President Obama famously assured the public that we "are no longer just a Christian nation." The public sighed a sigh of relief while Christians took offense. Not me. I mean, just what is "a Christian nation"? Surely it's not "a nation that has placed its faith in Christ for its salvation." And, really, no one could genuinely argue that America was or had been for the longest time "a nation that was a disciple of Christ". That is, no standard definition of "Christian" would fit America ... or, to be fair, any nation at all. Since a nation is a political entity and not a human being, a nation cannot be "a Christian".
"Fine, Stan," some are saying, "play at semantics. You know what we mean." Yes, I do. The suggestion is that America is (or was) rooted in values that are predominantly Christian in origin. At least Judeo-Christian. Never mind that a lot of the originators of our country were not Christian themselves. They were still influenced by the vastly predominant Puritans and Pilgrims who came here as Christians for religious freedom. A nation can't be "Christian", but that doesn't mean that its values cannot come from there. At least at one time.
Today we've arrived at the anti-Christian nation. That is, "If you're a Christian, your religion and its values have no place in our laws or values." Mind you, these are not the words used. The words are more like, "We don't allow religion to determine our public laws and values." That was the idea expressed by Justice Anthony Kennedy in the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision last June. "You may have a religious definition of marriage, but we don't allow it here. We define it." His claim that "religious or philosophical premises" are not legitimate grounds for law or public policy sounded sufficiently secular and neutral. That's what they say. What they mean and what they do, however, is simply substitute their religious or philosophical premises for Christian ones and then claim that no such premises are legitimate. Here, consider the dilemma. The argument is that "religious or philosophical premises" are not legitimate for public values. If this is true, then the only legitimate basis for public values ... is no values. Because values are based on religious or philosophical premises. Further, the method is not only self-refuting, it is also impossible. No one approaches anything without values, religious or philosophical. So in the ruling that redefined marriage we were legislated by judicial fiat based on their religious and/or philosophical values. Welcome to the new American regime.
In a sense, Obama was right. No nation can be "a Christian nation". I hope we're clear on this. In another sense, he is also right in that America is no longer dedicated to values that are rooted in Christianity. But don't let them fool you on this. It does not mean we're a nation of more unbiased, neutral values (or, as some would argue, a nation that has better values than Christian ones). They've simply banned Christianity from influencing American values and substituted a new system ... without any real basis for its values. We're not "neutral". We're lost.
Friday, October 09, 2015
Thursday, October 08, 2015
Opinions are like ...
Okay, so here's the claim. "The Bible may be the Word of God and, as such, theoretically infallible, but the best we can ever get is fallible interpretation. That is, all our interpretation of the Bible is fallible interpretation and, therefore, certainly fallible. Thus, the best we get is opinion. You're free to your own opinion, but don't go forcing it on me and don't assume that your opinion is better than anyone else's."
What do you do with that? It is true that humans interpret Scripture and humans are fallible. And it is indisputable that good, serious, well-intentioned, genuine believers will disagree on interpretation. In fact, I doubt if you can find two such people who agree on every point of interpretation for every point in the Bible. So, discarding the kooks, the liberals, those with ulterior motives and anti-Christ agendas, the enemies of God and the opponents of the Truth, we still end up with fallible interpretation at best. Do we therefore conclude that all interpretation, being fallible, is opinion at best and is best kept to yourself? "Believe whatever you're convinced to believe; just don't foist it on me."
In thinking about this, I find it odd that the loudest voices arguing for this line of thinking do so by foisting their opinions on me. They yell, "You're wrong in your interpretation of that passage and you're wrong for telling me I'm wrong." But ... isn't that doing exactly what I'm accused of doing?
Then there's the whole human factor of the original thought. Samuel was a human who, as God's prophet spoke God's Word to Israel in his day. Whatever else he was, he was human and, therefore, fallible. So why would we take his word on it that "The Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for He is not a man, that He should have regret." (1 Sam 15:29)? Maybe God does change and Samuel was expressing a fallible, wrong opinion. Why would we assume that Paul was right when he said we are saved by grace through faith (Eph 2:8) but wrong when he claimed "No one does good, not even one." (Rom 3:12)? What makes us think that these fallible humans were properly interpreting what God said any more than we are? And, of course, there is the obvious conclusion. If fallible humans wrote the Bible, even under inspiration, then we should only conclude that it was as infallible as their own interpretations of what God was telling them and, as such, is merely opinion that, at the end, should be just kept to themselves.
At the bottom of this question is the question of the conclusion. Let's grant that even if the Bible is the infallible Word of God, humans are fallible and have fallible interpretation of that infallible Word. Is it true that all we get is mere opinion? And is it true that, granting that all we get is mere opinion, we ought to keep it to ourselves? You see, to me the question isn't "Is it opinion?", but "Is it true?" Think of it from a non-threatening approach. A company is building a bridge over a canyon. The engineers "duke it out" to figure out the best way to do it. Most of them come up with "Plan A". One or two are of the opinion that Plan A isn't safe. If the logic is followed, it is merely their opinion and they ought to keep it to themselves. And if that kills a bunch of people, that's okay because it was their opinion that they should keep to themselves. Or maybe they can state their opinion -- you know, say it but certainly don't push by any means -- and then they're absolved when people die because, as it turned out, their opinion was true. So I ask, "Is it true?" If so, after due diligence and finding sufficient reason for the conclusion, am I obligated to keep my opinion to myself, or is it right/true/loving/caring/kind to express what I have concluded is true in order to avoid harm to others? The claim -- "It's all just opinion so you shouldn't foist it on others" -- would tell me not to do it. I guess I just don't have the cold-heartedness to do that to people.
I'm curious if others have thoughts on this type of claim, but I need to conclude with my conclusions. I affirm that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. Further, I believe that, even though we are all fallible, we can all come to true interpretation of God's infallible Word. Some texts are easier than others. Some effort to do so is greater than others. Some disagreement will remain. I believe there is room among believers of the same mind (Phil 2:2) who seek God's truth even in the face of the world's positions for fallible interpretation that produces disagreements on specifics without terminating any sense of ultimate truth. Variations on the details, but unity at the core. But I am convinced that either we have an infallible Word from God with an infallible Intepreter in the Holy Spirit in whom we can end up with reasonable confidence of the truth. Any attempt to relegate it to "mere opinion" is not coming from the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, and those who buy into that line are not being influenced into it by the Godhead. No, that would come from the father of lies.
What do you do with that? It is true that humans interpret Scripture and humans are fallible. And it is indisputable that good, serious, well-intentioned, genuine believers will disagree on interpretation. In fact, I doubt if you can find two such people who agree on every point of interpretation for every point in the Bible. So, discarding the kooks, the liberals, those with ulterior motives and anti-Christ agendas, the enemies of God and the opponents of the Truth, we still end up with fallible interpretation at best. Do we therefore conclude that all interpretation, being fallible, is opinion at best and is best kept to yourself? "Believe whatever you're convinced to believe; just don't foist it on me."
In thinking about this, I find it odd that the loudest voices arguing for this line of thinking do so by foisting their opinions on me. They yell, "You're wrong in your interpretation of that passage and you're wrong for telling me I'm wrong." But ... isn't that doing exactly what I'm accused of doing?
Then there's the whole human factor of the original thought. Samuel was a human who, as God's prophet spoke God's Word to Israel in his day. Whatever else he was, he was human and, therefore, fallible. So why would we take his word on it that "The Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for He is not a man, that He should have regret." (1 Sam 15:29)? Maybe God does change and Samuel was expressing a fallible, wrong opinion. Why would we assume that Paul was right when he said we are saved by grace through faith (Eph 2:8) but wrong when he claimed "No one does good, not even one." (Rom 3:12)? What makes us think that these fallible humans were properly interpreting what God said any more than we are? And, of course, there is the obvious conclusion. If fallible humans wrote the Bible, even under inspiration, then we should only conclude that it was as infallible as their own interpretations of what God was telling them and, as such, is merely opinion that, at the end, should be just kept to themselves.
At the bottom of this question is the question of the conclusion. Let's grant that even if the Bible is the infallible Word of God, humans are fallible and have fallible interpretation of that infallible Word. Is it true that all we get is mere opinion? And is it true that, granting that all we get is mere opinion, we ought to keep it to ourselves? You see, to me the question isn't "Is it opinion?", but "Is it true?" Think of it from a non-threatening approach. A company is building a bridge over a canyon. The engineers "duke it out" to figure out the best way to do it. Most of them come up with "Plan A". One or two are of the opinion that Plan A isn't safe. If the logic is followed, it is merely their opinion and they ought to keep it to themselves. And if that kills a bunch of people, that's okay because it was their opinion that they should keep to themselves. Or maybe they can state their opinion -- you know, say it but certainly don't push by any means -- and then they're absolved when people die because, as it turned out, their opinion was true. So I ask, "Is it true?" If so, after due diligence and finding sufficient reason for the conclusion, am I obligated to keep my opinion to myself, or is it right/true/loving/caring/kind to express what I have concluded is true in order to avoid harm to others? The claim -- "It's all just opinion so you shouldn't foist it on others" -- would tell me not to do it. I guess I just don't have the cold-heartedness to do that to people.
I'm curious if others have thoughts on this type of claim, but I need to conclude with my conclusions. I affirm that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. Further, I believe that, even though we are all fallible, we can all come to true interpretation of God's infallible Word. Some texts are easier than others. Some effort to do so is greater than others. Some disagreement will remain. I believe there is room among believers of the same mind (Phil 2:2) who seek God's truth even in the face of the world's positions for fallible interpretation that produces disagreements on specifics without terminating any sense of ultimate truth. Variations on the details, but unity at the core. But I am convinced that either we have an infallible Word from God with an infallible Intepreter in the Holy Spirit in whom we can end up with reasonable confidence of the truth. Any attempt to relegate it to "mere opinion" is not coming from the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, and those who buy into that line are not being influenced into it by the Godhead. No, that would come from the father of lies.
Wednesday, October 07, 2015
I Desire Mercy
The Atonement of Christ is a key component of Christian theology. No Atonement, no Christianity. The claim of Scripture is that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures" (1 Cor 15:3) (part of Paul's fundamental gospel). The blood of Christ is "a propitiation", an appeasement of God's righteous wrath toward sinners (Rom 3:25). We aren't merely justified by God because He's nice (read "gracious"); we are justified "by His blood" (Rom 5:9) "In Him we have redemption through His blood" (Eph 1:7). A good portion of the book of Hebrews is dedicated to the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice on our behalf.
Having established this clearly and repeatedly, it appears that we have a problem. You see, Jesus disagreed.
This, of course, is problematic. If this is true -- Jesus was right and the rest of the New Testament is wrong -- then we can conclude a lot of things, but "The Bible is God's Word" is not one of them. Because in a major way the Bible is wrong. Paul's entire foundation of the Gospel is in error. As a matter of fact, most of Christendom is faulty. We'll just have to throw it out and go with something else.
Or could it be that we need to do what Jesus commanded? "Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.'" It would appear that these would be our only two possible choices. Delete Christianity or learn what it means (and that would require that it does not mean that God rejects sacrifice for sins). (Note: Others will surely offer alternative directions than these two. They all lead to either a negation of all the biblical claims of sacrifice, shed blood, the cost of sin and the like in one direction or universalism in the other.)
Let's note off the top that Jesus is pulling the phrase from the Old Testament. He didn't make it up. The prophet Hosea wrote, "I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings." (Hosea 6:6) (Note: The ESV says "steadfast love"; the King James says "mercy". In the Hebrew, the two English concepts are meant to be similar -- "mercy" and "steadfast love" ... benevolence.) In the context, Hosea, speaking for the Lord, complains that Judah's love for Him was "like a morning cloud, like the dew that goes early away." (Hosea 6:4). As a result, "I have hewn them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of My mouth, and My judgment goes forth as the light." (Hosea 6:5) Why? "I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice." That is, "I don't want you to respond to your sin problem by covering it; I want you to stop sinning."
