because it was not rooted in firm soil. If one roots his or her faith in emotion alone, he or she will not be able to satisfy the entire human capacity for thought. This sort of failing belief can be examined in everyday experience:

When hearing a good ghost story, many will experience chills and wonder if the story could be true. People can become so engrossed in the emotions aroused when hearing a ghost story that even the person relating the fantastical tale, someone who might have created the story himself and therefore knows that it is purely fictitious, may even begin to believe the story for a moment. However, it does not take long for human reasoning to take control and destroy any belief in the story. If there is no logical grounding for belief, many will never make it to the point at which logic has been satisfied and the leap of true faith begins. In fact, in the West, our logic has attained such a privileged priority that it does not take long before the white knuckled experience of a good sermon begins to fade, and, once again, I can speak from personal experience. It is this sort of battle of logic that left me emotionally unprepared to handle pain when I first had to confront it.

Philosophy and Faith

2009-05-28T18:40:00.003-04:00

If philosophy is the search for truth, then it is only logical that philosophy is searching for something other than itself. Philosophy as a search by definition seems to suggest that the answers it desires lie somewhere outside of its discipline. However, many philosophers have come to conclude that philosophy is the ultimate source of truth. This is particularly true in the West, where many limit their l capacity for inquisitive thought because logic is perceived as the pinnacle. Many assume that if philosophy does not have the answer, the question is either illogical or an adequate time frame for philosophical exploration has yet to elapse before philosophy can render an answer that fully addresses the problem. This perspective seems to ignore the fact that the discipline of philosophy was created by man, and is, therefore, finite. To assume philosophy itself contains ultimate truth, or will at least evolve to encapsulate it, almost gives philosophy a life of its own, even to the point of deification.

The assumption that the answers to ultimate truth lie within philosophy is illogical since philosophy as a discipline has a beginning. Philosophy is a finite entity, and a finite discipline can not hold ultimate answers. Only that which is eternal can offer answers intrinsically. The questions of life existed before the discipline of philosophy developed. Thus, if the answers existed at the origin of the questions, philosophy could not have contained them. A true philosopher will utilize philosophy to scrutinize different ideas and to see if they can lead to answers. These ideas are not philosophy themselves but can be subjected to philosophical scrutiny. Therefore, no philosopher should exclude faith from the start, but should be open to the possibility that philosophy's natural conclusion is faith.

Adventure

2009-05-18T23:25:00.003-04:00

When Jesus’ sandals first stirred the dust within the same vicinity as Peter, he was just another fisherman trying to earn an honest living with the rest of his family. As of this point in Peter’s life, adventure was just an imaginary land he visited during the lulls on the fishing boat when the slow rock of the waves helped him slip into the confines of his mind. In his heart, Peter was strong, courageous, and adventurous, but, up to this point, he had not had the chance to live it out loud. Oh how he wished to live it out loud, to fight for good, to take up a sword for righteousness. The honest truth was that his calloused hands were aching to make their mark on the world, to leave just one fingerprint that people would remember.

Others could not know the man Peter really was on the inside. To the rest of society, he was just another fisherman, but Jesus knew the brave and somewhat foolish heart that beat within the sun-worn man’s chest. When Peter looked up from his nets, he saw the Nazarene smiling at him. This was no ordinary smile; it was the sort of smile that a grandfather gives to the grandchild who is trying to act so grown and strong and yet has no idea how. This man whom Peter would soon call "Lord" had the look of wisdom. How did such a young peasant seem so knowing? Peter’s core was shaken. It was strange, but Peter knew that the Man who stood before him could do something no other could: He could see into his heart and know his desires. Jesus then commanded Peter to follow Him, and Peter’s longing heart leapt with joy.

