No, not a version of the Bible. Let me explain.
There was the 2012 shooting of Trayvon Martin and the subsequent trial and exoneration of George Zimmerman in Sanford, FL. More recently black youth Michael Brown was shot to death by white officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, MO, black man Eric Garner was choked to death by white officers Daniel Pantaleo and Justin Damico in New York City, NY, and so it goes. Oscar Grant was killed by a BART officer in Oakland, CA, in 2009. Sean Bell was killed in a hail of bullets in Queens, NY, in 2006. Akai Gurley was shot to death in Brooklyn, NY, just last month. Tamir Rice was a 12-year-old boy shot to death by a rookie police officer while he was playing with a toy pistol in Cleveland, OH. It seems that things are getting tougher out there.
In the wake of all these, protests have surged throughout the country. They want to know the name of the officer(s) and they want justice. When justice isn't delivered, they protest ... long and loud and sometimes with extreme violence. As a minimum they are going to disrupt your day if you're in the vicinity because, after all, they're mad and you exist. Maybe your store is in their reach and needs to be burned down. Maybe you're just on your way to work and they don't want that. When protesters in San Diego, CA, blocked the interstate, Tyree Landrum, a black man on his way to work, confronted them angrily. "I got to go to Ross right now, homie," he said. "If I don't get there, I'm going to get fired." Because, you see, it makes sense that disrupting your life will make their case. Doesn't it?
The title references "the New American Standard". It is not any of this to which I refer. Not the tensions between police and people, between those with guns and those without, between whites and blacks, or even between protesters and the lives they impact. This isn't new. I am most disturbed by the new standard in American jurisprudence.
In some countries you are guilty until proven innocent. If you're charged, it is up to you to prove the charge is false by presenting evidence to that claim. In America, the standard has been the reverse: innocent until proven guilty. If you're charged, it is the prosecution's task to demonstrate "beyond a reasonable doubt" by evidence that you did it. We've now come to a new way, a "third way": "Guilty until we say so."
We saw it in the Rodney King case. The people were irate. They wanted justice. The officers involved were tried and acquitted. And that caused 6 days of rioting, looting, burning, and mayhem. "Justice," they said, "was not served." How? Because the officers were guilty and needed to be punished and that didn't happen. Why? "Because we said so."
We saw it in the Trayvon Martin case when George Zimmerman was exonerated in court and the Michael Brown case when the grand jury decided the evidence didn't merit a trial. We're even seeing it in the case of Bill Cosby where women are coming forward with 30-year-old accusations of rape and molestation. The Navy withdraws its honorary title and the public withdraws its support not because the proof is there, but because the accusations are there. Indeed, the police have stated that they stand ready to investigate any such accusation, but none have been brought to them. Like Zimmerman and Wilson and the rest, Cosby is guilty "until we say otherwise" ... even to the Navy.
This new rule is different than the prior two. They came at it from opposite directions--"guilty until" or "innocent until"--but both required evidence to prove the case. This new one is "guilty until we say otherwise" and no proof is required. "It is true because we feel it is." No amount of evidence will do. "Justice" is "what we say it is" and is not satisfied "until we say it is". Mob rule.
To be fair, this rule has existed since Man began. There have been vendettas, vigilantes, and lynch mobs from the start. I suppose it's just that today our media puts it in your face and makes it appear "normal". Add to that the fact that we live in this "Age of Empathy" where "truth" is defined by "how we feel", and we're on the edge of a dangerous precipice. When mob rule is random, under cover, and rare, it doesn't threaten to overrun society. When it becomes public, united, open and even exalted, we're in trouble. Note that I haven't even considered the merits of any of these cases. That's because in this particular New Standard the merits of cases is irrelevant. Can we simply expect more of this? Is this how America finally tears itself apart? Let's hope not.
Saturday, December 06, 2014
Friday, December 05, 2014
The Bible on Marriage
We all know that our world has decided to modify, over the past 50 years or so, the definition of marriage. This gradual redefinition has left it essentially undefined. Oh, yes, we might agree that it's some socially recognized legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations, but it's all very vague. It is no longer, for instance, an actual union as it had been considered for so long because dissolving a union is no small issue but we're quite happy with "no fault divorce". And "monogamy" was all well and good for awhile, but we've headed more toward "monogamish". "Serial monogamy" they call it--one at a time. So we're out on a limb here without a rope and without a genuine, usable definition.
Society is free to define things however they want or, in this case, to undefine them. I, on the other hand, am required to use the Bible as my source document. So what does the Bible offer by way of defining marriage?
First, let's be clear. You will not be able to go to your King James Bible, flip over to "m", and find something like "marriage; noun: 1. the formal union ..." There aren't a lot of entries like that in the Bible. But in the same way that what the Bible says about the Trinity defines it, what the Bible says about marriage defines it.
So, first entry.
The second entry in our biblical definition is nearby.
The third entry in our Bible dictionary is found in a couple of places.
There is another biblical purpose for marriage.
One more little tidbit that I recently learned and you might enjoy. In Ephesians 5 we find one of the passages on marriage that produces the most contention among believers. There Paul tells wives to submit to their husbands "as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22-24) and husbands to love their wives "as Christ loved the church" (Eph 5:25-28). Now, most don't have a problem with the "Husbands, love your wives" part; it's that whole "wives submit" part that grates. But look at the reason. You know Paul gives a reason, right? Maybe you, like me, missed it. Paul gives his definition of marriage (Eph 5:31) and then explains, "This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church." (Eph 5:32). There it is. God instituted marriage at the very beginning of "man and woman" for this purpose. Oh, sure, it has several components, but the underlying purpose of marriage from God's perspective is to demonstrate to each other and to the world the relationship between Christ and the Church. The Bridegroom and the Bride. The Bible begins with marriage (Gen 2:24) and ends with marriage (Rev 19:6-9). This institution ordained by God is designed by God to illustrate Christ's relationship to the Church. As such, husbands, love your wives as Christ loves the Church and, wives, submit to your husbands as the Church submits to Christ. Don't mess that picture up.
Thus, we have a basic structure for a biblical definition of marriage. It is the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of mutual assistance and fellowship, for godly offspring, and for defense against sin. Ultimately, marriage is designed by God as an image of the union of Christ and the Church (Eph 5:31-32). As such, messing with the imagery laid out by God is very unwise. But it would stand to reason that if God designed marriage with these things in mind, it would work best with these things in mind. So, obligated as I am to follow the Word of God, I am obligated to conclude this is God's view of marriage and anything else is not ... even if the judge says otherwise.
Society is free to define things however they want or, in this case, to undefine them. I, on the other hand, am required to use the Bible as my source document. So what does the Bible offer by way of defining marriage?
First, let's be clear. You will not be able to go to your King James Bible, flip over to "m", and find something like "marriage; noun: 1. the formal union ..." There aren't a lot of entries like that in the Bible. But in the same way that what the Bible says about the Trinity defines it, what the Bible says about marriage defines it.
So, first entry.
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Gen 2:24)This is the first and standard definition. It is the same one used by Jesus (Matt 19:6). It is used by Paul (Eph 5:31). It is the standard. We have man and wife (male and female) who leave and cleave. Leave family and cleave to one another. Two become one. Clear and obvious.
The second entry in our biblical definition is nearby.
Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." (Gen 2:18)The idea, then, is "a suitable helper". Marriage is designed by God to be for the mutual help of husband and wife.
The third entry in our Bible dictionary is found in a couple of places.
And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." (Gen 1:28)I'm actually quite surprised these days that genuine, Bible-believing Christians, when told that a fundamental purpose in marriage is reproduction, disagree. Now, the disagreement may take different forms, to be sure. "It's no longer the case." "Well, what about marriages that don't have children?" That sort of thing. But I cannot fathom how the clear statements of Scripture here could be construed to mean "No, it is not a basic idea for marriage in the mind of God." It is. Now, to answer the second one because that comes up a lot, both among Christians and the world, we have to keep in mind that having offspring does not define a marriage, but that its intent does, or rather its intent as a norm. If God made them one seeking godly offspring (Mal 2:15), then there had better be a good reason why they don't have godly offspring. Perhaps it is because God closed the womb (1 Sam 1:5). Maybe it is a sacrifice for greater service. Maybe. But as the norm, given that God says He makes the union to obtain godly offspring, I would think it obvious that this would be a normal part of marriage and when it is not it would be the exception done for biblical, God-centered reasons.
And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth." (Gen 9:1)
Did He not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. (Mal 2:15)
There is another biblical purpose for marriage.
But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. (1 Cor 7:2)Let's call it "mutual protection". The idea discussed in 1 Corinthians 7 is just that. "So that Satan may not tempt you." (1 Cor 7:5). As a righteous outlet for sexual intimacy and a form of mutual support in life's temptations, marriage is designed by God as a bulwark against sexual sin.
One more little tidbit that I recently learned and you might enjoy. In Ephesians 5 we find one of the passages on marriage that produces the most contention among believers. There Paul tells wives to submit to their husbands "as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22-24) and husbands to love their wives "as Christ loved the church" (Eph 5:25-28). Now, most don't have a problem with the "Husbands, love your wives" part; it's that whole "wives submit" part that grates. But look at the reason. You know Paul gives a reason, right? Maybe you, like me, missed it. Paul gives his definition of marriage (Eph 5:31) and then explains, "This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church." (Eph 5:32). There it is. God instituted marriage at the very beginning of "man and woman" for this purpose. Oh, sure, it has several components, but the underlying purpose of marriage from God's perspective is to demonstrate to each other and to the world the relationship between Christ and the Church. The Bridegroom and the Bride. The Bible begins with marriage (Gen 2:24) and ends with marriage (Rev 19:6-9). This institution ordained by God is designed by God to illustrate Christ's relationship to the Church. As such, husbands, love your wives as Christ loves the Church and, wives, submit to your husbands as the Church submits to Christ. Don't mess that picture up.
Thus, we have a basic structure for a biblical definition of marriage. It is the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of mutual assistance and fellowship, for godly offspring, and for defense against sin. Ultimately, marriage is designed by God as an image of the union of Christ and the Church (Eph 5:31-32). As such, messing with the imagery laid out by God is very unwise. But it would stand to reason that if God designed marriage with these things in mind, it would work best with these things in mind. So, obligated as I am to follow the Word of God, I am obligated to conclude this is God's view of marriage and anything else is not ... even if the judge says otherwise.
Thursday, December 04, 2014
Secular
Look the word up sometime. "Secular: adj. 1. of or pertaining to worldly things not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred. 2. not pertaining to or connected with religion. 3. concerned with nonreligious subjects." Well, you get the idea. And you know it. And you get it. So we have "secular music" and "secular media". We have "the sacred and the secular". Oh, and don't forget "secular humanism".
I would like to suggest that the word is, at its core, fantasy. It is largely a unicorn, a mythical thing that lots of people adore but doesn't actually exist.
Consider, first, Scripture on the subject:
We make differentiations. We might say, "I have a secular job" meaning that I don't work in the ministry. But isn't my job a calling from God in which I am commanded to make disciples and be a light for Christ? We consider good and evil as divisions of the sacred and the secular, but Joseph told his brothers, "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20), demonstrating that in the "secular" the "sacred" is involved. And so it goes.