In the first Book of Samuel the prophet tells the king, "Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams." (1 Sam 15:22). The phrase "To obey is better than sacrifice" is what Jesus is expressing in His quote here to the Pharisees. (Note the context of the Matthew 9 passage. The Pharisees were complaining that Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners. Thus, "I came not to call the righteous, but the sinners." (Matt 9:10-13).)
If Jesus is using quoting from these sources, then the meaning is somewhat different than "God doesn't want sacrifice", isn't it? What are the three (Hosea, Samuel, and Jesus) saying? Sacrifice was instituted by God. It was put in place as a remedy for sin. That is, sin required a remedy. And God instituted the shedding of blood as that remedy (because the wages of sin is death). Did God prefer the shedding of blood as a remedy? No, of course not. God preferred no sin. God preferred obedience. Obedience requires no remedy. And this is the message of Jesus in Matthew 9. "If you're healthy, you don't need a physician. God desires that you be healthy. Your problem is that you are not and a remedy is needed." The Pharisees, you see, preferred the alternative. "Sin all you want as long as you do the proper sacrifices to cover them." Like the attitude of some Catholic types who think "I can sin to my heart's content and then go to confession and be absolved." Jesus was suggesting that remedy was not the preferred option. Jesus was not declaring that God had been wrong in the Old Testament for instituting His method of dealing with sin or that Paul and the rest of the New Testament would be wrong in the future because they saw His act as fulfilling the necessary remedy for sin.
It is true that God would prefer that no sacrifice was necessary, that we would instead be benevolent, kind, loving, obedient -- "mercy". Since this is not the case, Jesus came to save sinners (Matt 9:13). Now, if you don't require such a remedy, then sacrifice is of no use to you. But, then, that would cause other problems with the reliability of Scripture (e.g., Rom 3:23; 1 John 1:8, 10), wouldn't it?
For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, Who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. (Heb 9:13-14)Scripture is abundantly clear that Christ died on the cross for our sins to save us from God's wrath. The Bible calls His act a "sacrifice" (Eph 5:2; Heb 9:26; Heb 10:12) -- a sacrifice "to God", "of Himself", and "for sins".
Having established this clearly and repeatedly, it appears that we have a problem. You see, Jesus disagreed.
"Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." (Matt 9:13)Well, now, this looks like we've arrived at an actual biblical contradiction. Paul argued at various times in various letters that Jesus sacrificed Himself for our sin and the author of Hebrews did so extensively, but Jesus appears to argue that God doesn't want sacrifice; God wants to show mercy. And, look, since Jesus is "the Truth" and Jesus is "the Word", Jesus is right and Paul is wrong; end of discussion.
This, of course, is problematic. If this is true -- Jesus was right and the rest of the New Testament is wrong -- then we can conclude a lot of things, but "The Bible is God's Word" is not one of them. Because in a major way the Bible is wrong. Paul's entire foundation of the Gospel is in error. As a matter of fact, most of Christendom is faulty. We'll just have to throw it out and go with something else.
Or could it be that we need to do what Jesus commanded? "Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.'" It would appear that these would be our only two possible choices. Delete Christianity or learn what it means (and that would require that it does not mean that God rejects sacrifice for sins). (Note: Others will surely offer alternative directions than these two. They all lead to either a negation of all the biblical claims of sacrifice, shed blood, the cost of sin and the like in one direction or universalism in the other.)
Let's note off the top that Jesus is pulling the phrase from the Old Testament. He didn't make it up. The prophet Hosea wrote, "I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings." (Hosea 6:6) (Note: The ESV says "steadfast love"; the King James says "mercy". In the Hebrew, the two English concepts are meant to be similar -- "mercy" and "steadfast love" ... benevolence.) In the context, Hosea, speaking for the Lord, complains that Judah's love for Him was "like a morning cloud, like the dew that goes early away." (Hosea 6:4). As a result, "I have hewn them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of My mouth, and My judgment goes forth as the light." (Hosea 6:5) Why? "I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice." That is, "I don't want you to respond to your sin problem by covering it; I want you to stop sinning."
In the first Book of Samuel the prophet tells the king, "Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams." (1 Sam 15:22). The phrase "To obey is better than sacrifice" is what Jesus is expressing in His quote here to the Pharisees. (Note the context of the Matthew 9 passage. The Pharisees were complaining that Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners. Thus, "I came not to call the righteous, but the sinners." (Matt 9:10-13).)
If Jesus is using quoting from these sources, then the meaning is somewhat different than "God doesn't want sacrifice", isn't it? What are the three (Hosea, Samuel, and Jesus) saying? Sacrifice was instituted by God. It was put in place as a remedy for sin. That is, sin required a remedy. And God instituted the shedding of blood as that remedy (because the wages of sin is death). Did God prefer the shedding of blood as a remedy? No, of course not. God preferred no sin. God preferred obedience. Obedience requires no remedy. And this is the message of Jesus in Matthew 9. "If you're healthy, you don't need a physician. God desires that you be healthy. Your problem is that you are not and a remedy is needed." The Pharisees, you see, preferred the alternative. "Sin all you want as long as you do the proper sacrifices to cover them." Like the attitude of some Catholic types who think "I can sin to my heart's content and then go to confession and be absolved." Jesus was suggesting that remedy was not the preferred option. Jesus was not declaring that God had been wrong in the Old Testament for instituting His method of dealing with sin or that Paul and the rest of the New Testament would be wrong in the future because they saw His act as fulfilling the necessary remedy for sin.
It is true that God would prefer that no sacrifice was necessary, that we would instead be benevolent, kind, loving, obedient -- "mercy". Since this is not the case, Jesus came to save sinners (Matt 9:13). Now, if you don't require such a remedy, then sacrifice is of no use to you. But, then, that would cause other problems with the reliability of Scripture (e.g., Rom 3:23; 1 John 1:8, 10), wouldn't it?
Tuesday, October 06, 2015
Persecuted
Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. (2 Tim 3:12)This isn't exactly a great sales pitch for Christianity. In fact, I'm pretty sure most of us would just as soon skip out on this one. What's disturbing to the serious Christian, however, is that it is in the Scriptures and it is so abundantly clear. There isn't any equivocation. It's right out in plain sight.
First, what is persecution? Well, we know what that is. We can look at Fox's Book of Martyrs or read about persecutions in history and in various countries. Bad stuff, to be sure. Well, by "bad" I mean very unpleasant. Still, Jesus considered insults and false accusations to be persecution (Matt 5:11). And in the midst of the "fiery ordeal" that Peter said was expected, "reviled for the name of Christ" (1 Peter 4:12-14) was included, so who am I to disagree? So let's just say that there is a continuum from insults to execution in which "persecution" may fall.
I'm not telling you this, however, to scare you. I'm telling you to prepare you. All who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. Maybe it will be insults or false accusations. Maybe it will be worse. Don't be surprised (1 Peter 4:12-14). Count it all joy (James 1:2-4). Rejoice that you are considered worthy to suffer for Christ (Acts 5:41). Such is God's will (1 Peter 4:19).
But there has to be some consideration to the exact opposite question. Many -- good Christians or not -- will tell you that you aren't being persecuted. And even if you disagree, they're quite sure that they aren't. What should we conclude? On one hand, I would warn against leaping to conclusions. It says they will be persecuted; it doesn't say when. Thus, we can't draw conclusions about their intent to live godly in Christ Jesus. On the other hand, why should we anticipate persecution for godly living? Well, it's because godly living stands in the face of worldly living. So if you "desire to live godly in Christ Jesus", but find yourself on "the right side of history", as an applauded vanguard for new morality that the rest of Christendom has denied from the start, as a part of the world's views rather than going against the stream of public opinion, maybe, just maybe, your "godly in Christ Jesus" is actually much more palatable to the world of sin and, therefore, nothing to hate. In this case, you will likely need to reexamine your version of "godly in Christ Jesus". Because all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. And if you're not, that says something.
Monday, October 05, 2015
Principle versus Particular
You will often hear things like, "You people don't believe in pro-life like you say if you're in favor of capital punishment." Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? "If you believe that God ordered the deaths of men, women, and children in the Old Testament, on what basis can you say that it's wrong to kill ... at all?"
This isn't about those particulars. This is about a principle that can help in all sorts of areas. So let's take a look. There is a principle in hermeneutics that tells you to look for the principle. It could be argued, for instance, that the Bible has nothing to say about your driving. So whatever you want to do in the car is perfectly okay with God. It is true, as far as it goes, to say that there is not one mention of driving cars in the Bible. But are there principles in Scripture that would say something about it? Clearly, "You shall not murder." (Exo 20:13) is in there, so vehicular homicide is out. Then there's "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God" (Rom 13:1), so it would appear that, unless some traffic law is in violation of God's direct commands, there is a principle in place for Christians that they should obey traffic laws. How about "Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others" (Phil 2:3-4)? Wouldn't that suggest that we be considerate drivers? Well, that's just an example. There are biblical principles that, when grasped, can touch all manner of things in our lives.
So what about that Old Testament reference of mine? Isn't the Old Testament out? Funny thing ... I don't know of a single Christian that would argue that that command is nullified. Murder is just as much sin now as it was then. My point, however, is that I don't believe that any of the commands are nullified (Matt 5:18). Instead, I would argue that every single principle is still in place. So do we still concern ourselves with, say, ways of cutting our hair? No, not likely. But is there a principle there that we ought to retain? Yes, most certainly. "Come out from among them and be separate" is an important principle. "Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good" (3 John 1:11) is just as valid a principle for us as it was for Israel (Deut 18:9). Particulars may change, but principles remain.
So, when you read the Word, read it for all its worth. In that, be sure to find the underlying principle, because while particulars change, God's principles don't. And while our particulars may be different from those in biblical days, those principles remain the same. Grasp those and you grasp much more than who begat whom or whether or not we should eat shrimp.
One last important point. There is a principle that underlies them all. It is the yardstick against which you should measure everything from sex outside marriage to how you dress in the morning. It is a simple principle with far-reaching consequences. "Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (1 Cor 10:31) That one principle -- "Do all for the glory of God" -- should have its fingers in everything we do, in our every reading and interpretation of Scripture, in our every choice and word.
This isn't about those particulars. This is about a principle that can help in all sorts of areas. So let's take a look. There is a principle in hermeneutics that tells you to look for the principle. It could be argued, for instance, that the Bible has nothing to say about your driving. So whatever you want to do in the car is perfectly okay with God. It is true, as far as it goes, to say that there is not one mention of driving cars in the Bible. But are there principles in Scripture that would say something about it? Clearly, "You shall not murder." (Exo 20:13) is in there, so vehicular homicide is out. Then there's "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God" (Rom 13:1), so it would appear that, unless some traffic law is in violation of God's direct commands, there is a principle in place for Christians that they should obey traffic laws. How about "Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others" (Phil 2:3-4)? Wouldn't that suggest that we be considerate drivers? Well, that's just an example. There are biblical principles that, when grasped, can touch all manner of things in our lives.
So what about that Old Testament reference of mine? Isn't the Old Testament out? Funny thing ... I don't know of a single Christian that would argue that that command is nullified. Murder is just as much sin now as it was then. My point, however, is that I don't believe that any of the commands are nullified (Matt 5:18). Instead, I would argue that every single principle is still in place. So do we still concern ourselves with, say, ways of cutting our hair? No, not likely. But is there a principle there that we ought to retain? Yes, most certainly. "Come out from among them and be separate" is an important principle. "Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good" (3 John 1:11) is just as valid a principle for us as it was for Israel (Deut 18:9). Particulars may change, but principles remain.
So, when you read the Word, read it for all its worth. In that, be sure to find the underlying principle, because while particulars change, God's principles don't. And while our particulars may be different from those in biblical days, those principles remain the same. Grasp those and you grasp much more than who begat whom or whether or not we should eat shrimp.