The years melted away, and Peter’s Master had prepared His disciples for great things, but Peter was still anxiously waiting for the day when they would change the world. On their long walks through the valleys, Peter sometimes would drift away from what Jesus was teaching and back into the confines of his mind. There, Jesus was a mighty ruler, a political ruler, and Peter was His right hand man, fighting for the good of mankind. On one such day, Peter, in his imagination, was in the middle of raising an army of strong courageous men for his Master. Jesus cleared His throat, and Peter came back from his daydream. “Peter, listen, I must prepare you for what is to come.” Jesus placed His hand on Peter’s shoulder so as to keep his attention. “I must suffer greatly, and I will die and will rise on the third day.” Peter’s heart sank as his visions of greatness dimmed, “No, my Lord, this will never happen to you. We will protect you.” Before Peter could tell Jesus his new plans to spread their cause, Jesus’ kind expression changed into a stern one, “Get behind me, Satan.” Peter’s eyes filled with tears. At first, he could not understand why his Master would say such a thing. Jesus then explained to Peter that his humanistic desires and dreams were not the things that will win the war on sin. Although Peter’s motives were innocently wrought from his somewhat childish mindset and imagination, and although he wanted the best for his Lord, he was not thinking from the mindset that Jesus had been teaching him to use because he was too busy trying to have things work out Peter’s way and by Peter’s will. However, it was not the will of Peter that would prevail, but the will of the Lord, and if Peter wished to live a life worthy of his dreams, he would have stop living an internal life of bravery and adventure; he would have to start living a public life that mirrored God’s will. Then Jesus said something contrary to any of Peter’s preconceived notions on how to live life:

“If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.” –Matthew 16:24

After all these years, Peter received his first glimpse into the sort of adventure Jesus was really planning for his people. It was far beyond any of his wildest dreams. He finally began to understand the magnitude of the adventure they were to embark upon. He also began to realize the bravery and courage he would need, and his inner warrior paled in comparison.

What an adventure would be ahead? The adventure of life in Christ: the life we are all invited into.

Poverty of the Spirit

2009-05-17T22:17:00.001-04:00

Months ago, I finally met a man with whom I had been friends for quite some time face to face. Florida resident Roy Heath contacted me one day to tell me that he enjoyed my radio program, and we have been corresponding ever since. When I finally met the man months after our first correspondence, the look in this seventy-three year old gentleman's eyes told of his relational life with the Savior, who had taught him much of grace, humbleness, and love.

Around the same time that I was becoming friends with Roy, a man who had lived almost five decades more than I, I met a man who had lived one less year than I. Twenty-tree year old Kentucky native Mick Allred revealed his heart to me the same day we first crossed paths. He was so desperate for God that the first mention of the faith brought tears to His eyes. Mick was in love with God, but Mick was uncertain that God was in love with him. The desperation to know God more was unmistakable.

So, within the matter of a few weeks, I had made friends with two men who were separated by fifty years and hundreds of miles. Their dispositions were quite different, but they shared a similar struggle. These men have never met. They have never talked to each other, and I am not even sure that I have ever mentioned either one to the other. However, they both revealed to me their inner struggles around the same time. Both men told me they felt inadequate and felt that they did not know enough of God and His love.

What a tremendous blessing!

Our desire to know Him more, our desperation to draw closer, is evidence that we are losing the self-centered heart, and with its fall, we are desperate to cling to Him. Our desperation is a driving force to focus steadfastly upon His love, and our poverty is our proof. We cannot separate ourselves from our selfish desires on our own; only the Spirit in us can do these things. What does it mean when we no longer want to be satisfied by our ignorance of Him? It means He is working in us. His love is infiltrating our being, and we, for the first time, realize we cannot live without it.

Both of my dear friends are still searching daily. Each man still hungers for more. However, there is no longer a fear of condemnation in their desperation, for they realize that it is a God given poverty.

Perseverance

2009-05-16T10:24:00.004-04:00

This is an essay I wrote a while back for my ministry, but it has resurfaced on the waves of my mind, and I want to share it with all of you:

Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. Matthew 24:12-14

As I enter into this discussion, I first have to appeal to my reader. While reading this essay, please be patient with my words, and remember that they are my words, not the final word. I will indulge in a little speculation in some areas that I, admittedly, do not fully understand. I am embarking on a journey that God has initiated, but I will not fully comprehend its meaning until I finish the course. My hope is that even if you disagree with my conclusions, you will use these thoughts as a springboard to launch yourself into deep contemplation. I have prayed over these thoughts and humbly submit them to you as one who appreciates the responsibility God has placed upon me as a teacher of His word.