Paul wrote that God "works all things according to the counsel of His will." (Eph 1:11). Now, if He works all things according to the counsel of His will, what is excluded? What falls outside of God's work?
Consider a biblical example of secular versus sacred:
Now, sure, there is such a thing as "secular" in a certain sense. There are godly things and sinful things. There is the world and there is the Body of Christ. These distinctions exist and are even biblical. This is true. I am only trying to highlight what I think is a common misperception. We tend to draw this distinction in places not drawn by God. We've let the world draw these lines. There is no difference in the life of the believer between the secular and the sacred when it comes to living. Your job, your spouse, your family, your friendships, your politics, even your appearance all play into the sacred as part of your relationship with Christ and your commission to make disciples. There is no corner of your world that is not touched by God, not owned by Christ. Perhaps if we keep that in mind it can alter our perceptions about everything we have and do. I know it does mine.
I would like to suggest that the word is, at its core, fantasy. It is largely a unicorn, a mythical thing that lots of people adore but doesn't actually exist.
Consider, first, Scripture on the subject:
The earth is the LORD's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein. (Psa 24:1; 1 Cor 10:26)If the earth is the Lord's, if all things hold together in Him, if we live and move and exist in Him, what remains? What is apart from the sacred?
For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Col 1:16-17)
In Him we live and move and have our being. (Acts 17:28)
We make differentiations. We might say, "I have a secular job" meaning that I don't work in the ministry. But isn't my job a calling from God in which I am commanded to make disciples and be a light for Christ? We consider good and evil as divisions of the sacred and the secular, but Joseph told his brothers, "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20), demonstrating that in the "secular" the "sacred" is involved. And so it goes.
Paul wrote that God "works all things according to the counsel of His will." (Eph 1:11). Now, if He works all things according to the counsel of His will, what is excluded? What falls outside of God's work?
Consider a biblical example of secular versus sacred:
Most of the brothers, having become confident in the Lord by my imprisonment, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice. (Phil 1:14-18)Here we have two groups preaching Christ. One does so from love and the other from envy and rivalry. The sacred and the secular. Paul considers both a good thing in that "Christ is proclaimed".
Now, sure, there is such a thing as "secular" in a certain sense. There are godly things and sinful things. There is the world and there is the Body of Christ. These distinctions exist and are even biblical. This is true. I am only trying to highlight what I think is a common misperception. We tend to draw this distinction in places not drawn by God. We've let the world draw these lines. There is no difference in the life of the believer between the secular and the sacred when it comes to living. Your job, your spouse, your family, your friendships, your politics, even your appearance all play into the sacred as part of your relationship with Christ and your commission to make disciples. There is no corner of your world that is not touched by God, not owned by Christ. Perhaps if we keep that in mind it can alter our perceptions about everything we have and do. I know it does mine.
Wednesday, December 03, 2014
Santa God
It's just as easy these days to find a "Jesus is coming" bumper sticker as to hear "Santa Claus is coming to town." "No connection," you might think, but I beg to differ. It is my opinion that God and Santa are interlinked in the minds of most Americans, at least subconsciously. Consider.
Santa lives somewhere that you can't see ... you've never seen. Except, perhaps, in story or movies, but never actually. And God is in His heavens where no one has been.
Santa is mostly absent, but he's watching. Oh, yes, he's keeping an eye out for good girls and boys. He's making a list and checking it twice. The threat is "I'm gettin' nuttin' for Christmas 'cause I ain't been nuttin' but bad", but everyone knows better, don't we? Santa loves all girls and boys and everyone, good or bad, will get something wonderful despite the threat of being on his "Naughty List". If it exists, it doesn't really matter. And, of course, we all know that God loves everybody and wouldn't do anything as mean as damning people to eternal torment just because they told a fib or something. No, many believe in God and believe in hell, but "I'm not going there" because, after all, God loves all girls and boys.
Despite the "Naughty List" threat, at the core Santa is a gift giver. He will bring you what you want. Just ask him. Now, of course, he may not know what you want, so you have to let him know. He'll try to bring you something nice, but if you don't let him know what you want, he won't know what to bring. God, at His core, is a nice guy who gives gifts to people. You just let Him know what you want by prayer. He'll give it to you. Just ask anyone. It worked for them even if it hasn't worked for you. Because He's in the business of making you happy.
If Santa fails to bring you what you asked for, it's time to stop believing in fairy tales. Grow up. It's about time. Santa is really just "comfort food", stories we tell our kids to make them feel nice. When God fails to do for you what you demand, it's time to set Him aside. Another myth told to frightened children afraid of the dark or death or some such.
The Santa Claus concept has its origins in Nicholas from Turkey. Nicholas was a generous believer adamant for the truth about God. I suspect he would complain profusely about the image we've made it into. I think, however, that we've simply created Santa in our image of God, a twisted, distorted image far removed from reality. Because we are, in our natural condition, "lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God" (2 Tim 3:4), and that god now sits in the seat of our celebration of the Incarnation. Nice trick. I suspect you can guess its originator. (Do you suppose there's a reason that rearranging "Santa" into "Satan" is so easy to do?)
Santa lives somewhere that you can't see ... you've never seen. Except, perhaps, in story or movies, but never actually. And God is in His heavens where no one has been.
Santa is mostly absent, but he's watching. Oh, yes, he's keeping an eye out for good girls and boys. He's making a list and checking it twice. The threat is "I'm gettin' nuttin' for Christmas 'cause I ain't been nuttin' but bad", but everyone knows better, don't we? Santa loves all girls and boys and everyone, good or bad, will get something wonderful despite the threat of being on his "Naughty List". If it exists, it doesn't really matter. And, of course, we all know that God loves everybody and wouldn't do anything as mean as damning people to eternal torment just because they told a fib or something. No, many believe in God and believe in hell, but "I'm not going there" because, after all, God loves all girls and boys.
Despite the "Naughty List" threat, at the core Santa is a gift giver. He will bring you what you want. Just ask him. Now, of course, he may not know what you want, so you have to let him know. He'll try to bring you something nice, but if you don't let him know what you want, he won't know what to bring. God, at His core, is a nice guy who gives gifts to people. You just let Him know what you want by prayer. He'll give it to you. Just ask anyone. It worked for them even if it hasn't worked for you. Because He's in the business of making you happy.
If Santa fails to bring you what you asked for, it's time to stop believing in fairy tales. Grow up. It's about time. Santa is really just "comfort food", stories we tell our kids to make them feel nice. When God fails to do for you what you demand, it's time to set Him aside. Another myth told to frightened children afraid of the dark or death or some such.
The Santa Claus concept has its origins in Nicholas from Turkey. Nicholas was a generous believer adamant for the truth about God. I suspect he would complain profusely about the image we've made it into. I think, however, that we've simply created Santa in our image of God, a twisted, distorted image far removed from reality. Because we are, in our natural condition, "lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God" (2 Tim 3:4), and that god now sits in the seat of our celebration of the Incarnation. Nice trick. I suspect you can guess its originator. (Do you suppose there's a reason that rearranging "Santa" into "Satan" is so easy to do?)
Tuesday, December 02, 2014
Christmas in a Post-Christian World
I took a trip with my wife over the Thanksgiving week to see family. Six hours in the car across the desert one way. But, it's okay. We have satellite radio and my wife likes Christmas music, so she was delighted to find not one, but two Christmas stations--one traditional and one contemporary. Six hours of Christmas music across the desert. Sigh.
It was interesting. In those hours and hours of traditional and contemporary Christmas music I heard three ... count 'em, three songs that included Jesus. Imagine that! One was a Christmas medley of standards like Joy to the World and Silent Night. Good. Then there was the Pentatonix Little Drummer Boy which was nice (at least it mentions "Baby Jesu", right?). And finally there was a rap version of Silent Night. (You know, rapping "Silent Night" with a back beat and all just spoils the entire notion of "Silent Night".) That's three. In 6 hours. And I realized I was getting the feel of Christmas in a post-Christian world.
Santa came up a lot, of course. I always thought it was ironic when Burl Ives sang "Let's give thanks to the Lord above, 'Cause Santa Claus is coming tonight." Kind of a mixed message there, isn't it? There were a lot of tunes about family and home. Nice things, really, I suppose, if you value family and home. I do, but not everyone does. There were the mandatory "snow" tunes which have been mostly meaningless to me for most of my life having lived in southern California and Arizona for the vast majority of the time ... and nothing like snow in any of those decades, but, okay, that's fine if you value snow. There were the obligatory "what I want for Christmas" tunes. There was the Santa Baby types that appeal to the materialists and the My Christmas Wish types that appeal to the spiritualists, but it was "what I want", not anything about why or who.
So once again the world has stolen from Christianity to make something their own without actually making it make sense. Atheism steals from Christian ethics to make a moral code because they have none of their own. And that's just one example of the theft I have in mind. The primary ethic of Christian living is gratitude--we give because of all we have been given. The primary ethic of worldly living is self--whatever I feel is fine. So they've borrowed the gratitude ethic for Thanksgiving but removed the One to whom you might give thanks because they feel like it's nice to say "Thank you" even if we don't acknowledge the Giver when we do (Rom 1:21). And certainly the whole "Peace on Earth; Goodwill toward Man" concept is a warm one, so they've borrowed that without any offering of how to obtain such peace or goodwill. So we should all be nice and enjoy family and get what we want because, after all, we want it. What other reason would we require?
Now, to be clear, I'm not intending to complain about the loss of Christ in Christmas. That's been done before. And, after all, what would we expect (John 15:18)? No, I'm not pointing fingers at them. I'm offering, instead, a cautionary tale. Christians, don't do that! Don't do "Christmas" without Christ. Don't get caught up in the materialism and spiritualism and family and friends and "peace on earth" and all without starting with the reason for the season. I'm reminding you because we live in a post-Christian America and you won't often get this reminder. We have good cause to value family, to give gifts, to celebrate, and to hope for peace and goodwill. They've forgotten. Don't you do it. Christmas is so much better with Christ as the origin and motivation and primary object. I don't expect the world to manage that, but perhaps we Christians can give it a try.
It was interesting. In those hours and hours of traditional and contemporary Christmas music I heard three ... count 'em, three songs that included Jesus. Imagine that! One was a Christmas medley of standards like Joy to the World and Silent Night. Good. Then there was the Pentatonix Little Drummer Boy which was nice (at least it mentions "Baby Jesu", right?). And finally there was a rap version of Silent Night. (You know, rapping "Silent Night" with a back beat and all just spoils the entire notion of "Silent Night".) That's three. In 6 hours. And I realized I was getting the feel of Christmas in a post-Christian world.
Santa came up a lot, of course. I always thought it was ironic when Burl Ives sang "Let's give thanks to the Lord above, 'Cause Santa Claus is coming tonight." Kind of a mixed message there, isn't it? There were a lot of tunes about family and home. Nice things, really, I suppose, if you value family and home. I do, but not everyone does. There were the mandatory "snow" tunes which have been mostly meaningless to me for most of my life having lived in southern California and Arizona for the vast majority of the time ... and nothing like snow in any of those decades, but, okay, that's fine if you value snow. There were the obligatory "what I want for Christmas" tunes. There was the Santa Baby types that appeal to the materialists and the My Christmas Wish types that appeal to the spiritualists, but it was "what I want", not anything about why or who.