One last important point. There is a principle that underlies them all. It is the yardstick against which you should measure everything from sex outside marriage to how you dress in the morning. It is a simple principle with far-reaching consequences. "Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (1 Cor 10:31) That one principle -- "Do all for the glory of God" -- should have its fingers in everything we do, in our every reading and interpretation of Scripture, in our every choice and word.
Sunday, October 04, 2015
Magnificent Grace
I remember reading one atheist's argument that if God exists, He is evil. It went something like this.
A man is sitting by a pool, reading a book. A two-year-old comes into the pool area and falls into the pool. The man does nothing. He could put down his book, jump in, grab the child and haul her to safety. But he does nothing. Is that man good or bad?
You can feel the pull at the heart strings. Clearly this man is evil. And you can feel the pull against God. "Yeah, why doesn't God save us all?" So before our brains are ever engaged, our stronger emotions on the subject flood us with outrage.
Here's the problem. It's not true. Not one bit.
It's not true that God does nothing. Infinitely not true. As even the atheist knows, "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16) "Gave His only begotten Son" is not nothing.
"Oh," they object, "but He could save all and He doesn't." I find it fascinating that they're outraged that He doesn't eliminate free will in order to save everyone, but they're outraged that He would impinge on their free will to make moral demands. Can't make up their minds?
But that part was easy. The real error occurs much more subtly. You see, we are not little "two-year-old" gods. We are not in the same species as God. You see, the underlying error is precisely the problem: "I will be like the Most High." We make ourselves out to be gods.
Let's revise the illustration to more aptly fit the true situation. A man has built a nice pool in the backyard complete with safety fence to keep out trouble. He's enjoying the sun and water when a crowd of angry mosquitos attempt to fly over the fence to attack the man. Unfortunately, they lack the ability and all fall into the water, drowning. Now, what would a good man do? If he was to sacrifice his son on behalf of the mosquitos and deign to scoop out a few to save them, his neighbor might think he was daft. "Hey, why are you saving any?" "Because I wanted to," would be his gracious and sufficient reply.
We are not little gods. We are not innocents, accidently falling into a problem. God is not under any obligation to save us. To do anything to save us. If He chooses to do so, it is an act of sheer grace -- unmerited favor -- not the act of a grand humanitarian. And we are not ambivalent toward God. We are hostile to God (Rom 8:7). And it is only out of magnificent grace that He takes the absolutely necessary step of sending His Son to pay for our sin that would provide the slightest hope of salvation for even one of us. Because His imaginary neighbors would all be saying, "Hey, why are you saving any?" And His reply would not be "Because it's right" or "Because I ought to", but "Because I want to."
A man is sitting by a pool, reading a book. A two-year-old comes into the pool area and falls into the pool. The man does nothing. He could put down his book, jump in, grab the child and haul her to safety. But he does nothing. Is that man good or bad?
You can feel the pull at the heart strings. Clearly this man is evil. And you can feel the pull against God. "Yeah, why doesn't God save us all?" So before our brains are ever engaged, our stronger emotions on the subject flood us with outrage.
Here's the problem. It's not true. Not one bit.
It's not true that God does nothing. Infinitely not true. As even the atheist knows, "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16) "Gave His only begotten Son" is not nothing.
"Oh," they object, "but He could save all and He doesn't." I find it fascinating that they're outraged that He doesn't eliminate free will in order to save everyone, but they're outraged that He would impinge on their free will to make moral demands. Can't make up their minds?
But that part was easy. The real error occurs much more subtly. You see, we are not little "two-year-old" gods. We are not in the same species as God. You see, the underlying error is precisely the problem: "I will be like the Most High." We make ourselves out to be gods.
Let's revise the illustration to more aptly fit the true situation. A man has built a nice pool in the backyard complete with safety fence to keep out trouble. He's enjoying the sun and water when a crowd of angry mosquitos attempt to fly over the fence to attack the man. Unfortunately, they lack the ability and all fall into the water, drowning. Now, what would a good man do? If he was to sacrifice his son on behalf of the mosquitos and deign to scoop out a few to save them, his neighbor might think he was daft. "Hey, why are you saving any?" "Because I wanted to," would be his gracious and sufficient reply.
We are not little gods. We are not innocents, accidently falling into a problem. God is not under any obligation to save us. To do anything to save us. If He chooses to do so, it is an act of sheer grace -- unmerited favor -- not the act of a grand humanitarian. And we are not ambivalent toward God. We are hostile to God (Rom 8:7). And it is only out of magnificent grace that He takes the absolutely necessary step of sending His Son to pay for our sin that would provide the slightest hope of salvation for even one of us. Because His imaginary neighbors would all be saying, "Hey, why are you saving any?" And His reply would not be "Because it's right" or "Because I ought to", but "Because I want to."
Saturday, October 03, 2015
Whose Religion?
Ever hear this one? "You want religion to make the rules? Whose religion? Yours?" Or something like it? It comes up when you take a biblical stance on an issue -- say marriage as the union of a man and a woman -- and claim that it ought not be something else. Why? "Because God says so." Now, that's certainly a good enough reason for you, but it is equally certain that it is not a good enough reason for the unbeliever, the skeptic, or the "progressive". So, to shut you down, they ask if you're really sure you want religion to make the rules. Because, you see, the question then becomes "Whose religion?" If you open the door to religion making the rules, are you willing to have, say, sharia law? That's one religion making rules. So, sure, no, that's not what you want ... and you carefully and safely back down.
I'm recommending that you don't back down so quickly. Rather, consider the question. The implication is, "Let's not allow religion to make the rules." Okay, fine. Let's go with that. So what should? Clearly not consensus. The first state to redefine marriage was Massachusetts in 2003. By 2008 two states (Massachusetts and Connecticut) had redefined marriage and 5 had no rulings one way or the other. The rest had passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman or passed statutory laws as such. Prior to the courts legislating marriage out of existence in favor of something else, all but 13 states had rules, primarily voted in by the people, that retained marriage as the union of a man and a woman. From 2013-2015 the courts threw out those laws. So, no, it isn't consensus.
What, then? By what value system ought we create our laws? You should note that when you are challenged to answer whether your religion ought to be the basis, there is an implied anti-response behind it. "Clearly," they are saying, "we should not use your religious values," and we get that, but what we miss is the rest of the implication: "We should use mine." Now, of course, most often these people are not religious (even those who claim to be) but it's still "my value system" they want to impose in distinction to yours. Clearly it's not "everyone's value system" which would be contradictory confusion and anarchy, and we've already determined it's not consensus. So it's implicitly "my values" and specifically "not yours".
Here's the thing. "Religion" is typically limited to "belief in the supernatural", but the dictionary also includes "a specific set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons". In this case "humanism" and "secularism" and "materialism" would all fall under the heading of "religion". Indeed, many who adhere to those particular "isms" do so religiously. Some seem more devoted to their "non-religions" than many who claim to be religious. So, I'm going to have to ask that question back to them.
I'm recommending that you don't back down so quickly. Rather, consider the question. The implication is, "Let's not allow religion to make the rules." Okay, fine. Let's go with that. So what should? Clearly not consensus. The first state to redefine marriage was Massachusetts in 2003. By 2008 two states (Massachusetts and Connecticut) had redefined marriage and 5 had no rulings one way or the other. The rest had passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman or passed statutory laws as such. Prior to the courts legislating marriage out of existence in favor of something else, all but 13 states had rules, primarily voted in by the people, that retained marriage as the union of a man and a woman. From 2013-2015 the courts threw out those laws. So, no, it isn't consensus.
What, then? By what value system ought we create our laws? You should note that when you are challenged to answer whether your religion ought to be the basis, there is an implied anti-response behind it. "Clearly," they are saying, "we should not use your religious values," and we get that, but what we miss is the rest of the implication: "We should use mine." Now, of course, most often these people are not religious (even those who claim to be) but it's still "my value system" they want to impose in distinction to yours. Clearly it's not "everyone's value system" which would be contradictory confusion and anarchy, and we've already determined it's not consensus. So it's implicitly "my values" and specifically "not yours".
Here's the thing. "Religion" is typically limited to "belief in the supernatural", but the dictionary also includes "a specific set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons". In this case "humanism" and "secularism" and "materialism" would all fall under the heading of "religion". Indeed, many who adhere to those particular "isms" do so religiously. Some seem more devoted to their "non-religions" than many who claim to be religious. So, I'm going to have to ask that question back to them.
"You want religion to make the rules? Whose religion? Yours?"And, frankly. I'd much rather have a religion instituted and documented by God with values instituted and documented by God to serve as the basis for laws in this (or any) country than the completely arbitrary, unsubstantiated, baseless values of the alternative of non-religious systems. Those are somehow better? I don't think so.
"Well, actually, why not? Don't you want to use your religion to make the rules?"
Friday, October 02, 2015
The Authority of Scripture
You say you love the Lord. You say you even love His Word. Well, not love, perhaps, but at least respect. Unlike Roman Catholic doctrine, we believe that the Bible is the sole authority in matters of faith and practice. Thus, most non-Catholic churches affirm the unique authority of Scripture. So do most non-Catholic Christians. And then you run into practice. Do we really believe in the authority of Scripture?
As it turns out, I think a lot of people who affirm the Bible and its authority end up actually downgrading it to second place (at best). There are many other things that take the first spot.
"How do I feel about that?" is likely number one. Right on its heels is "What does experience tell me?" So a passage, for instance, that explains that God ordered Israel to kill an entire neighborhood cannot be true because "I don't like the way it feels" or "Experience tells us that this isn't right or good." A close third is whether or not it conflicts with society. I don't understand why this one holds such prominence -- isn't it a given that God's Word will conflict with society? -- but that one is almost as big as the first two. Does the Bible teach that women should not be in leadership over men in the church? Well, until society determined that the Bible was all wrong on how it portrays the roles of women and men, it was a given. Suddenly well-meaning, sincere, Bible-believing Christians arrive at the conclusion that all the church for all the time prior to feminism was wrong and the Bible never said any such thing. That is, we don't allow the Bible to dictate values, morals, or truth. We determine what it is. Where the Bible disagrees, we have to make corrections. That might be by way of deletion or simply ignoring stuff or it might be through creative and innovative interpretation. But by no means can Scripture be correct when it says, "I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." (1 Cor 11:3) Why? I don't feel it's right (feelings). Experience tells me that men aren't always good leaders and sometimes wives should be in charge (experience). Besides, that was then; this is now. Our culture isn't the same as that one. We know better now (society).
These three prime suspects have wreaked all sorts of havoc with Scripture as God's Word and as authority. Among the liberals or progressives, it is most pronounced. They're fine with redefining Scripture into oblivion. But it's not merely them. Even conservative Christians will explain how the concept of hell doesn't work because "it's a horrible thought" or how "There is none who does good; no, not one" (Rom 3:12) doesn't make sense because "we know from experience lots of unbelievers who do good" or how God is certainly fine with women leading men in the church these days because "that's a prior culture". Clear texts like
So ask yourself. Is the Bible really the final authority? Is it really the Word of God? Or are there other things that take precedence in your thinking? Is the Bible the Word of God and authoritative as long as it aligns with your feelings, your experiences, your views from society, your own perceptions? If the latter, rest assured you're likely among the majority. Unfortunately, in this case that's not a good place to be.
As it turns out, I think a lot of people who affirm the Bible and its authority end up actually downgrading it to second place (at best). There are many other things that take the first spot.
