I caught myself in a lie the other day. Oh, it wasn't to someone else. I was lying to myself. I caught myself saying, "You always get the short end of the stick." It wasn't true.
Telling the truth is a problem for human beings. I suspect, however, that our biggest problem isn't lying to others as much as we lie to ourselves. We are, in fact, somewhat schizophrenic in our lies to ourselves. We tell ourselves we're losers when we're not really so bad. We tell ourselves we're pretty good people when we're not really so good. We tell ourselves we're "all that" when others don't quite see it that way, and we tell ourselves we're "not so much" when others see us differently. We think we're stupid when we're not so stupid and we think we're pretty smart when we're not so smart. We tell ourselves we're useless without recognizing how much others need us and we tell ourselves we're indispensable when much around us can do without us. We tell ourselves we're moral when we're not and we tell ourselves we're evil when we're forgiven. We're pretty sure we can handle anything at all when we're weaker than we realize and we see things we are called to do as impossible that aren't impossible for God. We see ourselves as pretty wise in areas that the Bible describes us as fools and we see ourselves as pretty foolish when it really isn't so. We're too fat, too thin, too tall, too short, too smart, too stupid, all depending on the circumstances and all likely 180° out of phase with reality.
Isaiah warns, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil." Paul says of Natural Man, "Claiming to be wise, they became fools." Jeremiah (quoting God) describes us this way: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" Jesus described Satan as "the father of lies". That's God's assessment. I suspect that many of the lies we tell others are products of the lies we tell ourselves. Either we justify those lies with our own or we have so extensively lied to ourselves that we actually believe the lies we're telling others.
We have a problem, it seems, with lying. We lie first to ourselves and then to others and we recognize it irregularly because, after all, we suffer with deceitful hearts that we don't even understand. Telling others the truth is important. It's called "integrity". Telling yourself the truth is just as important. It's called "thinking soberly". Both are hard for us. Both ought to be a priority for us.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Query
Okay, this one is not a discussion of theology. It isn't even about something Christian. I am not offering answers. I'm completely at your mercy. I am trying to understand.
Apparently, according to all sorts of sources, in amongst the 1000-some-odd page healthcare reform bill is a clause that makes it illegal to not have health insurance. Now, according to the President and the Congress and all, there are some 45 million Americans without health insurance. The answer, at least in part, is to force them to get health insurance.
Now, someone help me, please. How is forcing health insurance on everyone the answer? How is it legal? How is it constitutional? How is it moral?
I'm not making an argument. I'm not making a point. I'm asking a question. Seriously, how does this make any sense at all?
Apparently, according to all sorts of sources, in amongst the 1000-some-odd page healthcare reform bill is a clause that makes it illegal to not have health insurance. Now, according to the President and the Congress and all, there are some 45 million Americans without health insurance. The answer, at least in part, is to force them to get health insurance.
Now, someone help me, please. How is forcing health insurance on everyone the answer? How is it legal? How is it constitutional? How is it moral?
I'm not making an argument. I'm not making a point. I'm asking a question. Seriously, how does this make any sense at all?
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Thorn in the Flesh
To keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. But He said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong (2 Cor 12:7-10).Paul never says exactly what the thorn in the flesh was. Scholars have conjectured that it was something physical like an eye problem or a speech problem. Fine. Doesn't really matter. What does matter is that I suspect (very strongly) that we all have thorns in the flesh, things that constantly point to our own weaknesses, things that require us to constantly go to the throne of grace, failing and resting on the only strength available -- His.
We have a term for it: "besetting sins". We all have them. Maybe it's alcohol or drugs. Maybe it's porn or just plain lust. Maybe it's greed or anger. Maybe it's pride or ... well, I'm sure you've come up with your own by now. If you are one that does not have such a thing, I'd like to suggest that yours might be lying or ignorance or apathy, because no one has "arrived".
These sins are troubling. That was an understatement. You fight against it and you find yourself doing it and you hate it afterward and you wonder what's wrong with you and why can't you stop and ... the cycle continues. Being born of God, you have the seed of God in you, so you abhor sin (as opposed to embracing and defending it). You look for a program, a plan, a method to work out of this sin. Someone may even offer a 12-step system or some such, but it's not the fix.
The Scripture gives the fix. It's really just a two-step program. 1) "My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is made perfect in weakness." 2) "For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities." There, see? Simple. Okay, not simple. But straightforward. Rely wholly on God's power, and recognize that your problems, when placed in God's hands, bring glory to God. Certainly not easy. Definitely a life-long process. And none of us actually break free of all besetting sins this side of heaven. Still, it really is a pretty good system to start working with, isn't it?
I know ... what you'd really like is a cure. God calls us to a relationship. Relationships are not systematic or simple. They're dynamic. And they're worth it.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Christians and Politics
In a recent comment to a post about happiness, my friend, Dan, made this comment, intended, I'm sure, to be satire: "Man has trumped even God, he has elected Obama!" I appreciated the humor. And it got me thinking.
In American politics there is a well-known group known as "the Christian Right". Truth be told, they're really a diverse group, but they are there. (I'm saying "they" rather than "we" because apparently I'm more "centrist" than "right". Go figure.) This "Christian Right" is concerned about the political structures and conditions of the country and are working hard in the political arena to mobilize to change things to what they believe is the best. And what have they achieved? Well, when President Obama and the Democrat majority Congress got elected, they achieved failure. Now the Christian Right are wringing their hands and warning people about the dire consequences of these people in charge and their ideas. The feeling I get is not a humorous statement like Dan intended, but a real fear that the president and his people can do irreparable damage to the country and its people.