So once again the world has stolen from Christianity to make something their own without actually making it make sense. Atheism steals from Christian ethics to make a moral code because they have none of their own. And that's just one example of the theft I have in mind. The primary ethic of Christian living is gratitude--we give because of all we have been given. The primary ethic of worldly living is self--whatever I feel is fine. So they've borrowed the gratitude ethic for Thanksgiving but removed the One to whom you might give thanks because they feel like it's nice to say "Thank you" even if we don't acknowledge the Giver when we do (Rom 1:21). And certainly the whole "Peace on Earth; Goodwill toward Man" concept is a warm one, so they've borrowed that without any offering of how to obtain such peace or goodwill. So we should all be nice and enjoy family and get what we want because, after all, we want it. What other reason would we require?
Now, to be clear, I'm not intending to complain about the loss of Christ in Christmas. That's been done before. And, after all, what would we expect (John 15:18)? No, I'm not pointing fingers at them. I'm offering, instead, a cautionary tale. Christians, don't do that! Don't do "Christmas" without Christ. Don't get caught up in the materialism and spiritualism and family and friends and "peace on earth" and all without starting with the reason for the season. I'm reminding you because we live in a post-Christian America and you won't often get this reminder. We have good cause to value family, to give gifts, to celebrate, and to hope for peace and goodwill. They've forgotten. Don't you do it. Christmas is so much better with Christ as the origin and motivation and primary object. I don't expect the world to manage that, but perhaps we Christians can give it a try.
Monday, December 01, 2014
Second Causes
I was part of a conversation recently among coworkers about Intelligent Design versus Evolution. No, not the merits of either case, but the concept of the two. My engineer associate told me he would not consider God as a possible answer to origins. That was just right out. No possibility. He offered a couple reasons. First, the theory of God is untestable. Um, well, okay, if you say so. More importantly, if the answer is "God", then we will not ask any more questions. It terminates the search.
I haven't figured out why. Maybe it's because I think in terms of First and second causes. What's that? Well, logic dictates that all effects have to have a cause. Rather than an infinite regression of prior causes, there must, then, be a First Cause. This First Cause would be an uncaused cause, not an effect. It would be what Aristotle termed the "First Mover". Without this uncaused cause, this first mover, there is no answer to the question how anything exists or anything moves. Because "a body at rest tends to stay at rest." Science rooted in materialism demands no First Cause and then has to argue that all that exists came into being from nothing and the Big Bang is a blatant violation of the Law of Inertia. Thus, they refuse to admit the singularity of God and embrace uncritically the singularity of the Big Bang. They argue "Nothing + Time = Everything". We argue "God + Nothing = Everything". And we're the irrational ones.
Rationally, then, there are good reasons to believe that there is a First Cause who would be, by definition, God. Logically for morality to have any binding basis, there would have to be a Prime Lawgiver who would be, by definition, God. It is reasonable to conclude that there is a God and that this God is the First Cause. But, it would be irrational to conclude, "Well, then, we will not ask any more questions." Why wouldn't we?
You see, "First Cause" implies, even demands "second causes". A "first" without a "second" (at least) is a meaningless term. And we who believe that God is the First Cause also assume He uses second causes. What are second causes? Well, that would be whatever tools He uses. If He wanted to drop a safe on your car, He would use gravity. Second cause. His will was first; the safe falling by gravity was second. Or let me try a biblical example. In 1 Kings Ahab died when "a certain man drew his bow at random and struck the king of Israel in a joint of the armor." (1 Kings 22:34). Of course, the event begs the question. Why was the king on the battlefield? Well, as it turns out, he went to battle because his prophets told him he would win (1 Kings 22:12). Okay, so a cause of his death was the arrow, but a prior cause was his prophets who, apparently, were false prophets. So, why did they mess that up so bad? Micaiah tells us that God wanted Ahab to die in battle (1 Kings 22:20). So "the LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the LORD has proclaimed disaster against you." (1 Kings 22:23). So a deceiving spirit caused the prophets to fail, and the deceiving spirit was sent by God. Ah! First Cause. Ahab died from an arrow in the chest because God wanted it so. God used 1) a deceiving spirit 2) in the mouths of Ahab's prophets to 3) get him to the battlefield where 4) a random arrow could kill him. Now that is a string of second causes.
So, here's the thing. If I believe that God is that bottom-line answer to the question of origins, that does not mean we stop asking questions. How did God do it? What processes did He use? When did He accomplish it? Why did He do it? Lots and lots of questions. Some are theological, some philosophical, some historical, and some scientific. Lots of ways to go. So just because God is the final answer does not require that we stop asking questions. In fact, it was this concept that originated modern science as Christians sought to use science to think God's thoughts after Him.
Have you ever heard that objection? "If God's the answer, it short-circuits the questions." Don't believe it. However, the converse is true. If God cannot be the answer, then you may just be removing the genuine answer. And that seems like a poor scientific method.
I haven't figured out why. Maybe it's because I think in terms of First and second causes. What's that? Well, logic dictates that all effects have to have a cause. Rather than an infinite regression of prior causes, there must, then, be a First Cause. This First Cause would be an uncaused cause, not an effect. It would be what Aristotle termed the "First Mover". Without this uncaused cause, this first mover, there is no answer to the question how anything exists or anything moves. Because "a body at rest tends to stay at rest." Science rooted in materialism demands no First Cause and then has to argue that all that exists came into being from nothing and the Big Bang is a blatant violation of the Law of Inertia. Thus, they refuse to admit the singularity of God and embrace uncritically the singularity of the Big Bang. They argue "Nothing + Time = Everything". We argue "God + Nothing = Everything". And we're the irrational ones.
Rationally, then, there are good reasons to believe that there is a First Cause who would be, by definition, God. Logically for morality to have any binding basis, there would have to be a Prime Lawgiver who would be, by definition, God. It is reasonable to conclude that there is a God and that this God is the First Cause. But, it would be irrational to conclude, "Well, then, we will not ask any more questions." Why wouldn't we?
You see, "First Cause" implies, even demands "second causes". A "first" without a "second" (at least) is a meaningless term. And we who believe that God is the First Cause also assume He uses second causes. What are second causes? Well, that would be whatever tools He uses. If He wanted to drop a safe on your car, He would use gravity. Second cause. His will was first; the safe falling by gravity was second. Or let me try a biblical example. In 1 Kings Ahab died when "a certain man drew his bow at random and struck the king of Israel in a joint of the armor." (1 Kings 22:34). Of course, the event begs the question. Why was the king on the battlefield? Well, as it turns out, he went to battle because his prophets told him he would win (1 Kings 22:12). Okay, so a cause of his death was the arrow, but a prior cause was his prophets who, apparently, were false prophets. So, why did they mess that up so bad? Micaiah tells us that God wanted Ahab to die in battle (1 Kings 22:20). So "the LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the LORD has proclaimed disaster against you." (1 Kings 22:23). So a deceiving spirit caused the prophets to fail, and the deceiving spirit was sent by God. Ah! First Cause. Ahab died from an arrow in the chest because God wanted it so. God used 1) a deceiving spirit 2) in the mouths of Ahab's prophets to 3) get him to the battlefield where 4) a random arrow could kill him. Now that is a string of second causes.
So, here's the thing. If I believe that God is that bottom-line answer to the question of origins, that does not mean we stop asking questions. How did God do it? What processes did He use? When did He accomplish it? Why did He do it? Lots and lots of questions. Some are theological, some philosophical, some historical, and some scientific. Lots of ways to go. So just because God is the final answer does not require that we stop asking questions. In fact, it was this concept that originated modern science as Christians sought to use science to think God's thoughts after Him.
Have you ever heard that objection? "If God's the answer, it short-circuits the questions." Don't believe it. However, the converse is true. If God cannot be the answer, then you may just be removing the genuine answer. And that seems like a poor scientific method.
Sunday, November 30, 2014
Think, Love, Live
You remember this story from Matthew. A Pharisee--a lawyer--asked Jesus a question.
I noted something, however, that I never caught before and never heard anyone mention before. It's right there in "the great and foremost commandment". We all know that we are commanded to love God. Mission One. Top of the list. Got it. We're supposed to do this with all that is within us--heart, soul, mind ... everything. Got it. But look at the interesting connection there. In Jesus's statement of the Great Commandment in the Law, He links "love" with heart, soul, and mind. Now, we're all pretty comfortable with thinking of love connected with the heart and even love connected with the soul. How often do you connect love with the mind?
This is the same connection Paul made in 1 Corinthans 8. "Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies." (1 Cor 8:1). Now, we've established that the Bible favors knowledge, so Paul is not saying, "Be ignorant." He's saying that knowledge without love makes you arrogant. Conversely, then, knowledge with love is good. That's the connection--right thinking that loves. Using our minds to love God. That's the idea in the Great Commandment. Think to the glory of God.
We have this trite "Live, laugh, love" motto floating around these days popularized by, of all things, a chef. Perhaps we need to use a different model. Perhaps we ought to consider "Think, love, live" as a Christian version. Certainly the notion of connecting thinking with love might be a new idea for some. But Jesus seemed to make that connection. Shouldn't we?
"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." (Matt 22:36-40)Now, of course, there is a lot to say about this simple response from Christ. In it we have "the whole Law and the Prophets". We have the two greatest commandments. We have actually the single commandment over all--love. We have this singular command to love God "with all your mind" (rather than the currently more popular "without thinking much"). There is lots of good stuff in there.
I noted something, however, that I never caught before and never heard anyone mention before. It's right there in "the great and foremost commandment". We all know that we are commanded to love God. Mission One. Top of the list. Got it. We're supposed to do this with all that is within us--heart, soul, mind ... everything. Got it. But look at the interesting connection there. In Jesus's statement of the Great Commandment in the Law, He links "love" with heart, soul, and mind. Now, we're all pretty comfortable with thinking of love connected with the heart and even love connected with the soul. How often do you connect love with the mind?
This is the same connection Paul made in 1 Corinthans 8. "Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies." (1 Cor 8:1). Now, we've established that the Bible favors knowledge, so Paul is not saying, "Be ignorant." He's saying that knowledge without love makes you arrogant. Conversely, then, knowledge with love is good. That's the connection--right thinking that loves. Using our minds to love God. That's the idea in the Great Commandment. Think to the glory of God.
We have this trite "Live, laugh, love" motto floating around these days popularized by, of all things, a chef. Perhaps we need to use a different model. Perhaps we ought to consider "Think, love, live" as a Christian version. Certainly the notion of connecting thinking with love might be a new idea for some. But Jesus seemed to make that connection. Shouldn't we?
Saturday, November 29, 2014
Repudiating Scripture
Recently we had a discussion about the claim that Jesus repudiated Scripture. I didn't see it at the time, but days later an article by no one less than Greg Boyd took on the same topic. Now I, of course, held that Jesus did not repudiate Scripture while people like Peter Enns and commenter Naum disagreed ... disagreed with me, not Boyd. Boyd (et al.), you see, is quite sure that Jesus overturned God's Word in the Old Testament.