When a person contemplates his or her inevitability, he or she will often find happiness in the outcome of our faith, the eternal life that is spent with the Godhead. However, many, if not all, even though they might embrace faith, find in their deep contemplations a sense of dread when the idea of death enters their minds. Even worse, for the atheist, there is no sense of joy for the afterlife, only a sense of dread that death is final. All people, thinking from the human perspective, dread the inevitable death that each of us must face unless we are taken up beforehand. I must conclude, as many before me have, that humanity is opposed to death because it is against our nature. This is evident from the account in Genesis. We are afraid of death because it is a punishment. If we did not dread the consequence of death, how would it be a punishment? Christ has conquered death’s power over us, but we still must endure death to receive the final reward of Christ’s atonement.

This unknown barrier keeps our joy about the afterlife forever in the heart but limits the mind’s capacity to grasp such a concept. The human brain responds to experience; hence, the mysterious nature of death breeds fear. Death cannot be experientially known until our lives end, and our minds have no guarantee of what will become of us afterwards since they cannot retrieve assurance from a prior experience. This is the human condition. I still consider myself a Timothy of the faith: I am young but willing to grow. Therefore, I know that more experienced Christians, those more mature in the faith, have a deeper understanding of what I am going to say. Many, I imagine, have passed through this phase of allowing uncertainty to have a degree of control over their mental grasp of eternal existence, even as they allow their hearts to experience the peace beyond understanding. However, I have a hunch that the uncertainty that is a condition of the human mind will remain with us to at least some degree until the end of this life. Otherwise, we become more than human. This is why Christians need a peace that is beyond understanding. Our minds cannot grasp fully the power from which the peace comes, for it comes from the heart through faith and pacifies the mind only after being realized through the faith of the heart: “And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:7).

Uncertainty is a product of the human condition, and there is no need to deny this. As philosophers and theologians have said for thousands of years, we are incapable of fully knowing most, if not all things for certain. The “knowing” I speak of is the “knowing” of the brain, a limited organ that receives data and processes ideas according to the experiences a person has had. We are constantly in the state of learning. Faith, then, is exactly that, unless we think in a hyper-Calvinistic sense. Faith is a “knowledge” of another sort, a knowledge of the heart. Therefore, faith is not a species of head knowledge that will supplant uncertainty, although it can guide us in a manner that enables us to deal with our uncertainty. Faith from the heart can inform our minds and allow us to comprehend that there is a greater understanding that supersedes the faculties of human intellect. Spiritual knowledge is a knowledge that we cannot learn but must receive from God.

Uncertainty, sometimes called doubt, has acquired a negative connotation in the mind of the Christian. We are taught that if we are uncertain about particular topics, we are somehow living wrongly. I must respectfully disagree. It is how we treat doubt that shows whether or not we are living properly. If we avoid questions by pretending we do not have them, we are not living honestly before our God and before others. When we hide behind a pretense of objective knowledge, we make others feel inadequate because they know in their hearts they have not found an objective truth that the mind can grasp. There is a God who loves us, but to know this is to understand it not with our brains but with our souls. The truth for any person of contemplation is that we can never fully comprehend the metaphysical by our own merit. We can never wrap up the existence of God in our minds. This is not to say that our mind is completely incapable of recognizing evidences of God, quite the contrary. However, our brain, limited to the space between our ears, limited by the five senses, limited by the finite time in which it has to learn, limited by its physical weaknesses, can never fully grasp the extent of our limitless God and His limitless love for us. Therefore, there is no shame in uncertainty of the mind.

As a parallel, let us think about another humanistic condition that we have made others believe to be evil. Many Christians treat temptation as if it were a sin within itself. However, was Christ not tempted in the desert by Satan himself? Otherwise, why would we call this biblical teaching “The temptation of Christ”? Christ demonstrates that temptation is not sin, but the manner in which we deal with the temptation that proves our heart.

Uncertainty, if treated incorrectly, can lead down a path of faithlessness, but if handled properly, can be a driving force for us to seek God out in everything. Doubt is not to be glorified, but it is to be acknowledged. Is it not uncertainty that lends power to faith? Is not faith, by definition, the act of overcoming the real uncertainty that lives within us? Would faith be faith if we had no doubt? Would it not be called objective knowledge? This is not to say, “Yes, doubt exists and you will just have to live with it.” This is to say that if we acknowledge before God and one another that doubt is a part of our lives, we can then accept God’s guidance to a path of understanding that usurps doubt’s preeminence. Faith is our trump card.