Now, I understand that the Body of Christ is just that, a body. Some are called to do this and others are called to do that. Some are preachers and some are evangelists and some are ministers and some are servants. And the list goes on. Some are actually called to be involved in politics. I get that. But I would hope that none of us would make the mistake of thinking in any seriousness that Satan won and Obama is going to do damage that God never intended.
I think, when I put it that way, you can begin to get the picture. Let me flesh it out. "There is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God" (Rom 13:1). (Okay, let me let Paul flesh it out.) We live in a republic where we get to influence government with our vote. And living here as we do, it is our God-given responsibility to do so. And when Christians knowingly voted for the most pro-abortion president ever (as an example), it is true that we failed to meet our responsibility. There are unpleasant things that can and might happen in this country. I won't deny it. But don't think for a moment that the president, the Congress, your governor, or even your city council is going to be able to disable the will of God and produce something God never intended.
Don't misunderstand. There might be unpleasant things ahead for America. Nations, unlike people, do not face a final judgment in front of God. If a nation earns God's judgment, it's a temporal judgment. And America is working hard to earn that judgment. It might get uncomfortable for us, even fatal for the nation. We need to pray for our leaders. We need to vote for what's right. We need to be models of what's good. All that is true. But don't think for a moment that salvation for America is found in the political system. And don't think for a moment that bad government means God is no longer in control. In the end, the only thing that will happen is what He wills. Count on it. The question will then be, "Do you trust Him?"
In American politics there is a well-known group known as "the Christian Right". Truth be told, they're really a diverse group, but they are there. (I'm saying "they" rather than "we" because apparently I'm more "centrist" than "right". Go figure.) This "Christian Right" is concerned about the political structures and conditions of the country and are working hard in the political arena to mobilize to change things to what they believe is the best. And what have they achieved? Well, when President Obama and the Democrat majority Congress got elected, they achieved failure. Now the Christian Right are wringing their hands and warning people about the dire consequences of these people in charge and their ideas. The feeling I get is not a humorous statement like Dan intended, but a real fear that the president and his people can do irreparable damage to the country and its people.
Now, I understand that the Body of Christ is just that, a body. Some are called to do this and others are called to do that. Some are preachers and some are evangelists and some are ministers and some are servants. And the list goes on. Some are actually called to be involved in politics. I get that. But I would hope that none of us would make the mistake of thinking in any seriousness that Satan won and Obama is going to do damage that God never intended.
I think, when I put it that way, you can begin to get the picture. Let me flesh it out. "There is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God" (Rom 13:1). (Okay, let me let Paul flesh it out.) We live in a republic where we get to influence government with our vote. And living here as we do, it is our God-given responsibility to do so. And when Christians knowingly voted for the most pro-abortion president ever (as an example), it is true that we failed to meet our responsibility. There are unpleasant things that can and might happen in this country. I won't deny it. But don't think for a moment that the president, the Congress, your governor, or even your city council is going to be able to disable the will of God and produce something God never intended.
Don't misunderstand. There might be unpleasant things ahead for America. Nations, unlike people, do not face a final judgment in front of God. If a nation earns God's judgment, it's a temporal judgment. And America is working hard to earn that judgment. It might get uncomfortable for us, even fatal for the nation. We need to pray for our leaders. We need to vote for what's right. We need to be models of what's good. All that is true. But don't think for a moment that salvation for America is found in the political system. And don't think for a moment that bad government means God is no longer in control. In the end, the only thing that will happen is what He wills. Count on it. The question will then be, "Do you trust Him?"
Monday, November 16, 2009
Charity Begins ...
They tried to tell us, "Healthcare Reform is a Christian matter." They tried to tell us that Jesus would support the government taxing its constituents to provide healthcare to its people. It's a Christian thing! They tried to tell us that the Bible would be in favor of such a thing. And I tried to say, "No." (Eloquent, I know.) My position was that the biblical standard for doing good deeds was that they were by choice, not by force. Well, they disagreed.
Imagine, then, my surprise when I read this from Paul's letter to Philemon:
Biblically, it would appear that charity begins in the heart, not in the government's legislation, programs, or tax codes.
Imagine, then, my surprise when I read this from Paul's letter to Philemon:
I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own accord (Philemon 1:14).Hmmm ... I suspect that some of those who were arguing that Christians ought to endorse compulsory taxation for government-provided healthcare because the Bible supports it didn't read their Bibles close enough ...
Biblically, it would appear that charity begins in the heart, not in the government's legislation, programs, or tax codes.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
"You don't understand!"
Most who are or who ever have been teenagers have, regarding someone in authority, either thought or said at some point, "You don't understand!" Kids of that age are pretty sure they know everything and when they are denied what they "know" to be a good thing, it's not pretty. Usually, of course, the authority figure (parent or otherwise) really does understand better than the teen realizes, but that's not how it feels.
We have a relationship with the Ultimate Authority, Jesus Christ. Sometimes He tells us things we don't like. And sometimes, either in the midst of His commands or just in the midst of life, we can think or even say, "You don't understand!" We're commanded to do things we don't very much like or we're denied things we very much wanted or ... you get the idea. How could He understand? He's God. He doesn't suffer. He doesn't lose. He never even sinned, for pity sake. And then we read this:
The author of Hebrews concludes that because He understands first hand, we can "draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need." Like teenagers lashing out at our "foolish" parents, it turns out that we're wrong. He does understand and we can come to Him for the grace and mercy that we need ... even when it doesn't feel like it.