It's a devastating concept. Embraced by some, it leaves me no place to stand. Interestingly, Boyd sees it, too, but doesn't seem to notice. "Jesus," he writes, "is not merely repudiating three verses of the OT. He is, at least indirectly, undermining the inherent violence of all retributive laws in the OT." Boyd is arguing (as if it's a good thing) that all of God's laws that included "inherent violence" (like death for adultery or hell for sinners) were repudiated by the Son. Boyd goes on to agree with another author, C. S. Cowles, who argues further down this logical rabbit hole that Jesus repudiates at the same time all of God's genocidal commands. Jesus "stands in tension with every OT narrative in which Yahweh is depicted as acting or sanctioning violence." Get that? When God ordered Israel to take Canaan, He was wrong. When He ordered them to kill the Amalekites, He was wrong. Boyd talks about the time when the disciples asked Jesus to call down fire on a Samaritan village (Luke 9:54-55) and He rebuked them. Boyd makes this astounding statement: "As shocking as it is, this episode clearly suggests that Jesus regarded Elijah's enemy-destroying supernatural feat to be ungodly, if not demonic." Think about that. The Spirit in Elijah and Elisha and John the Baptist was "ungodly, if not demonic."
Perhaps now you see how the notion leaves me nowhere to stand. God the Son has either declared that God the Father is "ungodly, if not demonic" or that the Word of God cannot be trusted--you know, the Word that Jesus said would never pass away (Matt 5:18-19). That's it. We're done. We can know nothing. Nothing of God, nothing of Christ, nothing of Christianity. There is no ground on which to stand. Especially since Jesus said, "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 5:19). Because Boyd et al. are arguing that Jesus annulled commandments, sealing His own fate as "least in the kingdom of heaven."
Of course, I cannot go there, as happy as others seem to be with it. Perhaps you can see why.
It's a devastating concept. Embraced by some, it leaves me no place to stand. Interestingly, Boyd sees it, too, but doesn't seem to notice. "Jesus," he writes, "is not merely repudiating three verses of the OT. He is, at least indirectly, undermining the inherent violence of all retributive laws in the OT." Boyd is arguing (as if it's a good thing) that all of God's laws that included "inherent violence" (like death for adultery or hell for sinners) were repudiated by the Son. Boyd goes on to agree with another author, C. S. Cowles, who argues further down this logical rabbit hole that Jesus repudiates at the same time all of God's genocidal commands. Jesus "stands in tension with every OT narrative in which Yahweh is depicted as acting or sanctioning violence." Get that? When God ordered Israel to take Canaan, He was wrong. When He ordered them to kill the Amalekites, He was wrong. Boyd talks about the time when the disciples asked Jesus to call down fire on a Samaritan village (Luke 9:54-55) and He rebuked them. Boyd makes this astounding statement: "As shocking as it is, this episode clearly suggests that Jesus regarded Elijah's enemy-destroying supernatural feat to be ungodly, if not demonic." Think about that. The Spirit in Elijah and Elisha and John the Baptist was "ungodly, if not demonic."
Perhaps now you see how the notion leaves me nowhere to stand. God the Son has either declared that God the Father is "ungodly, if not demonic" or that the Word of God cannot be trusted--you know, the Word that Jesus said would never pass away (Matt 5:18-19). That's it. We're done. We can know nothing. Nothing of God, nothing of Christ, nothing of Christianity. There is no ground on which to stand. Especially since Jesus said, "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 5:19). Because Boyd et al. are arguing that Jesus annulled commandments, sealing His own fate as "least in the kingdom of heaven."
Of course, I cannot go there, as happy as others seem to be with it. Perhaps you can see why.
Friday, November 28, 2014
Inimitable
You've heard of that which is "inimitable". That is, it can't be imitated. It is typically intended as a compliment, a recognition of that which is truly unique. "There's no one like her." That's the idea. Now, in the history of humans, if there was ever anyone that fell in the "truly unique" category--the "inimitable"--I would think it would be Jesus Christ. I mean, who could possibly be like Him? He is the God-Man, God Incarnate, the perfect Son of God. We even write His personal pronouns with capital letters because He is not like us. Jesus is the inimitable. And yet ... we are supposed to be "conformed to the image of His Son." We are commanded to be "imitators of God, as beloved children." (Eph 5:1). How is that for a tall order?
Paul saw it as such, so he broke it down for us. He wrote, "I urge you, then, be imitators of me." (1 Cor 4:16). Oh, now, see? That's not as difficult. Paul was not Christ. But you have to admit it sounds a little ... arrogant. "Imitate me and you'll be like Christ." And it might be arrogant, except Paul clarifies. "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." (1 Cor 11:1). And that's something different. Paul commends the Thessalonians when he says "you became imitators of us and of the Lord" (1 Thess 1:6). "Us and." Because Paul is imitating Christ and they were imitating Paul, they were imitators of Paul and of the Lord. And that's good.
I've always had this flight response to Paul's encouragement to "imitate me". I mean, it's all well and good for a super-saint like him to say it. But whatever you do, don't imitate me. I am not a prime example. Now, to be fair, Paul was not saying, "Do everything I do." He said, "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." That is, "When what I do and say and think and feel is an accurate imitation of Christ, imitate that." Because Paul was not shy in admitting his own faults. So it wasn't "imitate everything about me." And so, in the final analysis, the aim from Paul for his readers and from God for His readers is that we imitate Christ. You know, the Christ we've just determined was inimitable.
A few thoughts, then. First, the Christian walk is all about doing the impossible. We are to be holy, something we cannot accomplish on our own. We are to be perfect, something we cannot achieve. We are to work out our salvation as if we have that capability in ourselves. We don't. And that's okay. Because everything we are commanded to do and cannot actually do is properly satisfied by God's work in us. "It is God who is at work in you both to will and to do His good pleasure." (Phil 2:13). That is the means for us to do the impossible. God, working in us, provides both motivation ("will") and empowerment ("do"). Nothing more is needed. Get your legs moving and walk as Jesus walked. Cooperate with God and do the impossible ... daily.
Second, Scripture calls us to imitate Christ, but it does so by means of surrogates. Paul was a surrogate. "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." We are to be "imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises." (Heb 6:12). The author of Hebrews says, "Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith." (Heb 13:7). Christ is difficult to imitate, perhaps, but we have examples of Christ in people who are imitating Christ. Imitate them.
Finally, in his second letter to the church at Thessalonica, Paul reminded them that while he was with them, he didn't rely on them for food; he worked. "It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate." (2 Thess 3:9). I told you that I'm always a bit disturbed by Paul's "imitate me". That's because I think, "Don't imitate me!" And I would like to encourage you as I am encouraging me to become imitable. One definition of the word "imitable" is "worthy of imitation." Are you imitable? Are you someone in whom others can see Christ? Are your attitudes, your actions, your thoughts, your behaviors an imitation of the Savior? Could you say to someone, "Imitate me." I'm pretty sure we cannot, but what we all can and should say is "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." And then, of course, we set about being imitators of Christ. You who are disciples of Christ have Christ in you (Col 1:27). Make your life a reflection of that truth.
Paul saw it as such, so he broke it down for us. He wrote, "I urge you, then, be imitators of me." (1 Cor 4:16). Oh, now, see? That's not as difficult. Paul was not Christ. But you have to admit it sounds a little ... arrogant. "Imitate me and you'll be like Christ." And it might be arrogant, except Paul clarifies. "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." (1 Cor 11:1). And that's something different. Paul commends the Thessalonians when he says "you became imitators of us and of the Lord" (1 Thess 1:6). "Us and." Because Paul is imitating Christ and they were imitating Paul, they were imitators of Paul and of the Lord. And that's good.
I've always had this flight response to Paul's encouragement to "imitate me". I mean, it's all well and good for a super-saint like him to say it. But whatever you do, don't imitate me. I am not a prime example. Now, to be fair, Paul was not saying, "Do everything I do." He said, "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." That is, "When what I do and say and think and feel is an accurate imitation of Christ, imitate that." Because Paul was not shy in admitting his own faults. So it wasn't "imitate everything about me." And so, in the final analysis, the aim from Paul for his readers and from God for His readers is that we imitate Christ. You know, the Christ we've just determined was inimitable.
A few thoughts, then. First, the Christian walk is all about doing the impossible. We are to be holy, something we cannot accomplish on our own. We are to be perfect, something we cannot achieve. We are to work out our salvation as if we have that capability in ourselves. We don't. And that's okay. Because everything we are commanded to do and cannot actually do is properly satisfied by God's work in us. "It is God who is at work in you both to will and to do His good pleasure." (Phil 2:13). That is the means for us to do the impossible. God, working in us, provides both motivation ("will") and empowerment ("do"). Nothing more is needed. Get your legs moving and walk as Jesus walked. Cooperate with God and do the impossible ... daily.
Second, Scripture calls us to imitate Christ, but it does so by means of surrogates. Paul was a surrogate. "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." We are to be "imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises." (Heb 6:12). The author of Hebrews says, "Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith." (Heb 13:7). Christ is difficult to imitate, perhaps, but we have examples of Christ in people who are imitating Christ. Imitate them.
Finally, in his second letter to the church at Thessalonica, Paul reminded them that while he was with them, he didn't rely on them for food; he worked. "It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate." (2 Thess 3:9). I told you that I'm always a bit disturbed by Paul's "imitate me". That's because I think, "Don't imitate me!" And I would like to encourage you as I am encouraging me to become imitable. One definition of the word "imitable" is "worthy of imitation." Are you imitable? Are you someone in whom others can see Christ? Are your attitudes, your actions, your thoughts, your behaviors an imitation of the Savior? Could you say to someone, "Imitate me." I'm pretty sure we cannot, but what we all can and should say is "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." And then, of course, we set about being imitators of Christ. You who are disciples of Christ have Christ in you (Col 1:27). Make your life a reflection of that truth.
Thursday, November 27, 2014
Thanksgiving, 2014
On one hand:
On the other hand:
Although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Rom 1:21)A failure to give thanks to God results in futile thinking, foolish hearts, and sin.
For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy ... (2 Tim 3:2)
On the other hand:
Let us come before His presence with thanksgiving, Let us shout joyfully to Him with psalms. (Psa 95:2)I'm sensing a trend here. "Ungrateful" ... bad. "Grateful" ... good. And it's a good day to think about it, isn't it? Well, every day is a good day to think about that. So, let's.
For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving. (1 Tim 4:4)
Give thanks to the LORD, for He is good; His love endures forever. (1 Chron 16:34)
I will give thanks to the LORD because of His righteousness and will sing praise to the name of the LORD Most High. (Psa 7:17)
Enter His gates with thanksgiving and His courts with praise; give thanks to Him and praise His name. (Psa 100:4)
And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him. (Col 3:17)
In everything give thanks; for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus. (1 Thess 5:18)
Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. (Phil 4:6)
Giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Eph 5:20)
Through Him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge His name. (Heb 13:15)
And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. (Col 3:15)
Give thanks to the LORD, for He is good, for His steadfast love endures forever. Give thanks to the God of gods, for His steadfast love endures forever. Give thanks to the Lord of lords, for His steadfast love endures forever ... (Psa 136:1-3) (No, seriously, you're going to need to go to Psalm 136 to get the entire chapter because it is the longest run-on sentence on why to thank God that I've ever seen.)