To live properly by faith, we must confront doubt without blinking. We must allow our faith to inform uncertainty, not the other way around. This is truly the power of Christianity. We must reverse our manner of thinking from head to heart, and make it a path of heart to head.

To make myself perfectly clear, I must mention something. Development of the mind is of upmost importance. If our purpose is to follow God, the One who gave us intelligence and reason, it would be odd for us to deny our mental capacity when thinking of God. It would be strange to turn the faith into something that is exclusively about emotion and has nothing to do with reason. Reason, however, is limited, and faith goes beyond what the mind can know. Therefore, although people often see doubt (or, should I say, uncertainty) as a flaw in someone’s faith, this is not entirely the case. Doubt is a product of the flawed mind, while faith is a divinely appointed ability. The origins of the two are from different sources. Therefore, faith and doubt exist on two separate levels. Doubt, therefore, is not a hole in the heart’s faith, but a product of the mind. Thus, if we think properly, we can allow faith to conquer doubt. However, if we see the problem of doubt as a lack in faith, we will forever attempt to pump up our faith instead of using it to defeat doubt. Think about it: If faith is a gift from God as Paul tells us (Ephesians 2:8), then how can we assume that it is faith that is weak. It is not the faith that is weak; it is our confidence in faith that is weak.

The best examples of how to live as Christians should come from our Lord. His faith is never clearer, other than the manner in which He lived every day of his life, than in his preparation for experiencing death. What is faith other than a submission of the human will unto God’s will? By submitting ourselves to God no matter the consequences and the uncertainty is to typify fully faith in Him. As Jesus prepared for death, He poured himself out before the Father. The manner in which God in Christ and God in the Father interact in the garden is beyond our comprehension. However, part of our Trinitarian belief tells us that the Godhead is in communion with Himself. The three parts of God interact in complete harmony, but, nonetheless, interact. We also confess that Christ was fully human yet fully divine. Here again, we lack full understanding, but we take this tenet by faith. As Christ struggles in the garden, we see His humanity so that we might relate. Christ calls out to God the Father and lets it be known that He is afraid of what is to come and does not wish to face this horrible death. Often, when another human has a similar experience, many Christians deem this a flaw. They ask, in effect, why anyone would tell God that he or she does not wish to follow the path He has set. However, we are told that Christ, in full honesty before the Father, admitted reservations. Although His humanity resists the unknown consequences of death, He submits Himself to the Father’s will, for, by faith of the spirit, He knows He will be victorious (Mark 14:36). The narrative of Christ’s death continues, and as He hangs upon the cross, He cries out to God: “At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?," which is translated, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?" (Mark 15:34).

Here we come to a passage that the Church, at times, has struggled with, yet when considered carefully, it lends great comfort to many who suffer a sense of abandonment from God. As I study numerous commentaries, I find numerous explanations. I even find that some within the church prefer to ignore this verse. When I study this passage in Mark, I find that Mark does not offer much explanation. Thus, the reader must contemplate the passage, in which Christ quotes Psalm 22:1. Although this may seem a strange way of doing so, Christ is speaking to His father and acknowledging a final victory, even while he feels abandonment. However, it is a victory that He takes by faith because experientially, Christ does not feel God’s presence. At this moment, Christ feels completely abandoned by God. I imagine that the correct theology is that which maintains that Christ felt abandoned because He was assuming the full force of humanity’s sin; hence, God the Father had, for a time, to break His communion with God the Son. However, the important point to realize is that Christ, suffering greatly for us, did feel a separation from God in some manner, a sense of abandonment He had never experienced before. I cannot begin to imagine what sort of emotion and fear He had to endure at this moment.

(If you have not already done so, this would be a good time to read Psalm 22.)