We have a relationship with the Ultimate Authority, Jesus Christ. Sometimes He tells us things we don't like. And sometimes, either in the midst of His commands or just in the midst of life, we can think or even say, "You don't understand!" We're commanded to do things we don't very much like or we're denied things we very much wanted or ... you get the idea. How could He understand? He's God. He doesn't suffer. He doesn't lose. He never even sinned, for pity sake. And then we read this:
We do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need (Heb 4:15-16).On earth, Jesus experienced every form of temptation and trial that we do. Being human, He endured it all. Being God, He knows the best. He understands.
The author of Hebrews concludes that because He understands first hand, we can "draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need." Like teenagers lashing out at our "foolish" parents, it turns out that we're wrong. He does understand and we can come to Him for the grace and mercy that we need ... even when it doesn't feel like it.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
I'm a Radical
There, I said it. I'm a radical, and I will proclaim it openly.
The dictionary has a list of definitions for the word, radical". Among them are the normal concepts that we're used to. There is "extreme" and "favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms". Yeah, that's what we're familiar with. In the noun form, the first definition is "a person who holds or follows strong convictions or extreme principles; extremist". Yeah, yeah, that's it. Oh, wait ... "follows strong convictions"? Now, that's not quite what we had in mind. Interestingly, the very first (and then repeated on down the line in various ways) definition is "of or going to the root or origin". Synonyms include "basic", "essential", and "original".
The Latin source means "having roots". The original sense of the term meant a return to the roots. In the early 19th century, a group of men formed the Radical Movement seeking political reforms for the government. They were the first real push behind parliamentary representation and formed the basis for what would become the Labour Party in the UK today. Their opponents dismissed them and labeled them "radicals" for their reforms, and since then the concept of any extremist thinking has been labeled "radical" even if it isn't reform.
Me? I'm a Christian radical. I believe that too much theology today has drifted away from any genuine roots in both Scripture and historic Christianity. We find way too much "self-styled Christianity" that urges a feel-good approach both from the "name it and claim it" side as well as the liberal "social gospel" side. Instead of defining Christian theology from its root source of the Bible, too many have defined it by how it makes them feel or how it looks to others. If it appears, for instance, "too judgmental" or "too intolerant", they toss it out without regard to the reason that it's there. That is, if God is judgmental and intolerant about something, then His followers also ought to be.
So I'm a radical. I am in favor of a return to the genuine roots of Christian doctrine. Sometimes that won't feel very nice. Sometimes it may appear offensive, judgmental, intolerant, harsh. Sometimes it will feel ... radical. But I am in favor of a return to the source. The standard dictionary term for this, of course, has become its own pejorative: "fundamentalism". That was a return to the fundamentals ... you know, like the original definition of "radical".
I'm a radical, and I will proclaim it openly. In fact, you ought to be one, too.
The dictionary has a list of definitions for the word, radical". Among them are the normal concepts that we're used to. There is "extreme" and "favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms". Yeah, that's what we're familiar with. In the noun form, the first definition is "a person who holds or follows strong convictions or extreme principles; extremist". Yeah, yeah, that's it. Oh, wait ... "follows strong convictions"? Now, that's not quite what we had in mind. Interestingly, the very first (and then repeated on down the line in various ways) definition is "of or going to the root or origin". Synonyms include "basic", "essential", and "original".
The Latin source means "having roots". The original sense of the term meant a return to the roots. In the early 19th century, a group of men formed the Radical Movement seeking political reforms for the government. They were the first real push behind parliamentary representation and formed the basis for what would become the Labour Party in the UK today. Their opponents dismissed them and labeled them "radicals" for their reforms, and since then the concept of any extremist thinking has been labeled "radical" even if it isn't reform.
Me? I'm a Christian radical. I believe that too much theology today has drifted away from any genuine roots in both Scripture and historic Christianity. We find way too much "self-styled Christianity" that urges a feel-good approach both from the "name it and claim it" side as well as the liberal "social gospel" side. Instead of defining Christian theology from its root source of the Bible, too many have defined it by how it makes them feel or how it looks to others. If it appears, for instance, "too judgmental" or "too intolerant", they toss it out without regard to the reason that it's there. That is, if God is judgmental and intolerant about something, then His followers also ought to be.
So I'm a radical. I am in favor of a return to the genuine roots of Christian doctrine. Sometimes that won't feel very nice. Sometimes it may appear offensive, judgmental, intolerant, harsh. Sometimes it will feel ... radical. But I am in favor of a return to the source. The standard dictionary term for this, of course, has become its own pejorative: "fundamentalism". That was a return to the fundamentals ... you know, like the original definition of "radical".
I'm a radical, and I will proclaim it openly. In fact, you ought to be one, too.
Friday, November 13, 2009
God wants you to be happy
Facebook has an application called "On this day, God wants you to know ...". The application generates randomized feel-good messages from God. You know, things like "On this day, God wants you to know ... that you are unique and precious." More verbage, to be sure, but those kinds of things.
The other day one of my friends got this one:
You see, it begs the question. Is it actually true that simply because you were born you deserve happiness? More so, is that God's big desire for you -- happiness? Are humans, as a right of birth, deserving of happiness? We'd like to think so, to be sure. We'd like to think that humans deserve happiness. McDonalds would like us to think so, wouldn't they? "You deserve a break today," they tell us. We're pretty sure that the pursuit of happiness is one of those inalienable rights endowed by our Creator (even though that Creator has been asked to leave our government, our schools, our public places, etc.). It is in the Declaration of Independence, you know ... a valid source of theological truth, I'm sure. God loves you and wants most of all for you to be happy. Sure it's true!
If you haven't figured it out by now, I'm skeptical. I don't actually think that God's highest priority is my happiness. Nor do I believe that just because I was born I deserve happiness. Why? Well, to me it's neither biblical nor rational. That is, it's not what the Bible seems to say and it doesn't make much sense to me.