"How do I feel about that?" is likely number one. Right on its heels is "What does experience tell me?" So a passage, for instance, that explains that God ordered Israel to kill an entire neighborhood cannot be true because "I don't like the way it feels" or "Experience tells us that this isn't right or good." A close third is whether or not it conflicts with society. I don't understand why this one holds such prominence -- isn't it a given that God's Word will conflict with society? -- but that one is almost as big as the first two. Does the Bible teach that women should not be in leadership over men in the church? Well, until society determined that the Bible was all wrong on how it portrays the roles of women and men, it was a given. Suddenly well-meaning, sincere, Bible-believing Christians arrive at the conclusion that all the church for all the time prior to feminism was wrong and the Bible never said any such thing. That is, we don't allow the Bible to dictate values, morals, or truth. We determine what it is. Where the Bible disagrees, we have to make corrections. That might be by way of deletion or simply ignoring stuff or it might be through creative and innovative interpretation. But by no means can Scripture be correct when it says, "I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." (1 Cor 11:3) Why? I don't feel it's right (feelings). Experience tells me that men aren't always good leaders and sometimes wives should be in charge (experience). Besides, that was then; this is now. Our culture isn't the same as that one. We know better now (society).
These three prime suspects have wreaked all sorts of havoc with Scripture as God's Word and as authority. Among the liberals or progressives, it is most pronounced. They're fine with redefining Scripture into oblivion. But it's not merely them. Even conservative Christians will explain how the concept of hell doesn't work because "it's a horrible thought" or how "There is none who does good; no, not one" (Rom 3:12) doesn't make sense because "we know from experience lots of unbelievers who do good" or how God is certainly fine with women leading men in the church these days because "that's a prior culture". Clear texts like
Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me." (Matt 16:24)get redefined, reinterpreted, or simply tossed into outer darkness to align the Bible with our "noble sentiments", our personal experiences, or even our societal beliefs.
A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (1 Tim 2:11-12)
Therefore, those also who suffer according to the will of God shall entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right. (1 Peter 4:19)
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:9-10)
In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. (1 Peter 3:1-2)
So ask yourself. Is the Bible really the final authority? Is it really the Word of God? Or are there other things that take precedence in your thinking? Is the Bible the Word of God and authoritative as long as it aligns with your feelings, your experiences, your views from society, your own perceptions? If the latter, rest assured you're likely among the majority. Unfortunately, in this case that's not a good place to be.
Thursday, October 01, 2015
The Fallible with the Infallible
The standard Christian position on the Bible is that it is the infallible Word of God. There is, of course, a variety of dances that people will do around that from, "No, it isn't" to "Well, it contains the infallible Word of God" (which leaves you with, "Okay, so which part is and which part isn't?"). But standard Christian orthodoxy includes that original concept, the infallibility of the Word of God.
Even if you grant this, and even if you grant that the whole Bible is the infallible Word of God, you still have a problem, don't you? Well, if you don't see it, just look around. How many reliable, devout, genuine believers agree 100% on the meaning of all the texts? If I'm to be honest, I don't know two. So clearly, while we agree that the Bible is God's Word and God's Word is infallible, clearly we're dealing with fallible interpretation. "Aha!" some will conclude, "So even with your infallible Bible you can't really know anything for sure about what it means, can you?" Or something rather close to it. (These are the ones that often seem to consider certainty a sin.) But even well-meaning, sincere Christians get concerned. "If the scholars can't figure this stuff out, what makes me think I can?"
It would be nice if there was an infallible method for fallible humans to interpret the infallible Word. There isn't. But there are some hints, some things to keep in mind that can raise your confidence level.
Herman Newticks
Hermeneutics is the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, almost always in terms of the Bible. It's very important to have a valid, reliable method of interpretation. Note that this is not "What does the world around me say?" or "How do I feel about it?" (Have you ever sat in a Bible study where the method was, "What do you think it says?" Not a good approach.)
Scripture Interprets Scripture
Assuming that the premise is right -- God's Word is authoritative and infallible -- it only makes sense that God's Word would be the best interpreter of God's Word. Some people are perfectly fine with concluding that Scripture contradicts Scripture or that it was true once but isn't anymore .. at least, not entirely. But if the premise is right, Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. So if you find something that contradicts something else, don't ignore it or throw it away. Find out how it fits. If it doesn't fit, you are not accurately understanding.
Take it as it is written
Lots of people dislike immensely the ones they term "literalists". And they'll show you how stupid it is by, say, pointing out that Jesus said, "I am the door." "So," they'll challenge, "where were His hinges and doorknob? You're such a literalist!" Or something equally mindless. I'm not advocating wooden literalism. But I am suggesting that we read the Bible as it is written. Is it historical narrative? Read it that way. (As opposed to "myth" or "legend" because, after all, that seems so hard to believe.) If it's doctrinal, take it as doctrine. If it is wisdom -- you know, like proverbs -- take it as proverbial. Take Scripture as it is written, exactly as you would any other book you would read.
Context, Context, Context
There is no more important message about interpreting Scripture than "context, context, context". Someone recently (if I knew who, I'd reference them) said we should never read a Bible verse. Read before it. Read after it. Read whole chapters and whole books. (It has been my experience that those chapter breaks often come in bad places. Don't let them stop you.) What is the author saying? What is the context of the times? Who is it to? Why was it written? What is the theme? What are the principles? Take, for instance, the famous "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female." (Lev 18:22) What is the context? Sexual sin of all varieties (Lev 18:6-24). They'll tell you, "It's not about homosexual sin", and they'll want you to believe, "It's about pagan practices" or the like. You'll need to ask yourself, "So is the rest of the context not about sexual sin either?" If you conclude it is about sexual sin, you'll want to ask, "Is it consistent with the rest of Scripture on this topic?" And you'll find a single message there, too. Context nails the meaning down.
He Will Guide You
Jesus told His disciples, "When He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak." (John 16:13) Take this as a fundamental position. If Jesus was right (if you think He may not have been, classify yourself as not "Christian"), then the Spirit of truth has been in the business from the beginning of leading His own into the truth. This would mean that from the beginning His disciples have been right. That is, somewhere in the stream of biblical interpretation from the start until now there has been the truth. Like a stream in a river bed, it may have been obscured at times by trees and overgrowth, even driving underground at times. But either the Spirit has done His job from the start and the truth has always been there, or the Spirit failed. So if you cannot trace your conclusions about Scripture very far back, there is a good reason to question them. The many who have come up with novel ideas and approaches to interpreting Scripture in the last 200 years cannot explain how the Spirit failed so badly. They don't try. Don't do it. Don't buy that lie. God doesn't fail. So we have the Spirit providing perfect interpretation, and we need to listen.
You might be tempted to think that it cannot be done. You may have been told that the best you can end up with is opinion. You may believe it. "And why is your opinion any more valid than mine?" you may have been challenged. Please note: here's what Paul told Timothy.
Even if you grant this, and even if you grant that the whole Bible is the infallible Word of God, you still have a problem, don't you? Well, if you don't see it, just look around. How many reliable, devout, genuine believers agree 100% on the meaning of all the texts? If I'm to be honest, I don't know two. So clearly, while we agree that the Bible is God's Word and God's Word is infallible, clearly we're dealing with fallible interpretation. "Aha!" some will conclude, "So even with your infallible Bible you can't really know anything for sure about what it means, can you?" Or something rather close to it. (These are the ones that often seem to consider certainty a sin.) But even well-meaning, sincere Christians get concerned. "If the scholars can't figure this stuff out, what makes me think I can?"
It would be nice if there was an infallible method for fallible humans to interpret the infallible Word. There isn't. But there are some hints, some things to keep in mind that can raise your confidence level.
Herman Newticks
Hermeneutics is the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, almost always in terms of the Bible. It's very important to have a valid, reliable method of interpretation. Note that this is not "What does the world around me say?" or "How do I feel about it?" (Have you ever sat in a Bible study where the method was, "What do you think it says?" Not a good approach.)
Scripture Interprets Scripture
Assuming that the premise is right -- God's Word is authoritative and infallible -- it only makes sense that God's Word would be the best interpreter of God's Word. Some people are perfectly fine with concluding that Scripture contradicts Scripture or that it was true once but isn't anymore .. at least, not entirely. But if the premise is right, Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. So if you find something that contradicts something else, don't ignore it or throw it away. Find out how it fits. If it doesn't fit, you are not accurately understanding.
Take it as it is written
Lots of people dislike immensely the ones they term "literalists". And they'll show you how stupid it is by, say, pointing out that Jesus said, "I am the door." "So," they'll challenge, "where were His hinges and doorknob? You're such a literalist!" Or something equally mindless. I'm not advocating wooden literalism. But I am suggesting that we read the Bible as it is written. Is it historical narrative? Read it that way. (As opposed to "myth" or "legend" because, after all, that seems so hard to believe.) If it's doctrinal, take it as doctrine. If it is wisdom -- you know, like proverbs -- take it as proverbial. Take Scripture as it is written, exactly as you would any other book you would read.
Context, Context, Context
There is no more important message about interpreting Scripture than "context, context, context". Someone recently (if I knew who, I'd reference them) said we should never read a Bible verse. Read before it. Read after it. Read whole chapters and whole books. (It has been my experience that those chapter breaks often come in bad places. Don't let them stop you.) What is the author saying? What is the context of the times? Who is it to? Why was it written? What is the theme? What are the principles? Take, for instance, the famous "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female." (Lev 18:22) What is the context? Sexual sin of all varieties (Lev 18:6-24). They'll tell you, "It's not about homosexual sin", and they'll want you to believe, "It's about pagan practices" or the like. You'll need to ask yourself, "So is the rest of the context not about sexual sin either?" If you conclude it is about sexual sin, you'll want to ask, "Is it consistent with the rest of Scripture on this topic?" And you'll find a single message there, too. Context nails the meaning down.
He Will Guide You
Jesus told His disciples, "When He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak." (John 16:13) Take this as a fundamental position. If Jesus was right (if you think He may not have been, classify yourself as not "Christian"), then the Spirit of truth has been in the business from the beginning of leading His own into the truth. This would mean that from the beginning His disciples have been right. That is, somewhere in the stream of biblical interpretation from the start until now there has been the truth. Like a stream in a river bed, it may have been obscured at times by trees and overgrowth, even driving underground at times. But either the Spirit has done His job from the start and the truth has always been there, or the Spirit failed. So if you cannot trace your conclusions about Scripture very far back, there is a good reason to question them. The many who have come up with novel ideas and approaches to interpreting Scripture in the last 200 years cannot explain how the Spirit failed so badly. They don't try. Don't do it. Don't buy that lie. God doesn't fail. So we have the Spirit providing perfect interpretation, and we need to listen.
You might be tempted to think that it cannot be done. You may have been told that the best you can end up with is opinion. You may believe it. "And why is your opinion any more valid than mine?" you may have been challenged. Please note: here's what Paul told Timothy.
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. (2 Tim 2:15)Think about that a moment. If it is true that the best we can get is pure opinion and no one's opinion is better than anyone else's, then Paul was telling Timothy, "Do the impossible." Because Paul believed that Timothy could accurately handle the word of truth. If Timothy could, so can you. Maybe not 100% of the time, but certainly with a reasonable amount of confidence. Because, in the final analysis, no Scripture is a matter of private interpretation; it's a matter of the Spirit's enlightenment (2 Peter 1:20-21). And surely He can get it right. Still, the problem remains. This one will say, "Well, my interpretation is just as valid as yours" and that one will say, "What makes you so arrogant as to think that yours is right and mine is wrong?" And they will be quite sure that where yours differs from theirs, yours is wrong and theirs is right and you're absolutely wrong for thinking yours is right. Loser. Nothing you can do about it. All I can say is, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth."
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
What Do You Believe?
They made the news in Greenville, SC, when the historic First Baptist Church opted to allow ordination and marriage of homosexuals (sorry, "LGBT"). The South Carolina Baptist Convention has asked the church to either recant or withdraw from the denomination. "But ... why?" some will ask. "They're baptists, aren't they?" Oh, it gets stickier than that. In their Report from the LGBT Discernment Team (yes, they had an "LGBT Discernment Team"), they affirmed, "In all facets of the life and ministry of our church, including but not limited to membership, baptism, ordination, marriage, teaching and committee/organizational leadership, First Baptist Greenville will not discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity." Ironically, their footer is a mission statement which includes, "We believe in the authority of the Bible."