Now, let me explain why I see this cry from the cross as a cry of victory. Although Christ, for the first time in His entire life, felt abandoned by God, the scripture He chooses to recite is one of ultimate victory. Many scholars would suggest that we should not be so quick in allowing the entirety of Psalm 22 to inform our understanding of why Christ said what He did because it diminishes the suffering of the Messiah. I respectfully say that this takes nothing away from His suffering. Christ’s intention has to be seen here. A famous commentator once said that if Jesus’ intention was to admit a full sense of despair without hope, He could have quoted a number of passages that demonstrate abandonment but do not end in final victory, yet this passage is the one He uttered in His final moments. Jesus did not, at this point, quote the portion of the Psalm that explicitly demonstrates final victory. Instead, He voiced the part that demonstrated exactly what He was feeling at that moment. Thus, we do understand that He is indeed suffering greatly, both physically and emotionally, and this is why I see these words as a cry of victory to which we, as humans, can relate. Christ seems to be saying that He does, in fact, feel abandoned for the moment, but He also, by faith, is suggesting that what is to come is the final victory of the Lord. It may seem peculiar to say that Christ felt abandoned by God; however, this is what the Bible says. Despite feeling completely torn from the Father, Christ believes God is still going to have victory. In fact, many of Christ’s sayings from the cross that appear in other gospels demonstrate more clearly His sense of victory. And as we read the rest of the gospel, we see that Christ’s faith was indeed valid, for He rose from the grave. We, too, should feel permitted to cry out to God and admit our fear and sense of abandonment. Then, our hearts will testify that He is in complete control and will have final victory in our lives. In the face of the unknown, faith can be damaged by our lack of understanding in its power. In truth, it is not doubt that should destroy faith. Faith is our strength to overcome the barrier of uncertainty and doubt.

This is the path that I am on, and a path that many have taken before me. The path of faith is better understood by a reversal in our thinking. We must allow our hearts to inform our minds. We must learn to give the heart’s faith knowledge the chance to overcome the head’s limited experiential knowledge. Pray that God would strengthen your faith and allow it to take the lead of your life.

Theology: A House

2009-05-15T15:24:00.002-04:00

There once was a father who had twin boys, James and Paul. The father wanted to leave his boys something to remember him by, but all the father knew was construction. So, instead of leaving a political legacy or a vast sum of money, the father left his boys a house that he built with his own two hands. It was the greatest work he had ever built in his life. Soon after completing construction on his new home, the father passed away leaving the house to his young boys. Not a day went by that the young men did not see something new about the house that the father had hand crafted. The boys lived in awe each and every day of their lives.

There was one peculiar thing about the boys. Each left the house through an opposite door. The first time James had ever left the house, he exited through the front, and what he saw kept him from ever leaving any other way. He marveled at the four huge columns that supported the roof above the beautiful porch. He admired the handcrafted molding that surrounded the huge windows. It was a work of art. This is how he viewed his house and no one would ever change his mind.

The first time Paul had ever left the house, he exited through the back, and what he saw kept him from ever leaving any other way. He marveled at the outdoor chimney that was stacked from savannah brick. He admired the hand laid tile that formed the patio. It was a work of art. This is how he viewed the house and no one would ever change his mind.

One day the twins’ fifth grade teacher asked her students to describe something in their lives that they thought was a piece of art. Once it became apparent to the teacher that the twins both wanted to discuss their father’s house, she allowed the boys to do a joint project. The night before their presentation, the boys could not sleep. They were so excited to share with their peers and teacher the wonder that was their father’s house.

Almost in harmony, the boys told of the hard wood floors, the marble counter tops, the stained molding, the spiral staircase, the vaulted ceilings, and every other detail that was on the inside of the house. They were so excited they were running out of breath. The teacher stopped the boys to ask them about the outside of the house. The harmony ceased. James began to describe the columns and the large windows while Paul began to describe the outdoor chimney, and tile patio. James looked at Paul like he was crazy, and Paul was returning the look to James. Both children seemed so knowledgeable about the house. That is why the teacher was so confused. She could not see how two people so knowledgeable on a specific topic could have so much disagreement, especially when the two “experts” both lived in the topic at hand. It never occurred to the teacher that neither boy had ever seen the whole house.

Never stop searching.

The Need to Move Forward

2009-05-14T12:16:00.002-04:00

In light of yesterday's post, how can we ever take God's love for granted? Why do so many Christians settle for salvation without relation?