Consider, for instance, the wrath of God. It's not a small subject in the Bible. So prevalent in the Old Testament was it that some considered the God of the Old Testament to be a different God than in the New Testament. Still, it doesn't take a lot of reading in the New Testament to find out that wrath is still there. There are warnings and curses and danger for all of us, but especially for the unbeliever. There is the promise of "scourging" from God to His own children. However you interpret "scourging", it cannot be read as "happiness". Indeed, it says, "For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant." And Paul tells us "It has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for His sake." Yippee! Suffering for Christ! Let's do the "happy dance"! No, that's not right.
Am I suggesting that God is a mean 'ol fellow, a cosmic killjoy, some divine curmudgeon who only wants to torment us? Not at all! The rest of the verse I mentioned about the unpleasantness of discipline ends this way: "... But later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it." We have a promise that God works all things together for good to those who love God. We know that Christ's payment on our behalf has taken away God's wrath toward us. So what am I suggesting? I'm suggesting that God is much more mature than your average 2-year-old. All youngster knows is "Make me feel good now." His parents, on the other hand, know better. There are times that little Johnny needs to be made uncomfortable, like when he needs vaccinations or when he needs discipline. Why do his parents do that, knowing that little Johnny will not be happy? They do it because they are most concerned not with his immediate comfort, but with his best interests. And that is God's concern. First, God is concerned about His own best interests. He needs to be ... He's God. Then He's concerned with the best interests of His children. Now, remember, there is a biblical definition for "His children", and it's not "all human beings". "To all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, to them He gave the right to become children of God." It makes sense in human terms that a loving parent would be most interested in the best interests of a child. It only makes sense that a loving God would be primarily concerned with not so much the happiness, the best interests of His own children.
Does God want you to know, then, that you deserve happiness? I don't think so. Does simply being human mean that you deserve happiness? Certainly not! Remember, there are "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction". They shouldn't be counting on God's generosity. There are what Paul refers to as vessels "for dishonorable use". There are those who are "children of your father, the devil". Being human does not confer, then, the divine right to happiness. Don't let someone try to convince you otherwise. If you're a child of the King, He has much better things in mind for you than paltry happiness. Count on it.
The other day one of my friends got this one:
On this day, God wants you to know...Mmm, yeah, that just feels so nice. Of course, it would be best, if you want to be most comfortable, not to ask questions like "Is it true?"
... that you deserve happiness just because. There is nothing you need to do to deserve happiness. There are no 'minimal requirements' for you to fulfill before you can claim happiness. You deserve happiness simply by virtue of having been born. That's it. Nothing more is required. Be happy.
You see, it begs the question. Is it actually true that simply because you were born you deserve happiness? More so, is that God's big desire for you -- happiness? Are humans, as a right of birth, deserving of happiness? We'd like to think so, to be sure. We'd like to think that humans deserve happiness. McDonalds would like us to think so, wouldn't they? "You deserve a break today," they tell us. We're pretty sure that the pursuit of happiness is one of those inalienable rights endowed by our Creator (even though that Creator has been asked to leave our government, our schools, our public places, etc.). It is in the Declaration of Independence, you know ... a valid source of theological truth, I'm sure. God loves you and wants most of all for you to be happy. Sure it's true!
If you haven't figured it out by now, I'm skeptical. I don't actually think that God's highest priority is my happiness. Nor do I believe that just because I was born I deserve happiness. Why? Well, to me it's neither biblical nor rational. That is, it's not what the Bible seems to say and it doesn't make much sense to me.
Consider, for instance, the wrath of God. It's not a small subject in the Bible. So prevalent in the Old Testament was it that some considered the God of the Old Testament to be a different God than in the New Testament. Still, it doesn't take a lot of reading in the New Testament to find out that wrath is still there. There are warnings and curses and danger for all of us, but especially for the unbeliever. There is the promise of "scourging" from God to His own children. However you interpret "scourging", it cannot be read as "happiness". Indeed, it says, "For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant." And Paul tells us "It has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for His sake." Yippee! Suffering for Christ! Let's do the "happy dance"! No, that's not right.
Am I suggesting that God is a mean 'ol fellow, a cosmic killjoy, some divine curmudgeon who only wants to torment us? Not at all! The rest of the verse I mentioned about the unpleasantness of discipline ends this way: "... But later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it." We have a promise that God works all things together for good to those who love God. We know that Christ's payment on our behalf has taken away God's wrath toward us. So what am I suggesting? I'm suggesting that God is much more mature than your average 2-year-old. All youngster knows is "Make me feel good now." His parents, on the other hand, know better. There are times that little Johnny needs to be made uncomfortable, like when he needs vaccinations or when he needs discipline. Why do his parents do that, knowing that little Johnny will not be happy? They do it because they are most concerned not with his immediate comfort, but with his best interests. And that is God's concern. First, God is concerned about His own best interests. He needs to be ... He's God. Then He's concerned with the best interests of His children. Now, remember, there is a biblical definition for "His children", and it's not "all human beings". "To all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, to them He gave the right to become children of God." It makes sense in human terms that a loving parent would be most interested in the best interests of a child. It only makes sense that a loving God would be primarily concerned with not so much the happiness, the best interests of His own children.