It is good to give thanks to the LORD, to sing praises to your name, O Most High. (Psa 92:1)
Continue steadfastly in prayer, being watchful in it with thanksgiving. (Col 4:2)
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Imperatives and Indicatives
In Paul's letter to the church at Colossae he starts the third chapter with "If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above ..." (Col 3:1). "Seek the things that are above" is what is known as an imperative. "Do this." Interestingly, prior to Paul's telling the Colossian Christians to do, he gives them an "if". Indeed, he gives them half the letter full of "ifs"--two whole chapters.
Paul gives us an all-sufficient Savior in Christ. Faith in Christ provides faith, hope, and love because Christ is preeminent--preeminent in creation, in redemption, in the Church. Christ gives us redemption and forgiveness (Col 1:14). He is the method and purpose of creation (Col 1:16). Get this ... all things hold together in Him (Col 1:17). He is the ruler (Col 1:16), the reconciler (Col 1:20-22), the restorer (Col 1:21). He is our hope of glory because He is in us (Col 1:27). Christ offers right thinking and right living (Col 2:6,8) being fully God (Col 2:9). We have been buried with Him and raised with Him (Col 2:11-12). God makes us alive together with Him and cancels our debt (Col 2:13-15).
Perhaps ... just maybe ... you begin to see how big this really is. Perhaps you start to grasp how huge Christ is and how massive are His gifts toward us. Perhaps you start to see His amazing grace and astounding power, the King of all and reason for everything who died for you so you could live with Him. Indeed, an outline doesn't do it justice. It is really, really big, full of grandiose and lofty language about the wonders of Christ and the grace of God.
Now ... if all of that is true--if Christ is all that Paul says He is and has done all that he says He has and gives all that he says He gives--"seek the things that are above." You see, it changes the face of the imperative. It changes it from "Go do" to "How could you not?" It shifts from "work" to "respond". It moves from law to gratitude. "Well, if that is who Christ is and what He has done, how could I not seek the things that are above? Where else would I look?"
There is a lot of debate between "too much law" and "no law at all". We want to avoid legalism and license. One side will tell you, "You need to knuckle under and do all these things!" and the other will tell you, "You can't use Scripture as a rule book; we've been set free!" Paul, in Colossians, says, "Look who Christ is. Look at what He has done. Look at all these benefits. Now ... what is the proper response?" It is neither "knuckle under" nor "nothing at all". It is freedom from the law and joyful obedience. The indicatives of who Christ is, what Christ has done, and all that means to you drives the imperatives of what we should do, because all that He is and does deserves it.
Paul gives us an all-sufficient Savior in Christ. Faith in Christ provides faith, hope, and love because Christ is preeminent--preeminent in creation, in redemption, in the Church. Christ gives us redemption and forgiveness (Col 1:14). He is the method and purpose of creation (Col 1:16). Get this ... all things hold together in Him (Col 1:17). He is the ruler (Col 1:16), the reconciler (Col 1:20-22), the restorer (Col 1:21). He is our hope of glory because He is in us (Col 1:27). Christ offers right thinking and right living (Col 2:6,8) being fully God (Col 2:9). We have been buried with Him and raised with Him (Col 2:11-12). God makes us alive together with Him and cancels our debt (Col 2:13-15).
Perhaps ... just maybe ... you begin to see how big this really is. Perhaps you start to grasp how huge Christ is and how massive are His gifts toward us. Perhaps you start to see His amazing grace and astounding power, the King of all and reason for everything who died for you so you could live with Him. Indeed, an outline doesn't do it justice. It is really, really big, full of grandiose and lofty language about the wonders of Christ and the grace of God.
Now ... if all of that is true--if Christ is all that Paul says He is and has done all that he says He has and gives all that he says He gives--"seek the things that are above." You see, it changes the face of the imperative. It changes it from "Go do" to "How could you not?" It shifts from "work" to "respond". It moves from law to gratitude. "Well, if that is who Christ is and what He has done, how could I not seek the things that are above? Where else would I look?"
There is a lot of debate between "too much law" and "no law at all". We want to avoid legalism and license. One side will tell you, "You need to knuckle under and do all these things!" and the other will tell you, "You can't use Scripture as a rule book; we've been set free!" Paul, in Colossians, says, "Look who Christ is. Look at what He has done. Look at all these benefits. Now ... what is the proper response?" It is neither "knuckle under" nor "nothing at all". It is freedom from the law and joyful obedience. The indicatives of who Christ is, what Christ has done, and all that means to you drives the imperatives of what we should do, because all that He is and does deserves it.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
All that Glitters...
...may not be a duck...
World Magazine has an article on the BioLogos Foundation. BioLogos "invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation." BioLogos president Deb Haarsma says that "churches that support evolution will be more effective witnesses in a culture that reveres science, and will help college students avoid a crisis of faith when biology professors argue for evolution." Because, you see, biology professors cannot be wrong or even challenged and Creation as explained in Scripture cannot be right.
First among their Core Commitments is, "We embrace the historical Christian faith, upholding the authority and inspiration of the Bible." By "the historical Christian faith" they do not mean "the historical Christian faith" as in "the view that the Church has historically held" because they're necessarily needing to rewrite the Bible when it runs up against evolution. They offer, for instance, three possible views for Adam and Eve. Perhaps they were an actual historical couple living 10,000 years ago among many living then that were chosen to represent the rest of humanity. Or maybe the text is not literal, but merely allegorical. Maybe not even allegorical, but simply a parable. Because, you see, the goal is to push "churches and believers to embrace evolution, and in the process change how they read the Bible." So Adam and Eve in the Bible aren't nearly as cut and dried as you might think. The rest of Scripture that refers to these two apparently in ignorance as if they were the genuine progenitors of the race is, well, mistaken. Luke's link of Christ to Adam (Luke 3:38) and Paul's suggestion that Adam was real (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22) or that the whole Adam and Eve story was real (1 Tim 2:13-14) and Jude's suggestion that Enoch was seven generations from Adam (Jude 1:14) are all ... cough ... errors. In no version did Sin actually descend from Adam because evolution tells us so. But that's okay. "We embrace the historical Christian faith, upholding the authority and inspiration of the Bible."
This isn't really surprising, is it? Didn't John say, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us." (1 John 2:19)? Didn't Paul warn the Ephesians, "I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them." (Acts 20:29-30)? So I would urge you as Paul urged them: "Therefore be alert." All that quacks "We embrace the historical Christian faith" is not necessarily a Christian duck. Anyone willing to discard historic orthodoxy to "be more effective witnesses" and "avoid a crisis of faith" when challenged by unbelievers may well not be among the defenders of historic orthodoxy. Thus I find it necessary "to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3).
World Magazine has an article on the BioLogos Foundation. BioLogos "invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation." BioLogos president Deb Haarsma says that "churches that support evolution will be more effective witnesses in a culture that reveres science, and will help college students avoid a crisis of faith when biology professors argue for evolution." Because, you see, biology professors cannot be wrong or even challenged and Creation as explained in Scripture cannot be right.
First among their Core Commitments is, "We embrace the historical Christian faith, upholding the authority and inspiration of the Bible." By "the historical Christian faith" they do not mean "the historical Christian faith" as in "the view that the Church has historically held" because they're necessarily needing to rewrite the Bible when it runs up against evolution. They offer, for instance, three possible views for Adam and Eve. Perhaps they were an actual historical couple living 10,000 years ago among many living then that were chosen to represent the rest of humanity. Or maybe the text is not literal, but merely allegorical. Maybe not even allegorical, but simply a parable. Because, you see, the goal is to push "churches and believers to embrace evolution, and in the process change how they read the Bible." So Adam and Eve in the Bible aren't nearly as cut and dried as you might think. The rest of Scripture that refers to these two apparently in ignorance as if they were the genuine progenitors of the race is, well, mistaken. Luke's link of Christ to Adam (Luke 3:38) and Paul's suggestion that Adam was real (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22) or that the whole Adam and Eve story was real (1 Tim 2:13-14) and Jude's suggestion that Enoch was seven generations from Adam (Jude 1:14) are all ... cough ... errors. In no version did Sin actually descend from Adam because evolution tells us so. But that's okay. "We embrace the historical Christian faith, upholding the authority and inspiration of the Bible."
This isn't really surprising, is it? Didn't John say, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us." (1 John 2:19)? Didn't Paul warn the Ephesians, "I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them." (Acts 20:29-30)? So I would urge you as Paul urged them: "Therefore be alert." All that quacks "We embrace the historical Christian faith" is not necessarily a Christian duck. Anyone willing to discard historic orthodoxy to "be more effective witnesses" and "avoid a crisis of faith" when challenged by unbelievers may well not be among the defenders of historic orthodoxy. Thus I find it necessary "to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3).
Monday, November 24, 2014
Epistemological Crisis
Try saying that without spitting: "epistemological". Not easy. What is epistemology? It is, in essence, thinking about thinking. It is the Pilate of philosophy: "What is truth?" It asks what knowledge is and how it can be acquired. Not "What is true?" as much as "How do you know that what is true is true?" It is a question of Truth.
The Bible says that we humans have a genuine crisis here--an epistemological crisis. What is truth? Modernism argued that truth was determined by means of reason. Post-modernism isn't so sure. Once the Age of Reason ruled, but we're now in the Age of Empathy where reason isn't the king, but feelings rule. "Truth is defined by how I feel." This concept begins with "Don't bother me with facts; I know I'm right." But the Bible says it isn't a matter of the current historical age; it is a human problem. Consider:
So, here we are, muddling about, trying to solve the world's problems. Take, for instance, ISIS (or ISIL or Al-qaeda or whatever other Islamic threat you'd like to name). We're thinking, "You know, a military strike here and a purple-finger vote there ought to solve this" and what we're seeing is it's not working. That's because there is a fundamental breakdown of Truth in the ISIS mind. They believe that killing innocents and abusing women and children and imposing sharia law will solve the problems of the world. They're wrong. But those trying to solve that problem suffer from the same problem--a Truth decay. The problem solvers suffer from the same problem. They're blinded, hardened, suppressing the truth. Solutions from those with a deceitful heart don't solve problems of deceitful hearts.
So, philosophy argues about Truth and calls it "epistemology", not realizing that human philosophy is predicated on a denial of truth. And we raise our hands and say, "Um, excuse me. We have a genuine solution." "No thanks," they tell us, because "the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1 Cor 1:18). The solution is being "transformed by the renewal of your mind" (Rom 12:2), but they don't want to hear it. Because they're suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. All sorts of solutions abound, from science to politics to military options to humanitarian efforts, but what's needed is "the word of the cross", the change of heart (Ezek 36:26). We have that solution. So we shouldn't hold back on it, even though it is a stumbling block to some and foolishness to others (1 Cor 1:23) because, as we've seen, Natural Man has an epistemological crisis and we have the only answer[1].