There was once a man who wanted to travel to a distant land where not many had ever been before. He had read that the land was treacherous and uncharted, and there was no way to explore this new land alone. He did not heed the warning and instead, went alone unprepared. He was a strong young man and had defeated every obstacle he had ever faced, but this trip would prove to be too much. He was flown to his desired drop-off-point and left alone to face the monstrous land. Five minutes into his exploration, the man found himself in quicksand. He tried with all his might to crawl out, but the more he struggled the more he sank. His eyes filled with tears. All he could think of was why he did not listen to the warnings. He thought he was invincible, but he was a mere man, and his end was near. Oh, how he wished for just one more chance. He screamed out for help, and, just as he did, a man stronger than he appeared in the distance. The man was standing on solid ground, beautiful ground. The desperate young traveler begged for the man to come help him, and the man threw the “would be explorer” a rope and pulled him out of the pit. The exhausted young man was out of the pit but was not on the beautiful grassy area that his rescuer was standing on. Instead, he remained face down in the stagnate, muddy area around the quicksand. The rescuer called out to the man, “Come with me. Stand by me on this solid ground, and I can show you beauty beyond your wildest imagination. There are many others that are in pits just like you were, and we can save them too. I want you to come with me. We can show them the beauty of this wonderful land together.” The young man picked his head up out of the mud to answer, “No, I am fine right here, and I do not plan on moving.”

Not only is this sort of life sad, it is insulting to the Savior. We do not have to wait for the life to come; we can walk with Him now!

Today’s thought 5-13-09: Scars

2009-05-13T16:36:00.000-04:00

It is funny how life events can transform a person. Beauty that radiates from the inside does not just happen. The life that radiates beauty has had some sort of catalyst. If you ever spend much time with this sort of person, you can sense that something has happened in this person's life that has left such a mark that it has changed them forever. I have often assumed that these sorts of things were always remarkably beautiful events, a time when God and this person were walking hand in hand in beautiful thought. But, more often than not, it is not the event that is beautiful, it is the outcome. Surely, there have been many tragic events that have ruined countless people, but there is something remarkable that happens to a shattered heart when it reaches out to God in its deepest despair.

Without going into gross details, I want to share with you a time in my life that I often refer to as “the darkest time.” To make a long story short, I was in college when I first met sin's true face. It was at this time, when my heart was most troubled, that my problems were exacerbated by medically induced depression. Life was dark and there was no light to be seen. The louder I screamed at Him, the less I could hear God. Eventually, my diluted mind resolved the only cure for this life was death. Well, as you may have guessed, I never acted upon this foul urge that was slowly creeping in my thoughts. God saved me from my twisted mind and delivered me into a life I could have never dreamed: a life of beautiful events, beautiful friends, beautiful family, beautiful thoughts and beautiful peace.

I know many of us can think back to “the time when…,” times that bring a lump in the throat. It only takes a glance or the running the finger over the blemish to remind us of the scars of physical wounds, but this is not the case for the inner scar. We cannot see the scar itself in physical form, but sights of a past aquatints, a smell long forgotten, or a familiar song can trigger emotions we thought had been long washed away by the movement of time. I know that often when I think of “the darkest time,” a dark shadow over takes me. For a moment, my heavy heart returns, and my vision of life seems blurred. I remember the intense pain and I question God as to why He would ever have me relive even a moment of that horrible past. Often I have resolved that the return of these feelings did have a purpose, but in the deepest region of my heart, I resented God for not removing this scar. It was not until yesterday that I finally realized why this scar remains. My answer may seem obvious, but as obvious as it may be, it finally became real to me yesterday. I am still a selfish being, always capable of returning to the thought that I can do things my way. The scar is there to remind me of the harm I once caused myself when I turned from His love and acted on my own. It will remain with me until I die. It is a beautiful scar that is etched across the face of my soul.

The next time you have a moment to sit and talk with a person you know has a beautiful soul, wait and listen. Perhaps you will hear the story of the time when God worked in this person’s filthy heart and began His beautiful redeeming process to bring it to the beautiful shining light that it is today. Praise God!

Today's Thought 5:12-09: Loving Father

2009-05-12T15:25:00.000-04:00

This is a snapshot as to why I chose certain themes in my allegory yesterday.