Does God want you to know, then, that you deserve happiness? I don't think so. Does simply being human mean that you deserve happiness? Certainly not! Remember, there are "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction". They shouldn't be counting on God's generosity. There are what Paul refers to as vessels "for dishonorable use". There are those who are "children of your father, the devil". Being human does not confer, then, the divine right to happiness. Don't let someone try to convince you otherwise. If you're a child of the King, He has much better things in mind for you than paltry happiness. Count on it.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
The Factious Man
I was reading the other day in Titus and came across this: "Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned" (Titus 3:10-11). Now, I have a pretty good vocabulary, so I was pretty sure I knew what "factious" meant, but better to check and be sure than to assume and be wrong.
Interestingly, the original (transliterated) word is "hairetikos". I'm pretty sure you can tell what word we get from that. In fact, the King James (and others) translates it "Reject an heretic ...". Okay, okay, we all know what a heretic is ... or, at least, we think we do. But what does the Greek word mean? " The origin is actually in the word that means "to choose" and references choices that are made. In context, it is the choice to be schismatic or to be presenting schismatic choices. In English, as far as Christianity goes, "heretic" references one who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by the Church. It would stand to reason, from that, that the translation, "Reject a factious man ..." would make sense, since someone maintaining positions contrary to the Church would be causing division.
Now, I'm not, in this entry, willing to analyze "heresy". I'm not going to debate "doctrines accepted by the Church" either individually or as a concept. Here's what I'm wondering. Do we do this? Are we supposed to warn people, "You're being factious; you're causing division; you're being disruptive" and, after a couple of warnings, reject them? If so, what does that rejection look like? (Yes, if you haven't figured it out yet, this is another my question posts.)
Interestingly, the original (transliterated) word is "hairetikos". I'm pretty sure you can tell what word we get from that. In fact, the King James (and others) translates it "Reject an heretic ...". Okay, okay, we all know what a heretic is ... or, at least, we think we do. But what does the Greek word mean? " The origin is actually in the word that means "to choose" and references choices that are made. In context, it is the choice to be schismatic or to be presenting schismatic choices. In English, as far as Christianity goes, "heretic" references one who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by the Church. It would stand to reason, from that, that the translation, "Reject a factious man ..." would make sense, since someone maintaining positions contrary to the Church would be causing division.
Now, I'm not, in this entry, willing to analyze "heresy". I'm not going to debate "doctrines accepted by the Church" either individually or as a concept. Here's what I'm wondering. Do we do this? Are we supposed to warn people, "You're being factious; you're causing division; you're being disruptive" and, after a couple of warnings, reject them? If so, what does that rejection look like? (Yes, if you haven't figured it out yet, this is another my question posts.)
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
No one does good
Now, I know that at least one of my readers is going to think, "This is aimed at me." Relax. It's not. The argument put forward by that reader/commenter isn't new. And it deserves a proper examination. So, if you feel like I'm talking about you personally, let me say that I'm not in the least. This is a discussion about an idea that has been floated for a long time.
The passage of Scripture in question here comes from Romans 3. I'll put it down here for reference:
One side of the discussion takes that claim literally and the other considers it hyperbole. Why? Well, because we know lots of good people who do good, so it can't be literal. If we admit that there is none who does good, and it is good to receive Christ, then we have a real problem, don't we? Of course, if you're not paying attention, the other side has a problem all its own. You see, if you stand on "It's intended to be absolutely literal," you've created a problem. The easiest way to illustrate the problem is to point to Jesus. He was sinless, right? So ... no one does good? It is, then, a problem for both sides. One side dismisses it as an overstatement and is left with no meaning, and the other side embraces it as absolute and denies Christianity. How do we handle this sticky situation?
I'm sure this will make some people happy, but let me say at the outset that the statement is hyperbole. Hyperbole is a figure of speech that makes an extravagant statement to make a point. We're used to it. And this one is hyperbole. We know this because we can name one person who did good, so "no not one" can't mean actually "not one". Further, we all claim that Christians do good ... or, at least, we're supposed to. So more than one does good. It is hyperbole. It is an intentional overstatement to make a point. There, I said it.
"Oh, good, now we're back at the other side that says it was hyperbole and we don't have to worry about it, right? We're all clear that lots of people do lots of good." And now we've walked into the other problem. We all know lots of people who do lots of good. So, if we admit that the claim that there is none who does good isn't actually literally true, what does it mean? I'll tell you what it cannot mean. It cannot mean that lots of people do lots of good. You see, hyperbole is intended to make a point. If "There is none who does good" is intended to convey "Lots of people do lots of good", we've erased any connection to rationality. It cannot mean that people do good all the time. You see, hyperbole has a purpose. It is intended to make a point. When the gospel writer says, "The whole city came out to see Jesus", I assume that the whole city didn't actually come out to see Jesus, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority did. If the truth turned out to be that only 95% came out, I'd say, "Yeah, that makes sense." If the truth turned out to be that only 5% came out, I'd say, "Huh? In what sense does 'the whole city' make that point?" The point of the that hyperbole was "a vast majority". The point of this hyperbole can only be that doing good is extremely rare, and the only remaining question is "How rare?" If the answer is "Oh, lots of people do good," then the hyperbole is meaningless.
So let's examine the text and see what we can find. What was the original question? Well, the short term question was "Are we (Jews) better than they (Gentiles)?" The answer was intended to be a resounding, "No!" The passage, in fact, is at the tail end of a long dissertation on the sinfulness of Man that started way back in Rom. 1:18. Paul is laying down the problem (bad news) for which the Gospel (good news) has an answer. The problem? This passage, then, is the summary, and the summary is that all are under sin. The problem is that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin, slaves to sin, without hope in themselves. There is no solution that we can drum up on our own. Reading on past this section, we find the solution that God provides. Chapter 6 tells us that God's solution to our problem of sin is ... death.