________
The Bible says that we humans have a genuine crisis here--an epistemological crisis. What is truth? Modernism argued that truth was determined by means of reason. Post-modernism isn't so sure. Once the Age of Reason ruled, but we're now in the Age of Empathy where reason isn't the king, but feelings rule. "Truth is defined by how I feel." This concept begins with "Don't bother me with facts; I know I'm right." But the Bible says it isn't a matter of the current historical age; it is a human problem. Consider:
The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers. (2 Cor 4:4)Humans are described by God as "blinded", "hardened", "deceitful", and "not able to understand." And that's just a sampling. Paul gives a more comprehensive description in his epistle to the church in Rome:
Exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. (Heb 3:13)
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? (Jer 17:9)
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Cor 2:14)
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. (Rom 1:18)The problem here is not lack of information. It is active "Truth suppression." He says, in fact, "What can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them." (Rom 1:19). It is willful. It is self-imposed. Ironically, it started in the Garden when Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. That knowledge started the suppression of Truth.
So, here we are, muddling about, trying to solve the world's problems. Take, for instance, ISIS (or ISIL or Al-qaeda or whatever other Islamic threat you'd like to name). We're thinking, "You know, a military strike here and a purple-finger vote there ought to solve this" and what we're seeing is it's not working. That's because there is a fundamental breakdown of Truth in the ISIS mind. They believe that killing innocents and abusing women and children and imposing sharia law will solve the problems of the world. They're wrong. But those trying to solve that problem suffer from the same problem--a Truth decay. The problem solvers suffer from the same problem. They're blinded, hardened, suppressing the truth. Solutions from those with a deceitful heart don't solve problems of deceitful hearts.
So, philosophy argues about Truth and calls it "epistemology", not realizing that human philosophy is predicated on a denial of truth. And we raise our hands and say, "Um, excuse me. We have a genuine solution." "No thanks," they tell us, because "the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1 Cor 1:18). The solution is being "transformed by the renewal of your mind" (Rom 12:2), but they don't want to hear it. Because they're suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. All sorts of solutions abound, from science to politics to military options to humanitarian efforts, but what's needed is "the word of the cross", the change of heart (Ezek 36:26). We have that solution. So we shouldn't hold back on it, even though it is a stumbling block to some and foolishness to others (1 Cor 1:23) because, as we've seen, Natural Man has an epistemological crisis and we have the only answer[1].
________
[1] I know, that sounds arrogant. "They're all sick in the head but we have figured it out." That's not the claim. Here's the claim. The Maker has stated "You guys have this heart problem" and The Maker has declared "Here's the answer." We wouldn't have known that they have that heart problem because we have the same one, but we have it on Good Authority from One who does not have the problem and knows us intimately that we do have this problem and what the solution is. To say back to The Maker, "You don't know what you're talking about. That's arrogant!" would be the ultimate arrogance.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Knowledge Puffs Up
There is an element of Christendom that despises knowing. "It is wrong," they say, "to know for sure. You should always question." And they can even trot out a verse for us to follow.
This, of course, is nonsense. The psalmist writes, "Teach me good discernment and knowledge, For I believe in Your commandments." (Psa 119:66). That is, knowledge is good. Solomon writes, "Fools hate knowledge" (Prov 1:22). Indeed, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge." (Prov 1:7). If you want to discern righteousness and justice and equity and every good course, it is necessary that you have wisdom and knowledge (Prov 2:8-9). He advises us to "Apply your heart to discipline And your ears to words of knowledge." (Prov 23:12). Oh, no, knowledge is not a problem. Knowing is good.
So what is the problem Paul is writing about? It might be good to look at the context ... starting with the verse itself.
Paul explains in the following passage that we all know that "there is no such thing as an idol in the world" since "there is no God but one." (1 Cor 8:4). So, things sacrificed to idols? Nothing to worry about. Ignore it. They were sacrificed to nothing. Feel free to eat. But wait! That's the knowledge. You know, the knowledge that makes you arrogant. So what is the problem Paul is writing about?
Here's what Paul warns against. "But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak." (1 Cor 8:9). Ah, now we're getting somewhere. You see, Paul tells us that it's abundantly clear--"we know"--that there is no such thing as an actual idol. I mean, sure, we make fake gods, but there is only one real God. So there is no reason to avoid eating food sacrificed to idols ... but--and here we run into the problem. That knowledge has the capacity to make you proud and, knowing better than a weaker brother, you may cause him to violate his conscience. Problem.
The solution is there for us, too. Right up front. "Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies." Knowledge is good. Right thinking is very good. But love is better. That's why we read just a few chapters later, "If I ... know all mysteries and all knowledge ... but do not have love, I am nothing." (1 Cor 13:2). Love, you see, is the key. That quality that seeks the best for others. That attitude that is not arrogant and does not seek its own (1 Cor 13:4-5). That love.
I remember one time I ran into this kind of knowledge that puffs up. It was in Romans 14. There we read, "Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions." (Rom 14:1). Think about that. The text speaks of those who are weak and only eat vegetables (Rom 14:2). So we read that vegetarian Christians are weak Christians ... and we are not supposed to pass judgment on it. Is that even possible? Isn't calling it "weak" judgment? If you're a meat-eating Christian, don't you naturally read this text and snicker? "See that? The Bible says those vegans are weak." That's a knowledge that puffs up. How do you accept the one who is weak in faith without passing judgment? Same answer as before: love.
As it turns out, knowledge, as good as it may be, makes you arrogant when it is acquired and exercised without love. Knowing without loving will cause arrogance and will often harm a brother. But back in Paul's epistle to Corinth he concludes, "Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble." (1 Cor 8:13). Ah, now, see? There it is. Paul knew that meat sacrificed to idols was just fine, but that was secondary to loving others. That is the point. Knowing is good and wise and important. Knowing without love is pointless. Because while knowledge is good, love is always better.
Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. (1 Cor 8:1)Well, that ought to clear things up pretty well. Knowing anything will make you proud. If you want to avoid pride, the best thing to do is to remain ignorant. So, good! Now we can move on.
This, of course, is nonsense. The psalmist writes, "Teach me good discernment and knowledge, For I believe in Your commandments." (Psa 119:66). That is, knowledge is good. Solomon writes, "Fools hate knowledge" (Prov 1:22). Indeed, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge." (Prov 1:7). If you want to discern righteousness and justice and equity and every good course, it is necessary that you have wisdom and knowledge (Prov 2:8-9). He advises us to "Apply your heart to discipline And your ears to words of knowledge." (Prov 23:12). Oh, no, knowledge is not a problem. Knowing is good.
So what is the problem Paul is writing about? It might be good to look at the context ... starting with the verse itself.
Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. (1 Cor 8:1)Okay, now, see? We've already found an indication of the knowledge in question--knowledge about "things sacrificed to idols". By simply looking at the whole verse we've suddenly changed from "all knowledge" to "one particular piece of knowledge". Much better. So what is the issue with this knowledge?
Paul explains in the following passage that we all know that "there is no such thing as an idol in the world" since "there is no God but one." (1 Cor 8:4). So, things sacrificed to idols? Nothing to worry about. Ignore it. They were sacrificed to nothing. Feel free to eat. But wait! That's the knowledge. You know, the knowledge that makes you arrogant. So what is the problem Paul is writing about?
Here's what Paul warns against. "But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak." (1 Cor 8:9). Ah, now we're getting somewhere. You see, Paul tells us that it's abundantly clear--"we know"--that there is no such thing as an actual idol. I mean, sure, we make fake gods, but there is only one real God. So there is no reason to avoid eating food sacrificed to idols ... but--and here we run into the problem. That knowledge has the capacity to make you proud and, knowing better than a weaker brother, you may cause him to violate his conscience. Problem.
The solution is there for us, too. Right up front. "Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies." Knowledge is good. Right thinking is very good. But love is better. That's why we read just a few chapters later, "If I ... know all mysteries and all knowledge ... but do not have love, I am nothing." (1 Cor 13:2). Love, you see, is the key. That quality that seeks the best for others. That attitude that is not arrogant and does not seek its own (1 Cor 13:4-5). That love.
I remember one time I ran into this kind of knowledge that puffs up. It was in Romans 14. There we read, "Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions." (Rom 14:1). Think about that. The text speaks of those who are weak and only eat vegetables (Rom 14:2). So we read that vegetarian Christians are weak Christians ... and we are not supposed to pass judgment on it. Is that even possible? Isn't calling it "weak" judgment? If you're a meat-eating Christian, don't you naturally read this text and snicker? "See that? The Bible says those vegans are weak." That's a knowledge that puffs up. How do you accept the one who is weak in faith without passing judgment? Same answer as before: love.
As it turns out, knowledge, as good as it may be, makes you arrogant when it is acquired and exercised without love. Knowing without loving will cause arrogance and will often harm a brother. But back in Paul's epistle to Corinth he concludes, "Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble." (1 Cor 8:13). Ah, now, see? There it is. Paul knew that meat sacrificed to idols was just fine, but that was secondary to loving others. That is the point. Knowing is good and wise and important. Knowing without love is pointless. Because while knowledge is good, love is always better.
Saturday, November 22, 2014
The Reformation
Meet the Reformation Project. This is a "Bible-based, gospel-centered approach to inclusion" for LGBTLMNOP's. (I know that acronym seems disrespectful, but they keep adding letters and I don't want to leave anyone out.) Founded and presided over by Matthew Vines, self-proclaimed "gay Christian" who argues that the Bible does not say what it says about homosexual activity, the organization is aimed at going beyond "God did not say ..." and on into "The Holy Spirit failed." I know, they say no such thing. But here's why I say it. While touting "The inspiration of the Bible, the Word of God", they deny that the Word says what the whole Church has always believed it says and deny that the Holy Spirit ever led His disciples into all truth ... until Vines showed up.
Vines (the Reformation Project) is comparing it to the Reformation of Martin Luther's day (and beyond). He's suggesting that the Church needs to be reformed. He understands that this is a big job--a really big job--because the Church has never gotten this right. What Vines (and the rest) misunderstand is that the Reformation was not about "making changes in order to improve something", but about the most literal sense of the word--to form again. The Reformers weren't aiming at improving the Church; they were aiming at returning it to its original configuration. And this highlights the fundamental difference between the Reformation and the Reformation Project. The Reformers believed God got it right and the Holy Spirit did His job and the starting point was right--"Now, let's get back to that."--and the Reformation Project believes it was never right, the texts never meant what the texts have always been understood to mean, and they are out now to improve the original. Not the same thing.
The mission of the Project is "to train Christians to support and affirm lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people." Ah, now, see? Something we can agree on. We need to support these people with issues of sexual sin. We need to embrace them and call them to Christ. We need to understand that they are dealing with temptations and desires that are hard to manage and stand alongside to help them fight the good fight. We need to care enough about them to help them see the deceit (James 1:16) they've been handed, as if "how I feel" defines "what is good" and indulging one's lust is morally upright (James 1:14-15). We need to bear one another's burdens (Gal 6:2) as fellow sinners in need of Christ. We need to protect them against misguided folk who seem to think that the sin of the same-sex-tempted individual is somehow worse than the sin of those misguided people. But, of course, I don't suppose those would be classified as "support and affirm", would they? So they'll seek a "reformation" by which they mean "an improvement on the Church that God has never managed before", and it's hard to figure out how that is a good reflection on God or His Church. You know, the one that Jesus said He would build (Matt 16:18).