Often, our linear thought process obscures the importance of life lessons. Modern thinkers, however, sometimes forget this when studying history. While modern historians work with meticulous attention to detail in recording historical events, ancient historical writers frequently told stories that were applicable for teaching a specific lesson but ignored events from which no useful lesson could derive. The gospel writers, aware of how effective stories could be, not only in imparting historical fact but also in conveying moral truths, recorded stories to teach us lessons rather than to give us exhaustive, detailed accounts of events. This is not to say the Bible is not historical; nonetheless, the gospel writers were much more concerned with theological lessons than with minutia. Thus, when we read the scripture, we should not gloss over any event and assume that the real lesson will arrive later. We must slow ourselves down in order to savor each lesson the scripture offers.

With that in mind, I want to speak of God’s purpose in creation. Because we are so inclined toward chronology, we often begin by thinking of God as the designer who initiated human history through creating mankind. That is the first description we get of Him from the biblical account, is it not? This beginning point was very necessary for Israel. They were surrounded by a polytheistic world that thought God was in and of the physical world. The Hebrews needed to know that the world was the product of a God who is supremely other and holy. So, the question burning in my mind now is this: how do we present our God to the world today?

I know the answers and approaches are numerous. I would also say that the story of creation can be powerful in speaking to a nonbeliever. However, if our entire presentation of God to our potential brother or sister in Christ focuses solely on a far away creator, we miss the point of our need for God. In evangelism, we must reserve "design talk" for later, for if we present God primarily as a calm architect patching a damaged creation, we lose the sting of what it means to reject a loving, caring God. We need to speak of God as Christ did. He is more than an objective designer; He is our Father and our guide, who presents Himself to us as self-giving love. As with all we do, we must start with love!

Today’s thought 5-11-09: A Story of a King

2009-05-11T11:20:00.000-04:00

I never really try to write fiction or allegory, but when I wrote this I was feeling particularly whimsical. I know it is not the greatest representation of the thoughts I was trying to portray, but it was fun to write. Enjoy.

There was once a great king who ruled a great kingdom. He was a loving king, and wanted all his people to be happy. The king was especially fond of his children and gave them a vast sum of land. So that they could always remain happy, the children were given a law to keep. The king promised that their land would be eternally safe if they obeyed the law. The law was to never open the northern gate unless for the king, for whoever passes through the gate will rule the children. In his love, the great king allowed the children to keep their own land without his interference. But next to the gate he left a tablet with his law etched upon it:

This is the law of the Great King,

Given for the good of my Children:

I am the ruler of this land

He who is allowed into the northern gates

Will, for a time, rule those within

But when I return, woe to him who has taken my rule

For I will bear the shame of my children

And I will destroy he who has presumed to take what is mine

Soon there was a revolt within the very city of the great king, and one of the king’s strongest knights attempted to over throw the crown so that he might have it for his own. By the kings very word the knight was cast from the kingdom, but the knight was not finished. He found all those within the kingdom with dark hearts and took them to build his own kingdom. However, the knight had no land of his own. So he took his dark minions to the land of the king's children. When they arrived, the cunning knight went to the northern gate. There he met the king’s children playing just within the gate. “Come to me dear children,” the knight said in a fatherly voice. “Your king has left you without truth.” The oldest child replied, “What are you talking about, great knight.” The knight smiled, “Oh you foolish children. Do you not know that the king put you here to get you out of his way? He has had a great banquet without you for he desires to have all his kingdom to himself, and now that you are gone, he does not have to share his inheritance with you.” The children were in dismay and offered the knight a place in their land. Unwittingly, they opened the northern gate to the knight. As time went on, the knight deceived many of the children, and many forgot of their father. The children became weak and their bodies aged and twisted. The children were in torment, and the great king could hear their cries.

The counsel of the king gathered to discuss what was to be done about the corruption in the land of the king’s children. The council suggested that the king give the word and the whole land would be destroyed along with the rebellious children. Little did the counsel know that the king had already made a decision before the counsel was even formed. The king’s eyes filled with tears. "I must save my children." One of his high council members protested “But my king, the evil knight now rules the land of your children, you must destroy the children to destroy the knight, for the knight is now within your children’s hearts. The king let out a great sigh, “I will go and get my children.” The council was in an uproar, “But my king, your children have picked a new king; they are not even your children anymore. You do not rule their hearts.” Without a word the king began his walk.