I'm not writing here about the particulars of that case. I'm writing about the problem of belief. Go to almost any church website, look up their "statement of faith" or whatever they might call it, and you will likely find a mostly orthodox statement of beliefs. This used to be a helpful method of determining whether or not you wanted to go to that church. I mean, if you concur with their statement of faith, go; if not, don't. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way anymore.
Using the example of the First Baptist Church of Greenville, their mission statement affirms the authority of the Bible, but their beliefs ignore it. No Scripture includes "not discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity". All Scripture on subjects of "sexual orientation" classify anything other than sex between a man and a woman within the confines of marriage as the only righteous "sexual orientation", and in terms of "gender identity, only those specific gender roles for males and females that correspond to their sex are correct. But it didn't matter to the "LGBT Discernment Team". Or to the congregation (whose "consensus" was a factor in this decision). Or to the leadership of the church. So much for the Bible as authority. It was only authority if it coincides with "consensus" and how we feel about it. Otherwise, not so much.
I see this a lot ... churches with a commendable list of beliefs who apparently don't actually believe them. More than that, it is individuals who claim to believe things they don't actually believe. Baptists that believe in the authority of Scripture while denying Scripture in their policies. Open theists who believe that God doesn't know the future and still affirm the Omniscience of God. A Presbyterian church that "believes in God" whose pastor is a self-declared atheist. Even well-meaning, genuine Christians who affirm the Sovereignty of God but worry about tomorrow.
What do you believe? What you truly believe will always be demonstrated in what you do and not necessarily in what you say. Jesus recognized that when He said, "You will know them by their fruits." (Matt 7:20) And it might be a helpful tool to for you to "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith." (2 Cor 13:5) And for those of you who think it's wrong to question the beliefs of others, please consider the Scriptures on the matter. The Bible disagrees with you.
I'm not writing here about the particulars of that case. I'm writing about the problem of belief. Go to almost any church website, look up their "statement of faith" or whatever they might call it, and you will likely find a mostly orthodox statement of beliefs. This used to be a helpful method of determining whether or not you wanted to go to that church. I mean, if you concur with their statement of faith, go; if not, don't. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way anymore.
Using the example of the First Baptist Church of Greenville, their mission statement affirms the authority of the Bible, but their beliefs ignore it. No Scripture includes "not discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity". All Scripture on subjects of "sexual orientation" classify anything other than sex between a man and a woman within the confines of marriage as the only righteous "sexual orientation", and in terms of "gender identity, only those specific gender roles for males and females that correspond to their sex are correct. But it didn't matter to the "LGBT Discernment Team". Or to the congregation (whose "consensus" was a factor in this decision). Or to the leadership of the church. So much for the Bible as authority. It was only authority if it coincides with "consensus" and how we feel about it. Otherwise, not so much.
I see this a lot ... churches with a commendable list of beliefs who apparently don't actually believe them. More than that, it is individuals who claim to believe things they don't actually believe. Baptists that believe in the authority of Scripture while denying Scripture in their policies. Open theists who believe that God doesn't know the future and still affirm the Omniscience of God. A Presbyterian church that "believes in God" whose pastor is a self-declared atheist. Even well-meaning, genuine Christians who affirm the Sovereignty of God but worry about tomorrow.
What do you believe? What you truly believe will always be demonstrated in what you do and not necessarily in what you say. Jesus recognized that when He said, "You will know them by their fruits." (Matt 7:20) And it might be a helpful tool to for you to "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith." (2 Cor 13:5) And for those of you who think it's wrong to question the beliefs of others, please consider the Scriptures on the matter. The Bible disagrees with you.
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Doin' What Comes Natur'lly
It was a song from the 1946 Broadway musical, Annie Get Your Gun. It assumed things no longer in evidence. Like "My little baby brother, who's never read a book, Knows one sex from the other, All he had to do was look." Yeah, back then. No longer.
Seems to me the title has become the theme of modern life. We have welcomed a new standard into our world: "what comes naturally." That, it seems, is what is real, what is good, what is right. So Bruce Jenner "naturally" feels like he's a girl and is counted as "brave" and "heroic" for acting out on what any other society prior to this one would have classified as insane. You know, "All he had to do was look." For our times, "born that way" means "good" and "good" in this sense means "unassailable" and everyone who acts on this "good" is a wonderful person for it and anyone who questions it is evil.
This, of course, is not sustainable. I mean, if a person claims to be "born that way" and that makes it "natural" and, therefore, good, what do we do with the people who are "born to kill"? The kleptomaniac says, "I just can't help it." We don't consider that good, even if it is "natural". If we were to operate on a "doing what comes naturally" basis for our societal morality, we would in no time be in anarchy. So how does that work? Well, they tell me, it's not merely a matter of "what comes naturally". You also have to factor in "harm". If you do what comes naturally and it does no harm, it is indeed good.
This sounds good, and a lot of people would nod and agree ... except, perhaps, God. You see, much of what passes as "doing what comes naturally" without doing "harm" is sin. And the Bible assures us that your fleshly passions "wage war against the soul." (1 Peter 2:11) Now, you might argue that it does no "harm" and you might point to whatever measurable values you might choose, but measuring the results of war with the soul isn't really possible today. And if God believes that they are at war against your soul, I think we would have to qualify that as "harm" even if we can't measure it. You know, take God's Word for it.
I'm just concerned that our modern version of "doin' what comes natur'lly" might just kill the soul. Indeed, I suspect it already has in many cases. At least, that's what Paul suggests (1 Cor 6:9-10). Could it be possible that self-control -- that choosing not to always do what comes naturally -- could be a viable, beneficial option? The Bible thinks so (Gal 5:22-23) Of course, I'm sure that won't carry much weight in a world hostile to God. I'm not surprised. But it is sad that many who call themselves Christians disagree as well.
Seems to me the title has become the theme of modern life. We have welcomed a new standard into our world: "what comes naturally." That, it seems, is what is real, what is good, what is right. So Bruce Jenner "naturally" feels like he's a girl and is counted as "brave" and "heroic" for acting out on what any other society prior to this one would have classified as insane. You know, "All he had to do was look." For our times, "born that way" means "good" and "good" in this sense means "unassailable" and everyone who acts on this "good" is a wonderful person for it and anyone who questions it is evil.
This, of course, is not sustainable. I mean, if a person claims to be "born that way" and that makes it "natural" and, therefore, good, what do we do with the people who are "born to kill"? The kleptomaniac says, "I just can't help it." We don't consider that good, even if it is "natural". If we were to operate on a "doing what comes naturally" basis for our societal morality, we would in no time be in anarchy. So how does that work? Well, they tell me, it's not merely a matter of "what comes naturally". You also have to factor in "harm". If you do what comes naturally and it does no harm, it is indeed good.
This sounds good, and a lot of people would nod and agree ... except, perhaps, God. You see, much of what passes as "doing what comes naturally" without doing "harm" is sin. And the Bible assures us that your fleshly passions "wage war against the soul." (1 Peter 2:11) Now, you might argue that it does no "harm" and you might point to whatever measurable values you might choose, but measuring the results of war with the soul isn't really possible today. And if God believes that they are at war against your soul, I think we would have to qualify that as "harm" even if we can't measure it. You know, take God's Word for it.
I'm just concerned that our modern version of "doin' what comes natur'lly" might just kill the soul. Indeed, I suspect it already has in many cases. At least, that's what Paul suggests (1 Cor 6:9-10). Could it be possible that self-control -- that choosing not to always do what comes naturally -- could be a viable, beneficial option? The Bible thinks so (Gal 5:22-23) Of course, I'm sure that won't carry much weight in a world hostile to God. I'm not surprised. But it is sad that many who call themselves Christians disagree as well.
Monday, September 28, 2015
Big Concept in a Little Verse
Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit. (1 Peter 3:18)Just 35 words. Not much. And still, encapsulated in that single sentence, is the entire concept of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.
What's that? In its words, it refers to the penalty of sin ("penal") and a substitution ("substitutionary") that paid that penalty in order to reconnect us ("atonement") with God. I know, I know, it's not always the most popular idea. But I'm not looking for the most popular. I'm not even looking for the uncontested. (Good luck with that.) I'm looking for what the text says. So ...
"Christ also died for sins ..." That, dear readers, is paying the penalty of sin ("penal").
"... the just for the unjust ..." That is substitution ("substitutionary").
"... so that He might bring us to God ..." And that is atonement.
Sure, there have been other theories of the Atonement. Some agree and some disagree. The Ransom Theory, for instance, is not in conflict with this position. Nor is the Christus Victor notion. Other theories specifically and explicitly deny any such thing. So be it. I haven't argued that it is correct. I've simply pointed out an explicit concept in a single verse for all to see.
Sunday, September 27, 2015
Justice or Mercy?
I've already staked out my position on the Atonement Christ accomplished on the cross. I'm going with the version known as "Penal Substitutionary Atonement". That is, sin has a penalty that justice requires. Christ paid that penalty. He did not pay it on His own behalf, but as a substitute for me. This payment of the penalty for sin on my behalf is the means by which I can now be reconciled to God. That's the idea.
There are objections, of course, to this view. I'll dismiss out of hand, "You know, modern scholars say ..." or the like because they're irrelevant. What does Scripture say? And I'll also throw out, "I don't like the way that feels" and its siblings. You know, "It's barbaric for a God to require blood to satisfy His wrath." Or, "My God is just forgiving and merciful, unlike you're mean version." Because how you feel about it is also irrelevant. What does Scripture say? There is an objection worth noting, however.
"If Christ satisfied God's justice by dying in our place, in what sense is it forgiveness? How can it be both justice and mercy?" Reasonable question.
I heard an illustration once that made sense to me. Imagine you're at your favorite bakery. (If you don't have one, imagine you do ... and you're there.) You're picking out your favorite goody when a boy comes in, asks for a cupcake, and when he receives it says, "I don't have the money." You kindly offer to pay for his cupcake. Question: Is the proprietor required to accept your payment? The answer is yes. No crime has been committed. No harm is done. There is no reason not to accept your money on the boy's behalf. Okay so far. Now, imagine instead that the boy comes in, sneaks behind the counter, snatches a cupcake, and heads for the door. The owner nabs him before he gets out. You, again, kindly offer to pay for the cupcake. Again, is the proprietor required to accept your payment? In this case, no, he is not. You see, in this case a crime has been committed. Justice must be served. Now, in the case of a boy stealing a cupcake, the proprietor may feel that justice is served if he gets paid, or he may opt for some punishment for the boy to teach him not to steal, but it isn't your call. It's his. Because a crime was committed.
In the same way, a crime has been committed by each of us. It is a crime against our Maker. We have stolen His glory. And there is justice to pay. Christ comes along and offers to pay for your crime. Is the Maker obligated to accept the payment on your behalf? No. He is not. Justice makes no such demand. Thus, if God chooses to accept as payment the sacrifice of Christ on my behalf, He does so 1) as a satisfaction of His justice and as an act of mercy (and grace).
Is the forgiveness we receive because of Christ's payment for sin on our behalf a matter of justice or a matter of mercy? The answer is "Yes". Both. And that is an wonderful, amazing thing.
There are objections, of course, to this view. I'll dismiss out of hand, "You know, modern scholars say ..." or the like because they're irrelevant. What does Scripture say? And I'll also throw out, "I don't like the way that feels" and its siblings. You know, "It's barbaric for a God to require blood to satisfy His wrath." Or, "My God is just forgiving and merciful, unlike you're mean version." Because how you feel about it is also irrelevant. What does Scripture say? There is an objection worth noting, however.