So where are we now? First, there is Natural Man. Natural Man is sinful by nature. God's description is "every intent of the thoughts of his heart is only evil continually." Paul's description is "dead in your trespasses and sins", "walking according to the prince of the power of the air," and "by nature children of wrath". Given this nature, it makes sense that "There is none who does good." In fact, given this description, if anyone does actually do what God considers good, it would be a choice that was against his own nature. Violating what you want to do would normally be recognized as a violation of free will. We call it "coercion". The hyperbole, then, that "there is none who does good" is appropriate 1) when you consider the standard that God uses for "good", 2) you recognize that Natural Man has no inclination to do what God recognizes as "good", and 3) there is a group of humans who, having died to their old selves, have a new nature with new inclinations to do the good that God considers good.
If you want to argue "It is hyperbole; lots of people do good", you've eliminated any meaning. If you want to hold to "There is none who does good" completely, you eliminate Christ as well as His followers. If you want to understand the intent of the statement, you need to see that righteousness does not exist among fallen Man, that doing good doesn't happen in fallen Man, and that the only answer to that problem is to die with Christ. A radical problem, you see, demands a radical solution. Or, you might see it as a not-so-bad problem. People aren't perfect, sure, but they're not all that bad. So what's the point of such hyperbole (as well as 3 chapters of explaining the sinfulness of Man) if it's just not that bad? I agree that it's hyperbole; I simply believe that it has meaning that is not so far from its extreme.
The passage of Scripture in question here comes from Romans 3. I'll put it down here for reference:
9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written, "There is none righteous, not even one; 11 there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; 12 all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one." 13 "their throat is an open grave, with their tongues they keep deceiving," "the poison of asps is under their lips"; 14 "whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness"; 15 "their feet are swift to shed blood, 16 destruction and misery are in their paths, 17 and the path of peace they have not known." 18 "There is no fear of god before their eyes" (Rom 3:9-18).Here's the problem. People who believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God want to read this (and everything else) as literally as they possibly can. Still, this one is problematic. We're fine with a literal "There is none righteous" because we know that just a few verses later we will read, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," and this agrees with that. But after that it gets a bit dicey. Really? None who understands? None who seeks for God? I mean, we have all heard testimonies of people who had a long search for God and finally found Him in Christ ... right? Sure, all have turned aside, but we really don't like that "they have become useless" thing much. And that claim that there is none who does good is really over the top.
One side of the discussion takes that claim literally and the other considers it hyperbole. Why? Well, because we know lots of good people who do good, so it can't be literal. If we admit that there is none who does good, and it is good to receive Christ, then we have a real problem, don't we? Of course, if you're not paying attention, the other side has a problem all its own. You see, if you stand on "It's intended to be absolutely literal," you've created a problem. The easiest way to illustrate the problem is to point to Jesus. He was sinless, right? So ... no one does good? It is, then, a problem for both sides. One side dismisses it as an overstatement and is left with no meaning, and the other side embraces it as absolute and denies Christianity. How do we handle this sticky situation?
I'm sure this will make some people happy, but let me say at the outset that the statement is hyperbole. Hyperbole is a figure of speech that makes an extravagant statement to make a point. We're used to it. And this one is hyperbole. We know this because we can name one person who did good, so "no not one" can't mean actually "not one". Further, we all claim that Christians do good ... or, at least, we're supposed to. So more than one does good. It is hyperbole. It is an intentional overstatement to make a point. There, I said it.
"Oh, good, now we're back at the other side that says it was hyperbole and we don't have to worry about it, right? We're all clear that lots of people do lots of good." And now we've walked into the other problem. We all know lots of people who do lots of good. So, if we admit that the claim that there is none who does good isn't actually literally true, what does it mean? I'll tell you what it cannot mean. It cannot mean that lots of people do lots of good. You see, hyperbole is intended to make a point. If "There is none who does good" is intended to convey "Lots of people do lots of good", we've erased any connection to rationality. It cannot mean that people do good all the time. You see, hyperbole has a purpose. It is intended to make a point. When the gospel writer says, "The whole city came out to see Jesus", I assume that the whole city didn't actually come out to see Jesus, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority did. If the truth turned out to be that only 95% came out, I'd say, "Yeah, that makes sense." If the truth turned out to be that only 5% came out, I'd say, "Huh? In what sense does 'the whole city' make that point?" The point of the that hyperbole was "a vast majority". The point of this hyperbole can only be that doing good is extremely rare, and the only remaining question is "How rare?" If the answer is "Oh, lots of people do good," then the hyperbole is meaningless.
So let's examine the text and see what we can find. What was the original question? Well, the short term question was "Are we (Jews) better than they (Gentiles)?" The answer was intended to be a resounding, "No!" The passage, in fact, is at the tail end of a long dissertation on the sinfulness of Man that started way back in Rom. 1:18. Paul is laying down the problem (bad news) for which the Gospel (good news) has an answer. The problem? This passage, then, is the summary, and the summary is that all are under sin. The problem is that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin, slaves to sin, without hope in themselves. There is no solution that we can drum up on our own. Reading on past this section, we find the solution that God provides. Chapter 6 tells us that God's solution to our problem of sin is ... death.
Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life (Rom 6:3-4).This puts those "who have been baptized into Christ Jesus" in a different position than those who have not. Those who have not are slaves to sin. Paul tells those that have "do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts", an option that a slave to sin does not have.
