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.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Overcoming Sin in The Here and Now Through Christ
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!
“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!
Monday, December 13, 2010
Glorified For Our Sakes
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 vain. 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!
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 vain. 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!
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Relational Holiness
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
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
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Idolizing God
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 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).
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
The Importance of Right Doctrine
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Christianity and the Reality of Death
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.
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)