"If Christ satisfied God's justice by dying in our place, in what sense is it forgiveness? How can it be both justice and mercy?" Reasonable question.
I heard an illustration once that made sense to me. Imagine you're at your favorite bakery. (If you don't have one, imagine you do ... and you're there.) You're picking out your favorite goody when a boy comes in, asks for a cupcake, and when he receives it says, "I don't have the money." You kindly offer to pay for his cupcake. Question: Is the proprietor required to accept your payment? The answer is yes. No crime has been committed. No harm is done. There is no reason not to accept your money on the boy's behalf. Okay so far. Now, imagine instead that the boy comes in, sneaks behind the counter, snatches a cupcake, and heads for the door. The owner nabs him before he gets out. You, again, kindly offer to pay for the cupcake. Again, is the proprietor required to accept your payment? In this case, no, he is not. You see, in this case a crime has been committed. Justice must be served. Now, in the case of a boy stealing a cupcake, the proprietor may feel that justice is served if he gets paid, or he may opt for some punishment for the boy to teach him not to steal, but it isn't your call. It's his. Because a crime was committed.
In the same way, a crime has been committed by each of us. It is a crime against our Maker. We have stolen His glory. And there is justice to pay. Christ comes along and offers to pay for your crime. Is the Maker obligated to accept the payment on your behalf? No. He is not. Justice makes no such demand. Thus, if God chooses to accept as payment the sacrifice of Christ on my behalf, He does so 1) as a satisfaction of His justice and as an act of mercy (and grace).
Is the forgiveness we receive because of Christ's payment for sin on our behalf a matter of justice or a matter of mercy? The answer is "Yes". Both. And that is an wonderful, amazing thing.
Saturday, September 26, 2015
The New Sins
President Obama defined sin as "Being out of alignment with my values." "To thine own self be true" may be good Shakespeare, but not good theology. Still, to many this is now classed as a sin over against, you know, all those things the Bible seems to list. Instead of the standard ones supplied by God, we have a new list of no-no's to avoid.
"Thou shalt not be boring" is high on the list. Boredom isn't unfortunate. It's evil. I know someone whose spouse left them because they were boring. Dirty, rotten scoundrel.
"Thou shalt not be sure." Certainty is always considered wrong, at least in others. I mean, you can be sure they're wrong, but their certitude that you are wrong isn't a mistake; it's evil. It is, of course, much worse if they're sure about, say, what the Bible says or what is orthodox Christian doctrine or that kind of thing. Because the ultimate good in those matters is "I'm not sure" ... and, "above all else, I'm sure of that."
Sister to the sin of certainty is the sin of faith. Confidence in God (and especially His Word) is not only unwise; it will likely brand you as a whacko. And I'm pretty sure that if "whacko" isn't a sin, it ought to be.
In today's world there are very few evils foisted upon anyone worse than the sin of discrimination. Now, be careful here. When you look for this sin, do not consider the actual definition of the word. That could just get confusing. Because "discrimination" is defined as "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another." In fact, recognizing right and wrong (whether you are right or wrong in doing so) is discrimination. The other definition of "discrimination" is "prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things", which you would be doing by pointing out that you think it is evil for someone to discriminate. Not to say that it's right to treat people unjustly on the basis of certain factors, but we seem to forget that castigating people for doing so is ... discrimination. A circular sin, then? No, it's simply one of those sins that "you can commit but I don't when I do it myself."
Perhaps at the top of the list is "telling me what I like to do is wrong". To be truthful, no one has ever liked being told that what they like to do is wrong. It's just that in our day and age it has been reclassified as evil. Of course, the only way that could be so is if "what I want to do" is classified as "good", regardless of what it is. And while no one is actually verbally doing this (because it would clearly end up in insanity), society still treats it as darn close to "good". No one ever seems to ask, "Is it good?" or the corollary, "If I affirm what is not good, is that good?" They simply know that if you say it's not, you're a bad person.
Bottom line, of course, this whole article would be "sin" in today's version. Which simply illustrates that while Christianity offers a biblical version of "sin" based on God's Word, our world is not opposed to sin. It's just opposed to God's idea of sin. I wonder what will make the list next? Biblical Christianity? Probably already on some lists.
"Thou shalt not be boring" is high on the list. Boredom isn't unfortunate. It's evil. I know someone whose spouse left them because they were boring. Dirty, rotten scoundrel.
"Thou shalt not be sure." Certainty is always considered wrong, at least in others. I mean, you can be sure they're wrong, but their certitude that you are wrong isn't a mistake; it's evil. It is, of course, much worse if they're sure about, say, what the Bible says or what is orthodox Christian doctrine or that kind of thing. Because the ultimate good in those matters is "I'm not sure" ... and, "above all else, I'm sure of that."
Sister to the sin of certainty is the sin of faith. Confidence in God (and especially His Word) is not only unwise; it will likely brand you as a whacko. And I'm pretty sure that if "whacko" isn't a sin, it ought to be.
In today's world there are very few evils foisted upon anyone worse than the sin of discrimination. Now, be careful here. When you look for this sin, do not consider the actual definition of the word. That could just get confusing. Because "discrimination" is defined as "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another." In fact, recognizing right and wrong (whether you are right or wrong in doing so) is discrimination. The other definition of "discrimination" is "prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things", which you would be doing by pointing out that you think it is evil for someone to discriminate. Not to say that it's right to treat people unjustly on the basis of certain factors, but we seem to forget that castigating people for doing so is ... discrimination. A circular sin, then? No, it's simply one of those sins that "you can commit but I don't when I do it myself."
Perhaps at the top of the list is "telling me what I like to do is wrong". To be truthful, no one has ever liked being told that what they like to do is wrong. It's just that in our day and age it has been reclassified as evil. Of course, the only way that could be so is if "what I want to do" is classified as "good", regardless of what it is. And while no one is actually verbally doing this (because it would clearly end up in insanity), society still treats it as darn close to "good". No one ever seems to ask, "Is it good?" or the corollary, "If I affirm what is not good, is that good?" They simply know that if you say it's not, you're a bad person.
Bottom line, of course, this whole article would be "sin" in today's version. Which simply illustrates that while Christianity offers a biblical version of "sin" based on God's Word, our world is not opposed to sin. It's just opposed to God's idea of sin. I wonder what will make the list next? Biblical Christianity? Probably already on some lists.
Friday, September 25, 2015
Pro-"Life"?
Over at his website Russell Moore asks, "Is Pro-Life Winning?" and urges cautious optimism. Sure, we haven't seen such furor over the topic prior to the release of these 10 (so far) Planned Parenthood videos and, sure, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to block federal funding for Planned Parenthood for a year and ban most abortions after 20 weeks. That all sounds good. But ...
It's not all rosy, you know. The Senate blocked the bill on their end and we can't find 60 senators willing to defend the lives of the most vulnerable. Beyond that, banning killing babies after 20 weeks isn't much different than banning killing adults before the age of 45. I mean, "Hey! What about the rest of us??!!" Yes, what about all those other children without protection?
Worse, the question was "Is pro-life winning?" I'm pretty sure that most people -- even those opposed to abortion -- don't know what "pro-life" means. Consider the outcry with that dentist who killed a lion in Zimbabwe. Loud voices called for his execution. Same with the death of Yongki, the Sumatran elephant, killed by poachers in his pen for his ivory. The public sentiment swings toward, "They need to catch these poachers, treat them the same way." "Death to all poachers!" is the common cry.
You see, pro-life does not mean pro-all-life. That would just be stupid. Consider. Take the avid vegan, the guy who wouldn't hurt a fly and wouldn't consume any animal products because he cannot abide harming animals. Yet he's perfectly willing to (in fact, absolutely must) kill plants for his own sustenance. Plants are "life". It is not all "life" in view. Even the conscientious fellow who isn't willing to mistreat children or pets but enjoys a hamburger now and then is agreeing that it is not all "life" in view. "Pro-life" has a specific life in view -- human life. That is, there is a hierarchy in view here, with those made in the image of God at the top of the list of life we wish to protect.
I don't think a lot of people who are pro-life really get that. They often stumble, for instance, when faced with the counter, "Oh, yeah, then why do you favor the death penalty?" Well, it's because we are made in the image of God and because the lives of others who are made in the image of God require defending from those willing to take the lives of those made in His image that it makes sense. But many don't get it. Many want to defend the unborn, sure, but they also want to defend the baby seals and the rights of monkeys to their selfies. (Seriously, people, how can an outrageously "animal rights"-oriented organization like PETA be so concerned for the welfare of animals -- they once took President Obama to task for killing a fly -- with no concern for the welfare of humans?)
There is a disconnect here. It begins with "In the beginning, God ..." God made people in His image. This endows them -- us -- with special value from God. That special value from God is what makes it evil to kill babies. But as long as we're going to debate whether it's okay to kill babies prior to 20 weeks or in the cases of rape or incest or the like, we are not getting it. And "pro-life" isn't winning. Without God at the beginning, life loses its value. It's arbitrary. And removing value from human life is not a good place to start.
It's not all rosy, you know. The Senate blocked the bill on their end and we can't find 60 senators willing to defend the lives of the most vulnerable. Beyond that, banning killing babies after 20 weeks isn't much different than banning killing adults before the age of 45. I mean, "Hey! What about the rest of us??!!" Yes, what about all those other children without protection?
Worse, the question was "Is pro-life winning?" I'm pretty sure that most people -- even those opposed to abortion -- don't know what "pro-life" means. Consider the outcry with that dentist who killed a lion in Zimbabwe. Loud voices called for his execution. Same with the death of Yongki, the Sumatran elephant, killed by poachers in his pen for his ivory. The public sentiment swings toward, "They need to catch these poachers, treat them the same way." "Death to all poachers!" is the common cry.
You see, pro-life does not mean pro-all-life. That would just be stupid. Consider. Take the avid vegan, the guy who wouldn't hurt a fly and wouldn't consume any animal products because he cannot abide harming animals. Yet he's perfectly willing to (in fact, absolutely must) kill plants for his own sustenance. Plants are "life". It is not all "life" in view. Even the conscientious fellow who isn't willing to mistreat children or pets but enjoys a hamburger now and then is agreeing that it is not all "life" in view. "Pro-life" has a specific life in view -- human life. That is, there is a hierarchy in view here, with those made in the image of God at the top of the list of life we wish to protect.
I don't think a lot of people who are pro-life really get that. They often stumble, for instance, when faced with the counter, "Oh, yeah, then why do you favor the death penalty?" Well, it's because we are made in the image of God and because the lives of others who are made in the image of God require defending from those willing to take the lives of those made in His image that it makes sense. But many don't get it. Many want to defend the unborn, sure, but they also want to defend the baby seals and the rights of monkeys to their selfies. (Seriously, people, how can an outrageously "animal rights"-oriented organization like PETA be so concerned for the welfare of animals -- they once took President Obama to task for killing a fly -- with no concern for the welfare of humans?)
There is a disconnect here. It begins with "In the beginning, God ..." God made people in His image. This endows them -- us -- with special value from God. That special value from God is what makes it evil to kill babies. But as long as we're going to debate whether it's okay to kill babies prior to 20 weeks or in the cases of rape or incest or the like, we are not getting it. And "pro-life" isn't winning. Without God at the beginning, life loses its value. It's arbitrary. And removing value from human life is not a good place to start.
Thursday, September 24, 2015
A Qualified Success
There is a phrase, sometimes referred to as a logical fallacy, that you may have heard. It is "death by a thousand qualifications". Here's the idea. You may say you believe in X, but if you have to qualify X too much, you will render it meaningless and, therefore, nullify it. Seems reasonable on the surface. I mean, just say what you mean and don't bother with all those qualifications. You believe in "the inerrancy of Scripture"? Then you shouldn't have to explain that by this you mean that you're speaking about the original manuscripts and what you mean by "error" and in what context you are speaking and ... well, there shouldn't have to be all this talk. Inerrant or not? Make up your mind.