Vines (the Reformation Project) is comparing it to the Reformation of Martin Luther's day (and beyond). He's suggesting that the Church needs to be reformed. He understands that this is a big job--a really big job--because the Church has never gotten this right. What Vines (and the rest) misunderstand is that the Reformation was not about "making changes in order to improve something", but about the most literal sense of the word--to form again. The Reformers weren't aiming at improving the Church; they were aiming at returning it to its original configuration. And this highlights the fundamental difference between the Reformation and the Reformation Project. The Reformers believed God got it right and the Holy Spirit did His job and the starting point was right--"Now, let's get back to that."--and the Reformation Project believes it was never right, the texts never meant what the texts have always been understood to mean, and they are out now to improve the original. Not the same thing.
The mission of the Project is "to train Christians to support and affirm lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people." Ah, now, see? Something we can agree on. We need to support these people with issues of sexual sin. We need to embrace them and call them to Christ. We need to understand that they are dealing with temptations and desires that are hard to manage and stand alongside to help them fight the good fight. We need to care enough about them to help them see the deceit (James 1:16) they've been handed, as if "how I feel" defines "what is good" and indulging one's lust is morally upright (James 1:14-15). We need to bear one another's burdens (Gal 6:2) as fellow sinners in need of Christ. We need to protect them against misguided folk who seem to think that the sin of the same-sex-tempted individual is somehow worse than the sin of those misguided people. But, of course, I don't suppose those would be classified as "support and affirm", would they? So they'll seek a "reformation" by which they mean "an improvement on the Church that God has never managed before", and it's hard to figure out how that is a good reflection on God or His Church. You know, the one that Jesus said He would build (Matt 16:18).
Friday, November 21, 2014
Not Good
We all love Romans 8:28. It is a great verse.
Lots of people like to pull this one out of the pocket whenever something bad happens. "Oh," they'll tell you warmly, "all things work together for good", as if that's going to make the mother whose child was just hit by a car feel better. As if "it's all good" is a helpful thing to say at a moment like that. But that's not what it says.
Lots of us think the text is saying that everything is good. It isn't saying that. It's saying that God works everything for good. Indeed, the "good" for which God works everything is specific. It is specifically good "to them that love God" and it is specifically the good of being "conformed to the image of His Son" (Rom 8:29).
How do I know that this is not saying that everything is good? It's because of the unavoidable "all things" in that verse. Pick a translation, any translation, and you'll find that while word orders and word selections vary slightly from one to another, the term "all things" is a constant. That's because that's exactly what the Greek word behind it means: ALL THINGS. So, how does that tell me that it is not saying that everything is good? Because "all things" has a meaning. It means "all things". It means "black things" and "white things" and all shades in between. It means "happy things" and "sad things", "pleasant things" and "unpleasant things", "good things" and "bad things". That is, if the intent was "good things" and only that, then "all things" makes no sense. For it to make sense, "all things" must mean "all kinds of things, whether good or bad."
Thus, the text is not telling the husband whose wife just died of cancer, "Don't worry, fella, consider that event a good thing." No. It's not good. The text is saying that it's bad, but God will work it for good. It's like Joseph says to his brothers, "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good." (Gen 50:20). Not "It was good", but "It was meant as evil, but God planned to use it for good."
Every day we hear or read about bad things happening. Even to Christians. The health-and-wealth gospel is a lie. Bad things happen ... to everyone. And we must "weep with those who weep" (Rom 12:15). This favorite verse, then, is not telling believers that bad things are good. This verse gives those who love God the reassurance that despite the worst that can come your way, God can use it. He can and He will. And it will all be used for your good. In the short run, it's bad. In the long run, He'll weave a tapestry of beauty out of it. Just you wait and see.
We know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose.Great, great verse. But ... just what does it mean?
Lots of people like to pull this one out of the pocket whenever something bad happens. "Oh," they'll tell you warmly, "all things work together for good", as if that's going to make the mother whose child was just hit by a car feel better. As if "it's all good" is a helpful thing to say at a moment like that. But that's not what it says.
Lots of us think the text is saying that everything is good. It isn't saying that. It's saying that God works everything for good. Indeed, the "good" for which God works everything is specific. It is specifically good "to them that love God" and it is specifically the good of being "conformed to the image of His Son" (Rom 8:29).
How do I know that this is not saying that everything is good? It's because of the unavoidable "all things" in that verse. Pick a translation, any translation, and you'll find that while word orders and word selections vary slightly from one to another, the term "all things" is a constant. That's because that's exactly what the Greek word behind it means: ALL THINGS. So, how does that tell me that it is not saying that everything is good? Because "all things" has a meaning. It means "all things". It means "black things" and "white things" and all shades in between. It means "happy things" and "sad things", "pleasant things" and "unpleasant things", "good things" and "bad things". That is, if the intent was "good things" and only that, then "all things" makes no sense. For it to make sense, "all things" must mean "all kinds of things, whether good or bad."
Thus, the text is not telling the husband whose wife just died of cancer, "Don't worry, fella, consider that event a good thing." No. It's not good. The text is saying that it's bad, but God will work it for good. It's like Joseph says to his brothers, "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good." (Gen 50:20). Not "It was good", but "It was meant as evil, but God planned to use it for good."
Every day we hear or read about bad things happening. Even to Christians. The health-and-wealth gospel is a lie. Bad things happen ... to everyone. And we must "weep with those who weep" (Rom 12:15). This favorite verse, then, is not telling believers that bad things are good. This verse gives those who love God the reassurance that despite the worst that can come your way, God can use it. He can and He will. And it will all be used for your good. In the short run, it's bad. In the long run, He'll weave a tapestry of beauty out of it. Just you wait and see.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Normalizing Evil
Anyone paying attention would likely have to admit that we are moving on the morality scale. What was classified yesterday as "evil" is today considered "acceptable" and tomorrow "laudable". And sometimes that's laudable. Take, for instance, the miscegenation laws. These enforced racial segregation at one time. At one time in this country it was illegal for different races to intermarry. In 1883 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of miscegenation laws despite the passage of the 14th amendment. In 1913 the Democratic Representative Seaborn Roddenbery of Georgia tried to introduce a constitutional amendment that would prohibit all intermarriage between "persons of color" and whites. That didn't happen, but the repeal of these laws didn't really roll out until 1948-1967, finally removing "interracial marriage" from the list of "immorality".
In other cases, it's not so laudable. Prior to 1960, a girl getting pregnant out of wedlock was a disgrace. (Note that the disgrace of it was generally enough to prevent it from happening.) By 1970, numbers of these births started to skyrocket. In 1965 3.1% of white infants were born to single mothers; now it's closer to 40%. In the 90's I was taking my teenage daughter to school along with a friend of hers and they were talking about a girl coming back to school and how no one would like her. "Where had she been?" I asked. "Oh, she was out having a baby." "Is that why no one would like her?" "Oh, no," both girls scoffed, "everyone does that." Quite a change in a short time.
No one can rationally deny the radical shift in public perception about homosexual behavior or the redefinition of marriage. Within this century--not yet two decades--the public has gone from overwhelmingly affirming marriage as the union of a man and a woman to little definition at all. Inundated with homosexual characters in the media, porn on their computers, and a general decline all sexual morality, they've allowed these to be ... normalized in society's view. And the distance from society's norm of "no sex outside marriage" prior to 1960 to "If two guys want to do it, why should I care?" is no small leap.
The question is what do we normalize next? What of today's "oh, that's bad" items will become "Yeah, so?" things tomorrow? And at what speed? "Homosexual" was a disorder practically yesterday (okay, 1973) but not today. The drug culture took nearly half a century to get their recreational habit legalized, but they've come a long way now. All the same, we seem to be rolling along at a pretty quick pace.
So, now that marriage no longer means marriage and sexual morality is probing new boundaries, where do we go next? What other evils do we normalize? Reports are already out the pedophiles are born that way. How long until they're regarded as normal with all the rights and privileges of any other race (like Caucasian, black, or homosexual)? Since "man and woman" are out as a defining component of marriage, when do we cease limiting it to two? Seems arbitrary at this point. And why just humans? Who's to say that defines "normal" ... or "moral"?
And then what? Why is "democracy" moral and "totalitarianism" not? Why should we recognize rights endowed by a Creator who we don't wish to recognize? Why would "Freedom of Speech" be moral when we're moving away from "Freedom of Religion"? We've already eliminated the rights of the unborn; why not the born? Why not "post-partum abortion"? We're more and more accepting of voluntary euthanasia; why not involuntary? The concept of theft may be mostly bad, but not entirely, so how so wouldn't we legalize it? We really don't like those darn Christians telling us what's right and wrong, so maintaining any morality based on Judeo-Christian ethics ought to be suspect. And that ought to make this an interesting place. (Can you say "anarchy"?)
There really is no doubt that we've been, for a very long time in this country, normalizing evil. What was unbearable half a century ago is normal and applauded today. What parents condone in moderation children indulge in excess. It is really difficult, then, to imagine what next "evil" today will be wonderful tomorrow. I think we've demonstrated that we're willing to go a long way down that path, and not necessarily good directions.
In other cases, it's not so laudable. Prior to 1960, a girl getting pregnant out of wedlock was a disgrace. (Note that the disgrace of it was generally enough to prevent it from happening.) By 1970, numbers of these births started to skyrocket. In 1965 3.1% of white infants were born to single mothers; now it's closer to 40%. In the 90's I was taking my teenage daughter to school along with a friend of hers and they were talking about a girl coming back to school and how no one would like her. "Where had she been?" I asked. "Oh, she was out having a baby." "Is that why no one would like her?" "Oh, no," both girls scoffed, "everyone does that." Quite a change in a short time.
No one can rationally deny the radical shift in public perception about homosexual behavior or the redefinition of marriage. Within this century--not yet two decades--the public has gone from overwhelmingly affirming marriage as the union of a man and a woman to little definition at all. Inundated with homosexual characters in the media, porn on their computers, and a general decline all sexual morality, they've allowed these to be ... normalized in society's view. And the distance from society's norm of "no sex outside marriage" prior to 1960 to "If two guys want to do it, why should I care?" is no small leap.
The question is what do we normalize next? What of today's "oh, that's bad" items will become "Yeah, so?" things tomorrow? And at what speed? "Homosexual" was a disorder practically yesterday (okay, 1973) but not today. The drug culture took nearly half a century to get their recreational habit legalized, but they've come a long way now. All the same, we seem to be rolling along at a pretty quick pace.
So, now that marriage no longer means marriage and sexual morality is probing new boundaries, where do we go next? What other evils do we normalize? Reports are already out the pedophiles are born that way. How long until they're regarded as normal with all the rights and privileges of any other race (like Caucasian, black, or homosexual)? Since "man and woman" are out as a defining component of marriage, when do we cease limiting it to two? Seems arbitrary at this point. And why just humans? Who's to say that defines "normal" ... or "moral"?
And then what? Why is "democracy" moral and "totalitarianism" not? Why should we recognize rights endowed by a Creator who we don't wish to recognize? Why would "Freedom of Speech" be moral when we're moving away from "Freedom of Religion"? We've already eliminated the rights of the unborn; why not the born? Why not "post-partum abortion"? We're more and more accepting of voluntary euthanasia; why not involuntary? The concept of theft may be mostly bad, but not entirely, so how so wouldn't we legalize it? We really don't like those darn Christians telling us what's right and wrong, so maintaining any morality based on Judeo-Christian ethics ought to be suspect. And that ought to make this an interesting place. (Can you say "anarchy"?)