So where are we now? First, there is Natural Man. Natural Man is sinful by nature. God's description is "every intent of the thoughts of his heart is only evil continually." Paul's description is "dead in your trespasses and sins", "walking according to the prince of the power of the air," and "by nature children of wrath". Given this nature, it makes sense that "There is none who does good." In fact, given this description, if anyone does actually do what God considers good, it would be a choice that was against his own nature. Violating what you want to do would normally be recognized as a violation of free will. We call it "coercion". The hyperbole, then, that "there is none who does good" is appropriate 1) when you consider the standard that God uses for "good", 2) you recognize that Natural Man has no inclination to do what God recognizes as "good", and 3) there is a group of humans who, having died to their old selves, have a new nature with new inclinations to do the good that God considers good.
If you want to argue "It is hyperbole; lots of people do good", you've eliminated any meaning. If you want to hold to "There is none who does good" completely, you eliminate Christ as well as His followers. If you want to understand the intent of the statement, you need to see that righteousness does not exist among fallen Man, that doing good doesn't happen in fallen Man, and that the only answer to that problem is to die with Christ. A radical problem, you see, demands a radical solution. Or, you might see it as a not-so-bad problem. People aren't perfect, sure, but they're not all that bad. So what's the point of such hyperbole (as well as 3 chapters of explaining the sinfulness of Man) if it's just not that bad? I agree that it's hyperbole; I simply believe that it has meaning that is not so far from its extreme.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
What Grace Does
One of the biggest distinctives about Christianity from other religions is this whole "saved by faith" thing. All other religions are on a "saved by works" plan. Christianity alone claims "saved by faith apart from works". This, of course, causes no end of problems. James assures us that faith without works is dead faith, not saving faith. So genuine, biblical, saving faith produces works, but is not conditioned on works. In the Reformation, the reformers held to "sola fide", saved by faith alone. The Roman Catholic Church protested. "That would mean that it doesn't matter what you do!" The reformers answered, "We're saved by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone." And today the problem continues. Many have confused the social gospel with the real Gospel. The "good news" is that we can be nice to people. In fact, the social gospel is a product of genuine faith, not an aim.
I was thinking about all this because I ran across this passage in Titus and found it interesting as it relates to the topic:
The grace of God has brought salvation. Yeah, that's the kind of thing that we would imagine grace doing. But there's more. There is another function of grace listed here: "Training us". That's right, the grace of God trains us. What does it train us to do? Well, it's a list of things ... a list of works. It is God's grace that teaches us to renounce godliness and worldly passions, to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives, to wait for our blessed hope. Isn't that interesting? God's grace trains us to be what God wants us to be.
I maintain that the Bible teaches that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone. Works are not a factor. On the other hand, faith without works is not genuine, saving faith, and the grace of God teaches us to be godly. So, while works are not a part of our salvation, neither can they be ignored. Without the natural by-product of works, there is reason to question whether you have either grace or faith. We are saved apart from works, but works are a part of grace and faith.
I was thinking about all this because I ran across this passage in Titus and found it interesting as it relates to the topic:
11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works (Titus 2:11-14).The topic here is "the grace of God" (one of the five "solas"). Like faith, we think of grace as something given, not something that actually does something. Look, however, at what Paul has the grace of God doing.
The grace of God has brought salvation. Yeah, that's the kind of thing that we would imagine grace doing. But there's more. There is another function of grace listed here: "Training us". That's right, the grace of God trains us. What does it train us to do? Well, it's a list of things ... a list of works. It is God's grace that teaches us to renounce godliness and worldly passions, to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives, to wait for our blessed hope. Isn't that interesting? God's grace trains us to be what God wants us to be.
I maintain that the Bible teaches that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone. Works are not a factor. On the other hand, faith without works is not genuine, saving faith, and the grace of God teaches us to be godly. So, while works are not a part of our salvation, neither can they be ignored. Without the natural by-product of works, there is reason to question whether you have either grace or faith. We are saved apart from works, but works are a part of grace and faith.
Monday, November 09, 2009
The Effect of the Will on Salvation
It is the common belief that we become Christians by choosing Christ. You know how it is. You are told that you need salvation and you choose to accept Christ. Bingo! You're saved! Is that really how it works?
Paul was explicit. "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast (Eph 2:8-9)." Why is salvation a gift? "That no one may boast." But if salvation is based on our making the right choice, isn't that something about which to boast?
Imagine the conversation you might have with yourself. "Why am I a Christian when others are not? Well, clearly I made the right choice and others did not. So ... why did I make the right choice and they didn't? Well, apparently I'm smarter than they are. No, wait ... that can't be right. No, it must be that I'm just more spiritually in tune. No, no, that's a problem, too. I'm more aware? No. Hmmm." You see, if salvation is based on your proper choice, it requires that there is something about you that is better than those who make the improper choice, and that is something about which to boast.
There is, of course, a volitional factor in salvation. We are required to place our faith in Christ to be saved. But is that a product of our choice, or not? The Bible says it is not.
Paul was explicit. "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast (Eph 2:8-9)." Why is salvation a gift? "That no one may boast." But if salvation is based on our making the right choice, isn't that something about which to boast?
Imagine the conversation you might have with yourself. "Why am I a Christian when others are not? Well, clearly I made the right choice and others did not. So ... why did I make the right choice and they didn't? Well, apparently I'm smarter than they are. No, wait ... that can't be right. No, it must be that I'm just more spiritually in tune. No, no, that's a problem, too. I'm more aware? No. Hmmm." You see, if salvation is based on your proper choice, it requires that there is something about you that is better than those who make the improper choice, and that is something about which to boast.
There is, of course, a volitional factor in salvation. We are required to place our faith in Christ to be saved. But is that a product of our choice, or not? The Bible says it is not.