Given our day and our problem with simple English words like "marriage" and "love" and "the Gospel" and "Omnipotent" and "Sovereign" and ... oh, the list would be too long ... I'm afraid we've made it impossible to be simple. In a day when "love" can be defined as being hateful and "non-judgmental" is demonstrated by being judgmental and so on, "Just say it" doesn't really work anymore. For instance, I might be classified in my theology as a "Calvinist", but immediately there are errors associated with the term. No, I don't follow Calvin's teachings. No, I'm not a hyper-Calvinist. No, I'm not a fatalist. And so on ... almost ad infinitum. Words, they say, mean something, but we're just not so sure anymore what.
Over at The Gospel Coalition, Justin Taylor wrote a piece titled What does "Inerrancy" Mean? That's because it requires explanation. In the piece, Taylor quotes from John Frame's book The Doctrine of the Word of God, which includes an entire chapter on the doctrine of inerrancy. Because it requires explanation. Take, for instance, the problem of precision. Here's prime example. In 1 Kings Solomon built a fountain for his house. The text says "It was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference." (1 Kings 7:23) Well, now, see? That's an error. "Everyone knows that the circumference of a circle 10 cubits in diameter is 31.41592653589793 cubits. Clearly God doesn't know the value of π." So, does that make it erroneous? The term needs qualification. (Oh, and do you think anyone else would be called "erroneous" if they said "30" rather than "31.41592653589793" ... which, by the way, is not fully accurate?) Or take the problem of language itself. In Mark's gospel he claims at one point that "The whole city was gathered together at the door." (Mark 1:33) Now, does that require that every person (and non-person?) was actually standing at the door? Or is this a language tool (we call it "hyperbole") to simply indicate that there was a large crowd? I suspect that the anti-inerrancy folks would require of Mark what they would never require of themselves, and this would clearly be an error because surely not every single man, woman, child, goat, or horse cart was actually gathered at that door. Error? The term requires qualification.
The general definition is of biblical inerrancy is "The Bible can be trusted in what it teaches and affirms." But just how far do we take that definition? If it is reliable in what it affirms, does that mean there can be no errors of any kind? Or does it mean that it is trustworthy in all matters of faith and practice, but not necessarily in science, geography, that kind of stuff? (Called "limited inerrancy".) For instance, if the Bible accurately records something that someone says, but what they said was not accurate, is that an error? Some affirm that the Bible contains the Word of God without error, but is not itself in its entirety inerrant. You see, it gets ... sticky. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says, on infallibility, "that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses." On inerrancy it says "that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit." They qualify that in the negative.
The premise of the position is the inspiration of the Scriptures -- God breathed it (1 Tim 3:16). If God breathed it, it cannot be wrong. Conversely, if God breathed it and it is wrong, what God exhaled was in error. Unacceptable. Does that mean that the texts we have today cannot contain any errors of any sort at all? No. First is the qualification of "original manuscripts". Subsequent copies could make transcription errors. Subsequent translations could make translations errors. Now, we can have a pretty high level of confidence that 1) the texts we do possess are nearly exactly the same as the original manuscripts, and 2) none of the very few remaining questions ultimately change anything of doctrinal consequence. After the "original manuscripts" concept, there are all those other qualifying concepts.
Does "inerrant" suffer the "death by a thousand qualifications"? Perhaps the word does. But I actually know of very few words today that don't require qualifications. But this doesn't mean that the doctrine is dead. First, "qualifications" are necessary for any complex concept. If "qualifications" kill concepts, we don't have many today. Second, premised on the "God-breathed" nature of Scripture, if you affirm error in any certain sense, you affirm that God was mistaken. Or you deny that God breathed it and it is nothing more than a nice book. Your choice. Third, the question isn't "error-free". The question is its trustworthiness in what it teaches and affirms. Without that, you have no basis for Christian doctrine. The whole trick at this point is to determine what it teaches and affirms. But, then, that has always been the case, hasn't it? Do I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture? Depends on what you mean. And, in fact, I suspect that you can't tell me what you mean ... without qualification.
Given our day and our problem with simple English words like "marriage" and "love" and "the Gospel" and "Omnipotent" and "Sovereign" and ... oh, the list would be too long ... I'm afraid we've made it impossible to be simple. In a day when "love" can be defined as being hateful and "non-judgmental" is demonstrated by being judgmental and so on, "Just say it" doesn't really work anymore. For instance, I might be classified in my theology as a "Calvinist", but immediately there are errors associated with the term. No, I don't follow Calvin's teachings. No, I'm not a hyper-Calvinist. No, I'm not a fatalist. And so on ... almost ad infinitum. Words, they say, mean something, but we're just not so sure anymore what.
Over at The Gospel Coalition, Justin Taylor wrote a piece titled What does "Inerrancy" Mean? That's because it requires explanation. In the piece, Taylor quotes from John Frame's book The Doctrine of the Word of God, which includes an entire chapter on the doctrine of inerrancy. Because it requires explanation. Take, for instance, the problem of precision. Here's prime example. In 1 Kings Solomon built a fountain for his house. The text says "It was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference." (1 Kings 7:23) Well, now, see? That's an error. "Everyone knows that the circumference of a circle 10 cubits in diameter is 31.41592653589793 cubits. Clearly God doesn't know the value of π." So, does that make it erroneous? The term needs qualification. (Oh, and do you think anyone else would be called "erroneous" if they said "30" rather than "31.41592653589793" ... which, by the way, is not fully accurate?) Or take the problem of language itself. In Mark's gospel he claims at one point that "The whole city was gathered together at the door." (Mark 1:33) Now, does that require that every person (and non-person?) was actually standing at the door? Or is this a language tool (we call it "hyperbole") to simply indicate that there was a large crowd? I suspect that the anti-inerrancy folks would require of Mark what they would never require of themselves, and this would clearly be an error because surely not every single man, woman, child, goat, or horse cart was actually gathered at that door. Error? The term requires qualification.
The general definition is of biblical inerrancy is "The Bible can be trusted in what it teaches and affirms." But just how far do we take that definition? If it is reliable in what it affirms, does that mean there can be no errors of any kind? Or does it mean that it is trustworthy in all matters of faith and practice, but not necessarily in science, geography, that kind of stuff? (Called "limited inerrancy".) For instance, if the Bible accurately records something that someone says, but what they said was not accurate, is that an error? Some affirm that the Bible contains the Word of God without error, but is not itself in its entirety inerrant. You see, it gets ... sticky. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says, on infallibility, "that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses." On inerrancy it says "that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit." They qualify that in the negative.
We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.That's "qualification". We're not talking about technical precision. We're not talking about grammar. We're not talking about hyperbole. We're not talking about what they term "free citations". (For instance, quotes in the New Testament from Old Testament are not always perfect quotes.)
The premise of the position is the inspiration of the Scriptures -- God breathed it (1 Tim 3:16). If God breathed it, it cannot be wrong. Conversely, if God breathed it and it is wrong, what God exhaled was in error. Unacceptable. Does that mean that the texts we have today cannot contain any errors of any sort at all? No. First is the qualification of "original manuscripts". Subsequent copies could make transcription errors. Subsequent translations could make translations errors. Now, we can have a pretty high level of confidence that 1) the texts we do possess are nearly exactly the same as the original manuscripts, and 2) none of the very few remaining questions ultimately change anything of doctrinal consequence. After the "original manuscripts" concept, there are all those other qualifying concepts.
Does "inerrant" suffer the "death by a thousand qualifications"? Perhaps the word does. But I actually know of very few words today that don't require qualifications. But this doesn't mean that the doctrine is dead. First, "qualifications" are necessary for any complex concept. If "qualifications" kill concepts, we don't have many today. Second, premised on the "God-breathed" nature of Scripture, if you affirm error in any certain sense, you affirm that God was mistaken. Or you deny that God breathed it and it is nothing more than a nice book. Your choice. Third, the question isn't "error-free". The question is its trustworthiness in what it teaches and affirms. Without that, you have no basis for Christian doctrine. The whole trick at this point is to determine what it teaches and affirms. But, then, that has always been the case, hasn't it? Do I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture? Depends on what you mean. And, in fact, I suspect that you can't tell me what you mean ... without qualification.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Love Your Neighbor
In Luke 10 a lawyer asks Jesus how to get eternal life. Jesus answers with a question, the answer to which is "Love God and love your neighbor." Jesus agrees. And the lawyer asks a lawyer question. "Ummm, well, see, here's the thing. Who is my neighbor?" Typical. Mincing words. It's here that we get Jesus's famous "Parable of the Good Samaritan". You remember that one. A guy is beat up by robbers. His "good friends" a priest and a Levite pass by, but a "hated" Samaritan helps him out. "Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?" The lawyer got it. "Love your neighbor" does not refer to "the folks that live on either side of me." So, we have a much better defined explanation of "neighbor". It would appear to mean "anyone with whom you come in contact." Got it.
It strikes me that we are often "lawyers" when it comes to questions of obedience. We read, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor 6:9-10) and end up asking, "Yes, but what do you mean by arsenokoitēs? Maybe it's not men who lie with a male as with a female. Maybe it's ... oh, I don't know ... an obscure reference to pedophiles. Or temple prostitutes. Or something else rather than what it says." Lawyer talk. We read, "Sell your possessions, and give to the needy." (Luke 12:33) "Oh," the lawyer in us says, "that doesn't mean we shouldn't own stuff. It means we should be generous ... while we accumulate as much wealth and possessions we can for ourselves ... oh, and our families, of course, to be sure. But not actually give anything up because, after all, that wouldn't make sense." Even while Jesus is saying, "Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions." (Luke 12:15) So we debate about whether 10% is too much to ask and whether or not it's okay to be rich as long as we give something away and "just how rich is rich?". Lawyer talk.
On the question of "Love your neighbor", though, it seems to me that these days there is one question that is rarely asked. Do you know your neighbor? Let's just start with the "folks that live next to you" neighbors. I'm amazed how distant we've become in our communities from our very next door neighbors, let alone the whole "whoever you come in contact with" types. We might debate, as the lawyer did, what constitutes "neighbor", but I think it's pretty clear that "I don't even know them" doesn't qualify as "love your neighbor". On this question many of us have never arrived at the "lawyer talk" phase. We've just ignored the question. That doesn't bode well for us.
Postscript
It should be noted that among those who are your neighbors you must always include your spouse, your children, your family ... you know, that group of people. The ones you are supposed to love.
It strikes me that we are often "lawyers" when it comes to questions of obedience. We read, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor 6:9-10) and end up asking, "Yes, but what do you mean by arsenokoitēs? Maybe it's not men who lie with a male as with a female. Maybe it's ... oh, I don't know ... an obscure reference to pedophiles. Or temple prostitutes. Or something else rather than what it says." Lawyer talk. We read, "Sell your possessions, and give to the needy." (Luke 12:33) "Oh," the lawyer in us says, "that doesn't mean we shouldn't own stuff. It means we should be generous ... while we accumulate as much wealth and possessions we can for ourselves ... oh, and our families, of course, to be sure. But not actually give anything up because, after all, that wouldn't make sense." Even while Jesus is saying, "Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions." (Luke 12:15) So we debate about whether 10% is too much to ask and whether or not it's okay to be rich as long as we give something away and "just how rich is rich?". Lawyer talk.
On the question of "Love your neighbor", though, it seems to me that these days there is one question that is rarely asked. Do you know your neighbor? Let's just start with the "folks that live next to you" neighbors. I'm amazed how distant we've become in our communities from our very next door neighbors, let alone the whole "whoever you come in contact with" types. We might debate, as the lawyer did, what constitutes "neighbor", but I think it's pretty clear that "I don't even know them" doesn't qualify as "love your neighbor". On this question many of us have never arrived at the "lawyer talk" phase. We've just ignored the question. That doesn't bode well for us.