After days of travel the king arrived at the northern gate. By his word the gates opened, and he entered as the rightful king. There he met his children who looked nothing like their former selves, and they did not even recognize their great king. The evil knight came to the king, “How dare you come into my kingdom.” The great king replied, “I have taken back what is mine.” The evil knight then ordered the children to kill the king. With every strike that the children delivered upon the king the more they started to resemble their former selves. When the king was beaten so badly that he could no longer be recognized, the children once again looked like they had before the knight had come. The knight in fear shouted, “Why have you come here. From your throne, you could have sunk the entire land into the belly of the earth. Why have you lowered yourself?” The king smiled, “I have done this for my children.”

As the king arose from the ground, his deep wounds faded. Then he looked at the knight and said, “You no longer have dominion over my children.” And by the kings word the ground swallowed the evil knight.” The king turned to his children, "You may now return to me; the northern gate is always open to my kingdom. I have removed all obstacles from your path. All you must do is choose to come to me and you can be my children again. The king returned to his throne. Many of the children had been so diluted they remained, trying to hold on to the rotting inheritance the evil knight had once given them to cover their eyes so that they could not see the greatness of the king, but some followed the king. For the rest of time the children who returned to the king worshiped their king with thanksgiving and lived in the king's land in happiness for his love was ever upon them.

Today’s Thought 5-10-09: Actions Speak Louder than Words

2009-05-10T18:31:00.000-04:00

No matter how eloquent and academic a string of words is, no matter how complicated or convoluted, the bottom line is that natural language cannot fully encompass the transcendent mind of Christ. It is in the heart that the Spirit dwells, and it is with the heart that we understand true faith. Until we begin to deal with our thoughts about God with the unspoken language that the Spirit affords the heart, we cannot begin to ponder God’s overwhelming love for us. This is most truly seen in reading the scriptures. Without the influence of the Spirit, the natural man cannot grasp the reality of God’s redeeming love.

Faith language, the unspoken understanding the Spirit gives to the heart, helps inform our understanding of truths that are spoken from our own mouths as well as the mouths of others; however, even with the influence of faith language, we can hardly begin to verbally speak of God’s love for even that language is subject to our limited human capacity as soon as we speak it forth. In the heart, faith language is purer, but as soon as we attempt to express it to another, we must use the faculty of the mind, which is capable of speaking only in human language. Language can be quite a good thing. I could not express this thought today without it; yet, if I simply say these words without acting upon them, they do me no good. We better understand God’s Word of love when we stand upon it and act upon it. Words can inform others of nothing but the surface of an inner reality that is far deeper than the thoughts they invoke. Actions motivated by His love, on the other hand, show our hearts true understanding of God. Whereas we process words with the mind, we often act from the heart. This is why our actions are often far better reflections of true faith than our words.

Today’s Thought 5-9-09: Fear of the Holy Spirit

2009-05-09T13:34:00.000-04:00

For many “normal” Christians, a slight chill crawls up the spine when another tells them of the movement of the Holy Spirit in his or her life. This shiver comes from a part of the human imagination which still holds that what is being spoken, no matter how “far fetched," could possibly be true, and it is much like the reaction one gets from a good ghost story: maybe, but probably not. However, the real travesty comes when the “normal” Christian loses even the slightest trust and has no reaction at all. For this person, talk of the Holy Spirit is strictly metaphorical. Usually there is a progression in the “normal” Christian's life that sees the power of the Holy Spirit slowly fade away Then, all reaction to His mention becomes cynical. Why? I believe the answer is fear. We accept God the Father because we think of Him as the Creator that transcends this realm--He is an infinity away watching over us. When we think of the Son, we limit His reality to His historic place--a comfortable 2,000 years past. Moreover, we think of Him in His human form; he can be with us only in that form, but He cannot be in us. He is safely outside our being. But, dwelling inside us is exactly the role of the Holy Spirit. He comes to infiltrate the darkest regions of our hearts. This fear is why “normal” Christianity so often leads to “nominal” Christianity. Christ’s mission was to redeem fallen man. However, many Christians want to accept only half of His mission, the part that saves us from damnation. They do not want Jesus’ gift of the Holy Spirit to radically transform their lives in love. Turn away from fear and be transformed.