There really is no doubt that we've been, for a very long time in this country, normalizing evil. What was unbearable half a century ago is normal and applauded today. What parents condone in moderation children indulge in excess. It is really difficult, then, to imagine what next "evil" today will be wonderful tomorrow. I think we've demonstrated that we're willing to go a long way down that path, and not necessarily good directions.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Where You Ought To Be
"Some men are born in the wrong century. I think I was born on the wrong continent." So says Elliot Marston in the movie Quigley Down Under. The idea isn't unique. Many people feel like they're in the wrong place or wrong time. They would be more comfortable, they think in an earlier date in history or another geographic location (or both) or maybe in a future time. Somewhere, somewhen, someone else.
If you believe in a Sovereign God, the question isn't merely moot, it's counterproductive. You see, if God is Sovereign, you are where and when you are supposed to be. Imagine that!
Most of us believe, to some extent (and maybe not without good cause), that we are wrong somehow. The "midlife crisis" is a product of this feeling. "I could be more. I could accomplish more. I could be more important, more significant. I could be a better ______," where the blank is filled in with "dad" or "husband" or "earner" or whatever is of significance to you. But God ...
We've bought a lie. We think that a CEO is better than a janitor or a pastor is better than an usher or a leader is better than a follower. We accept that "more is better." We allow position and possessions to define importance and value. It's a lie. We can just look to Jesus to see this. Jesus was subservient to His Father and died. That didn't make Him less important or valuable. And Jesus assured us this was true when He said, "If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all." (Mark 9:35).
Here's what Paul said.
The truth is that you are just when you ought to be. You are just where you ought to be. You are just who you ought to be. Oh, sure, there is more to come. You will obviously proceed in time, you may need to move, and you certainly need to improve, but don't let the lie come in that tells you that you're not as valuable as someone else or not as important as someone else, much less that God loves you less or has failed in some way. For the common good, God has placed you where you ought to be doing what you ought to do, and He will continue to do that. Thus, "in everything give thanks, for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you" (1 Thess 5:18). And you? Sure, it's a cliché to say, "Bloom where you're planted", so how about, "Serve where God has put you"? That'll work, too.
If you believe in a Sovereign God, the question isn't merely moot, it's counterproductive. You see, if God is Sovereign, you are where and when you are supposed to be. Imagine that!
Most of us believe, to some extent (and maybe not without good cause), that we are wrong somehow. The "midlife crisis" is a product of this feeling. "I could be more. I could accomplish more. I could be more important, more significant. I could be a better ______," where the blank is filled in with "dad" or "husband" or "earner" or whatever is of significance to you. But God ...
We've bought a lie. We think that a CEO is better than a janitor or a pastor is better than an usher or a leader is better than a follower. We accept that "more is better." We allow position and possessions to define importance and value. It's a lie. We can just look to Jesus to see this. Jesus was subservient to His Father and died. That didn't make Him less important or valuable. And Jesus assured us this was true when He said, "If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all." (Mark 9:35).
Here's what Paul said.
To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. (1 Cor 12:7)Our tendency, biblically, is to think more highly of ourselves than we ought (Rom 12:3). We might do that by thinking that we are better or more important than others, or we might just as easily do that by thinking we're less when God has arranged us as He deemed best. In either case it is thinking too highly of ourselves. These suggest either that "God loves me better" or "God has failed on my behalf."
God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as He chose. (1 Cor 12:18)
The parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it. (1 Cor 12:22-24)
The truth is that you are just when you ought to be. You are just where you ought to be. You are just who you ought to be. Oh, sure, there is more to come. You will obviously proceed in time, you may need to move, and you certainly need to improve, but don't let the lie come in that tells you that you're not as valuable as someone else or not as important as someone else, much less that God loves you less or has failed in some way. For the common good, God has placed you where you ought to be doing what you ought to do, and He will continue to do that. Thus, "in everything give thanks, for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you" (1 Thess 5:18). And you? Sure, it's a cliché to say, "Bloom where you're planted", so how about, "Serve where God has put you"? That'll work, too.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Blameless
The Bible actually uses the word or the concept quite often: blameless.
Noah was blameless (Gen 6:9). Job was blameless (Job 1:8; 2:3). David was blameless (Psa 18:23). (God made him that way (Psa 18:32).) Paul maintained a blameless conscience (Acts 24:16). We read, "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him." (Eph 1:4). We are commanded to be blameless (2 Peter 3:14). Jude wrote that God will "make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy." (Jude 1:24). Luke recorded that John the Baptist's mother and father, Elizabeth and Zechariah, "were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord." (Luke 1:5-6). And Paul wrote, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). Now, what's that all about? How is it possible for anyone to be blameless and still satisfy Paul's claim about sin being universal?
Hebrew speaks of תּמים--tâmı̂ym--meaning more at "entire". It refers to being complete, having integrity. It is used in reference to sacrificial lambs without blemish. It is translated "complete, perfect, upright, whole"--that kind of thing. The Greek word is ἄμεμπτος--amemptos--a merge of a--not--and memphomai--to blame or reproach. Another word is ἀνέγκλητος--anegklētos-- "not" and "brought to account" or "accused". A third is ἀνεπίληπτος--anepilēptos--"not" and "arrested, seized". An overseer or elder must be anepilēptos (1 Tim 3:2)--blameless.
So Greek and Hebrew are all good, but what do we mean by it? The dictionary defines "blameless" as "free from blame; innocent." Okay. So blame means "to hold responsible; find fault with." If we are to try to correlate Paul's "all have sinned" with all these references to people being "blameless", we will have to avoid the "innocent" definition. You can't be "innocent" and "have sinned". What then? We need to see if they can fit. (Showing how they don't won't help.)
If we go with "blameless" as in "free from blame" and by "blame" we mean "held responsible", we suddenly have no problem. Because anyone can be blameless--free from blame--without requiring sinless. How? Well, sinless requires "free from sin", but blameless only requires free from culpability. "Oh, great, Stan, that solves everything." No, think about it. From the fall of Man God has provided a means of redemption. It has always been found in repentance and faith. Repentance and faith provides forgiveness. Or we could use the theological term--atonement. So with at-one-ment (the meaning of the term), our culpability is dealt with at the Cross. (Note: It has ever been thus. It's just that from Adam to Jesus the Atonement was anticipatory.) Thus, while we are not sinless, we can be blameless.
There is, in this, a key element that I haven't yet offered. Notice the sequence in the account of Noah.
Blamelessness is a great thing. He chose us to be blameless before Him. We are commanded to be blameless. The good thing is that this does not require sinlessness; it is God who makes us stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy. Embrace blamelessness.
Noah was blameless (Gen 6:9). Job was blameless (Job 1:8; 2:3). David was blameless (Psa 18:23). (God made him that way (Psa 18:32).) Paul maintained a blameless conscience (Acts 24:16). We read, "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him." (Eph 1:4). We are commanded to be blameless (2 Peter 3:14). Jude wrote that God will "make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy." (Jude 1:24). Luke recorded that John the Baptist's mother and father, Elizabeth and Zechariah, "were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord." (Luke 1:5-6). And Paul wrote, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). Now, what's that all about? How is it possible for anyone to be blameless and still satisfy Paul's claim about sin being universal?
Hebrew speaks of תּמים--tâmı̂ym--meaning more at "entire". It refers to being complete, having integrity. It is used in reference to sacrificial lambs without blemish. It is translated "complete, perfect, upright, whole"--that kind of thing. The Greek word is ἄμεμπτος--amemptos--a merge of a--not--and memphomai--to blame or reproach. Another word is ἀνέγκλητος--anegklētos-- "not" and "brought to account" or "accused". A third is ἀνεπίληπτος--anepilēptos--"not" and "arrested, seized". An overseer or elder must be anepilēptos (1 Tim 3:2)--blameless.
So Greek and Hebrew are all good, but what do we mean by it? The dictionary defines "blameless" as "free from blame; innocent." Okay. So blame means "to hold responsible; find fault with." If we are to try to correlate Paul's "all have sinned" with all these references to people being "blameless", we will have to avoid the "innocent" definition. You can't be "innocent" and "have sinned". What then? We need to see if they can fit. (Showing how they don't won't help.)
If we go with "blameless" as in "free from blame" and by "blame" we mean "held responsible", we suddenly have no problem. Because anyone can be blameless--free from blame--without requiring sinless. How? Well, sinless requires "free from sin", but blameless only requires free from culpability. "Oh, great, Stan, that solves everything." No, think about it. From the fall of Man God has provided a means of redemption. It has always been found in repentance and faith. Repentance and faith provides forgiveness. Or we could use the theological term--atonement. So with at-one-ment (the meaning of the term), our culpability is dealt with at the Cross. (Note: It has ever been thus. It's just that from Adam to Jesus the Atonement was anticipatory.) Thus, while we are not sinless, we can be blameless.
There is, in this, a key element that I haven't yet offered. Notice the sequence in the account of Noah.
But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God. (Gen 6:8-9)Now, I already mentioned that Noah was blameless, but notice what happened first. "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." See that? Now, if Noah found grace because he was sinless, it wouldn't be grace, would it? Grace that is earned isn't grace. If Noah was sinless, not only can we discount Paul's "all have sinned" claim, but we can also remove grace as unmerited favor. No, that's not how it works. First, God grants unmerited favor. Then the culpability is absolved in the Cross. And now we have a blameless person. Not sinless, but blameless.
Blamelessness is a great thing. He chose us to be blameless before Him. We are commanded to be blameless. The good thing is that this does not require sinlessness; it is God who makes us stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy. Embrace blamelessness.
Monday, November 17, 2014
One of These Things is Just Like the Other
Seriously, have you heard of this one? It's called "BIID"--Body Integrity Identity Disorder. It's real. What is it? In rare cases people believe that they are missing a limb that they are not and feel the need to remove the existing limb. It's not that there's anything wrong with the limb. They just have ... get this ... an "identity disorder". That's right. When someone has a faulty psychological belief that their body is wrong and their mind tells them they need to change their body to agree with their psychological belief, it's called a "disorder" ... unless, of course, it's a gender identity disorder. In that case we'll ignore the healthy body and go with the brain and not call it a "disorder" because ... well, I don't know.
In this study, "Fifty-four BIID subjects completed the survey and indicated that they main rationale for their desire for body modification is to feel complete or feel satisfied inside." Half the subjects experienced sexual arousal on the subject. Oh, and this little bit: "Next to surgery there is no effective management strategy at present." So, tell me, how is this different than gender identity issues? Why is it that the psychological and medical communities talk these poor people with their identity crisis out of altering their bodies to match their perceptions, but in the case of gender identity crisis they're certainly right and the body is wrong? Why is it that no one there sees this correlation?
In this study, "Fifty-four BIID subjects completed the survey and indicated that they main rationale for their desire for body modification is to feel complete or feel satisfied inside." Half the subjects experienced sexual arousal on the subject. Oh, and this little bit: "Next to surgery there is no effective management strategy at present." So, tell me, how is this different than gender identity issues? Why is it that the psychological and medical communities talk these poor people with their identity crisis out of altering their bodies to match their perceptions, but in the case of gender identity crisis they're certainly right and the body is wrong? Why is it that no one there sees this correlation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)