All who did receive Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:12-13).John's gospel says that it is specifically not the result of the will of man. Paul says it is not our actions or our choices. We are not saved because we make the right choice. Instead, we are saved because God chooses to have compassion on some and to harden others (Rom 9:18). Yes, we make the right choice, but that's not the deciding factor. God alone is.
So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy (Rom 9:16).
Sunday, November 08, 2009
The Promise
I really like this opening of Paul's letter to Titus:
It's the next phrase, though, that just thrills my heart. We have faith that we will have eternal life. Where did that concept come from? It came from God. He cannot lie. And before time (the literal translation of "long ages ago"), God promised that those He chose would have eternal life. It is that promise on which we rest. Nice! But think about this. If God made this promise before time, to whom did He make it? It wasn't to us. We weren't there. It wasn't to the angels. They were created around the same time we were, and, besides, it wouldn't matter if they were promised that we have eternal life. No, what we're looking at here is an inter-trinitarian promise. I fancy that it went something like this.
Father: "Son, I have a plan. How would you like a Bride?"
Son: "Excellent! Of course, she would have to be perfect."
Father: "Oh, of course! So here's my plan. I'm going to make a race of humans in our image. Out of that race we'll establish your Bride."
Son: "I like it!"
Father: "There's a catch, Son. They will sin. They will rebel. And since you need a perfect Bride, we will need to act to make them perfect again."
Son: "Seems good to Me."
Father: "That means that you'll have to die for them."
Son: "Great!"
Father: "Okay then! Let's get started. Spirit, you move across the face of the waters and then ..."
Do you get the impact of this notion? We are not chosen by God because we're so lovable. We're not saved because we're worth it. It is not intrinsic value that forces God to pull us out of damnation. No, it is Divine love for His Son. We are a gift from Father to Son, a love gift. He promised His Son before time began that He would do it, and we are the fulfilment of that promise. Wow!
1 Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness, 2 in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago, 3 but at the proper time manifested, even His word, in the proclamation with which I was entrusted according to the commandment of God our Savior, 4 To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior (Titus 1:1-4).Paul talks about "the faith of those chosen of God", and I like that. I have nothing about which to boast. I came to faith because God chose. Paul connects "knowledge of the truth" with "godliness". So many argue that doctrine isn't important, but Paul thinks that knowledge of the truth is interlinked with godliness.
It's the next phrase, though, that just thrills my heart. We have faith that we will have eternal life. Where did that concept come from? It came from God. He cannot lie. And before time (the literal translation of "long ages ago"), God promised that those He chose would have eternal life. It is that promise on which we rest. Nice! But think about this. If God made this promise before time, to whom did He make it? It wasn't to us. We weren't there. It wasn't to the angels. They were created around the same time we were, and, besides, it wouldn't matter if they were promised that we have eternal life. No, what we're looking at here is an inter-trinitarian promise. I fancy that it went something like this.
Father: "Son, I have a plan. How would you like a Bride?"
Son: "Excellent! Of course, she would have to be perfect."
Father: "Oh, of course! So here's my plan. I'm going to make a race of humans in our image. Out of that race we'll establish your Bride."
Son: "I like it!"
Father: "There's a catch, Son. They will sin. They will rebel. And since you need a perfect Bride, we will need to act to make them perfect again."
Son: "Seems good to Me."
Father: "That means that you'll have to die for them."
Son: "Great!"
Father: "Okay then! Let's get started. Spirit, you move across the face of the waters and then ..."
Do you get the impact of this notion? We are not chosen by God because we're so lovable. We're not saved because we're worth it. It is not intrinsic value that forces God to pull us out of damnation. No, it is Divine love for His Son. We are a gift from Father to Son, a love gift. He promised His Son before time began that He would do it, and we are the fulfilment of that promise. Wow!
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Last Days Madness
1 But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. 2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, 4 treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these. 6 For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (2 Tim 3:1-7).I don't know about you, but I find this disturbing. It reads like a standard description of Americans in general. It certainly seems to describe our world.
There are some interesting points. That "lovers of self" would be first on the list is telling. That "disobedient to their parents" is on the list at all is surprising ... at least to most. I mean, listing off things like "treacherous" and "brutal" and "lovers of pleasure" ... sure, but disobedient to parents? It appears to be somewhat important to God, yet that's what too many parents today teach their kids. I was interested in the "unloving" there in verse 3. In Greek they have four basic words for "love": agape, philos, eros, and storge. The first two appear quite often in Scripture. The third doesn't, but I don't think it needs additional definition. The last one, on the other hand, doesn't actually appear in the Bible ... sort of. Storge is generally the concept of family affection. The word doesn't appear in the Bible, but astorge does, with the "a" prefix meaning "not". It appears here. The claim is that people will lose what is considered to be natural affection. And when you read the news about mothers abandoning children and father abandoning families and parents murdering their children and ... well, you get the idea. It's jarring. And the Bible called it.
Here's the most disturbing part. We can all sit around, nod our heads, and say, "Oh, how bad that this describes our society." But Paul warns Timothy "Avoid such men as these." Now, Paul was explicit earlier in his letter to the church at Corinth. "I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world" (1 Cor 5:9-10). Paul warned them to avoid any "so-called brother" who was like this. He's doing the same here. These people are not "the world". They are inside the church. They are the religious. They ... are us. This warning about the last days is not a description of pagan America. It is a description of Christendom in the last days. And, sadly, it is too close to an appropriate description of many in our churches today. They hold to a form of godliness, but deny its power. They are always learning but never actually come to the knowledge of the truth. They seem to be caring, but are actually weighed down by sin and controlled by impulses. That is what I find disturbing. I expect the world to be sinful, but those who claim the name of "Christian" ought to be different. Are we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