Postscript
It should be noted that among those who are your neighbors you must always include your spouse, your children, your family ... you know, that group of people. The ones you are supposed to love.
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
The War Against the Soul
Peter writes, "Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul." (1 Peter 2:11) A nice, solid, straightforward beginning to a rather large set of instructions (1 Peter 2:12-3:22).
Who is Peter talking to? Well, clearly it is Christians, but he describes them (us) as "aliens and strangers". Interesting description. We are not part of this world anymore (Gal 6:14). As aliens and strangers to this world, he has a simple instruction: "Abstain from fleshly lusts."
It's funny. I know lots of Christians that try to tell me or, at least, try to live as if "fleshly lusts" aren't all that bad. They're bad if you do the "wrong thing" with them, but not if it's not so bad. Lusting after your own wife, for instance, is perfectly okay. But Peter appears to disagree. Strongly. Indeed, so dangerous are these fleshly lusts that Peter warns that they "war against the soul." I would hope at this point that he would have your attention. This isn't minor. It's serious.
What kinds of "fleshly lusts" is he talking about? That's what the rest of the book is about.There is the temptation not to be a shining example of a Christian (1 Peter 2:12). There is the misconception that we don't have to submit to human authority (1 Peter 2:13-14). There is the false notion that our freedom makes us free to do whatever we want instead of bless people as servants of God (1 Peter 2:16). Servants think they don't have to submit to masters. Servants, abstaining from fleshly lusts will cause you to serve even bad ones (1 Peter 2:18). Our "fleshly lusts" might make us think we deserve to be well treated. Abstain from that lust; it will enable you to endure being treated unfairly with patience (1 Peter 2:19-21). The "fleshly lusts" of wives would make them wish to control their husbands, at least if they're bad ones. Wives, abstain from that fleshly lust; it will make you more concerned about their own submissive character (1 Peter 3:1-5). Husbands' "fleshly lusts" cause them to believe they can lord it over their wives. Husbands, abstain from that fleshly lust; it will push you to be understanding, to honor her (1 Peter 3:7). When operating in our lusts, we think we should treat others badly when they treat us badly; we shouldn't (1 Peter 3:8-9). Our lusts cause us to rule our own lives, but when we abstain we set Christ apart as Lord (1 Peter 3:15). The lusts of the flesh would even lead us to believe that bad things shouldn't happen to us, but the truth is that we may indeed "suffer for doing what is right" and it would be God's will (1 Peter 3:17).
One little command. We are not of this world. We are aliens and strangers. Therefore, "Abstain from fleshly lusts." Doesn't seem that bad. We must because we are commanded to. We must because these things "wage war against the soul." And when you start to delve into what they are, I'm pretty sure we all have a lot to work on.
Who is Peter talking to? Well, clearly it is Christians, but he describes them (us) as "aliens and strangers". Interesting description. We are not part of this world anymore (Gal 6:14). As aliens and strangers to this world, he has a simple instruction: "Abstain from fleshly lusts."
It's funny. I know lots of Christians that try to tell me or, at least, try to live as if "fleshly lusts" aren't all that bad. They're bad if you do the "wrong thing" with them, but not if it's not so bad. Lusting after your own wife, for instance, is perfectly okay. But Peter appears to disagree. Strongly. Indeed, so dangerous are these fleshly lusts that Peter warns that they "war against the soul." I would hope at this point that he would have your attention. This isn't minor. It's serious.
What kinds of "fleshly lusts" is he talking about? That's what the rest of the book is about.There is the temptation not to be a shining example of a Christian (1 Peter 2:12). There is the misconception that we don't have to submit to human authority (1 Peter 2:13-14). There is the false notion that our freedom makes us free to do whatever we want instead of bless people as servants of God (1 Peter 2:16). Servants think they don't have to submit to masters. Servants, abstaining from fleshly lusts will cause you to serve even bad ones (1 Peter 2:18). Our "fleshly lusts" might make us think we deserve to be well treated. Abstain from that lust; it will enable you to endure being treated unfairly with patience (1 Peter 2:19-21). The "fleshly lusts" of wives would make them wish to control their husbands, at least if they're bad ones. Wives, abstain from that fleshly lust; it will make you more concerned about their own submissive character (1 Peter 3:1-5). Husbands' "fleshly lusts" cause them to believe they can lord it over their wives. Husbands, abstain from that fleshly lust; it will push you to be understanding, to honor her (1 Peter 3:7). When operating in our lusts, we think we should treat others badly when they treat us badly; we shouldn't (1 Peter 3:8-9). Our lusts cause us to rule our own lives, but when we abstain we set Christ apart as Lord (1 Peter 3:15). The lusts of the flesh would even lead us to believe that bad things shouldn't happen to us, but the truth is that we may indeed "suffer for doing what is right" and it would be God's will (1 Peter 3:17).
One little command. We are not of this world. We are aliens and strangers. Therefore, "Abstain from fleshly lusts." Doesn't seem that bad. We must because we are commanded to. We must because these things "wage war against the soul." And when you start to delve into what they are, I'm pretty sure we all have a lot to work on.
Monday, September 21, 2015
Gender Equality
The Marine Corp did a study where they determined that all-male combat squads were faster, stronger, and more lethal than mixed gender squads. Further, women suffered higher injury rates in training. Now, I suppose to some that's a surprise. That's because they believe in "gender equality".
My wife and I had this discussion some time ago. Oh, no, not "gender equality", but the meaning of equality. The conversation was about giving gifts to the kids at Christmas. Her idea was "We should spend the same amount on each of them. That's equality." And it cannot be argued that this isn't equality. It can be argued, however, that it isn't the only equality. I argued that we needed to supply them with the same amount of enjoyment. That is, if the teenage daughter and the 8-year-old son were going to get the same amount of enjoyment out of their gifts, it would not require the same amount of money. Equality again.
But here we are working hard toward "gender equality" by which we mean "same jobs" and "same pay" and, essentially, "no differences between genders." This is ludicrous on the face of it, but, then, I'm thinking about it, not feeling. I would suggest, again, that "same" doesn't have to be in terms of pay or job, but in other ways. What about fulfillment? What about satisfaction? What about equal utilization of skills? Given a man and a woman, each facing a closed door that they have to enter, does it them the same satisfaction to power through that door? Probably not. So why do it? "Gender equality." And what about skills? The Marine study said that untrained men hit targets with M4's 44% of the time, but trained women only hit 28%. Is that really the best utilization of skills? In the name of "gender equality"? Does equality mean "abuse them all the same even if women are injured at twice the rate as men"?
I'm not opposed to "gender equality". But, of course, as is apparently so often the case, I don't appear to be using the words in the same way that so many others are ... without any apparent thought.
My wife and I had this discussion some time ago. Oh, no, not "gender equality", but the meaning of equality. The conversation was about giving gifts to the kids at Christmas. Her idea was "We should spend the same amount on each of them. That's equality." And it cannot be argued that this isn't equality. It can be argued, however, that it isn't the only equality. I argued that we needed to supply them with the same amount of enjoyment. That is, if the teenage daughter and the 8-year-old son were going to get the same amount of enjoyment out of their gifts, it would not require the same amount of money. Equality again.
But here we are working hard toward "gender equality" by which we mean "same jobs" and "same pay" and, essentially, "no differences between genders." This is ludicrous on the face of it, but, then, I'm thinking about it, not feeling. I would suggest, again, that "same" doesn't have to be in terms of pay or job, but in other ways. What about fulfillment? What about satisfaction? What about equal utilization of skills? Given a man and a woman, each facing a closed door that they have to enter, does it them the same satisfaction to power through that door? Probably not. So why do it? "Gender equality." And what about skills? The Marine study said that untrained men hit targets with M4's 44% of the time, but trained women only hit 28%. Is that really the best utilization of skills? In the name of "gender equality"? Does equality mean "abuse them all the same even if women are injured at twice the rate as men"?
I'm not opposed to "gender equality". But, of course, as is apparently so often the case, I don't appear to be using the words in the same way that so many others are ... without any apparent thought.
Sunday, September 20, 2015
Be Filled
Almost every Christian knows that we are supposed to be filled with the Spirit. Somehow that phrase seems to get lost. Some think "That happens at conversion, so I'm done." Others think, "Oh, no, you need a special work of filling for that to occur." In Ephesians we read, "And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit." (Eph 5:18) Yes, we get it. We're supposed to be filled with the Spirit. Note, however, what it says. We think we can be full of the Spirit. You know, "Been there, done that." Either we did it at our rebirth or we did it at our "baptism of the Holy Spirit." But the verb tense in that verse is present imperative -- an ongoing, present tense command. That is, "Don't stop now." You see, we're leaky containers and this is going to be a task in which you must engage for the rest of your life.
Being filled with the Spirit is important. "Walk by the Spirit," Paul says, "and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh." (Gal 5:16) Further, "If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law." (Gal 5:18) Good stuff. We know that "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law." (Gal 5:22-23) Being filled with the Spirit is essential to Christian living. And it is not a one-time or even two-time deal. It is ongoing and imperative.
The question remains. How? How do you get filled with the Spirit ... on an ongoing basis?
Here's what we can see in the Word.
The Holy Spirit is a gift. Jesus said, "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you." (John 14:16-17) That is first and foremost. You can't earn Him or grasp for Him and obtain Him. He is given. But there is more in Scripture. Jesus said, "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?" (Luke 11:13) Seems silly to have to say it, but it's right there. Ask. In one of Peter's sermons he says, "We are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him." (Acts 5:32) It doesn't happen to people unwilling to submit, unwilling to obey. Obey. In his epistle to the church at Galatia, Paul asks, "This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?" (Gal 3:2) Seems simple, but it does require active faith. Believe.
I noted one other interesting reference on the subject. It is the rest of the sentence I started with from Ephesians 5. Look at the whole sentence.
It is a command. It is important. And it is continuous. Leaky vessels can't afford to quit being filled, and we leak like sieves. If you are going to experience victory over "fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul" (1 Peter 2:11), it will be key. If you're going to please God, it will be essential (Rom 8:6-9). And it will be ongoing. Here, think of it this way. If you're busy spending your time doing all that we've seen here from Scripture in order to continuously be filled with the Spirit, you won't have time to be sinning.
Being filled with the Spirit is important. "Walk by the Spirit," Paul says, "and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh." (Gal 5:16) Further, "If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law." (Gal 5:18) Good stuff. We know that "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law." (Gal 5:22-23) Being filled with the Spirit is essential to Christian living. And it is not a one-time or even two-time deal. It is ongoing and imperative.
The question remains. How? How do you get filled with the Spirit ... on an ongoing basis?
Here's what we can see in the Word.
The Holy Spirit is a gift. Jesus said, "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you." (John 14:16-17) That is first and foremost. You can't earn Him or grasp for Him and obtain Him. He is given. But there is more in Scripture. Jesus said, "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?" (Luke 11:13) Seems silly to have to say it, but it's right there. Ask. In one of Peter's sermons he says, "We are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him." (Acts 5:32) It doesn't happen to people unwilling to submit, unwilling to obey. Obey. In his epistle to the church at Galatia, Paul asks, "This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?" (Gal 3:2) Seems simple, but it does require active faith. Believe.
I noted one other interesting reference on the subject. It is the rest of the sentence I started with from Ephesians 5. Look at the whole sentence.
Do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father; and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ. (Eph 5:18-21)Well, now, that's more content than before, isn't it? "Be filled with the Spirit," he says. How? One aspect is in our interaction with each other -- "Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs." Another is our constant self-talk -- "making melody with your heart to the Lord." How do you talk to yourself when you're alone? That way? A critical aspect is an attitude of gratitude. Don't let the rhyme throw you. The point isn't to be catchy. The point is to say that it isn't being grateful, but to be grateful "for all things" ... in the name of the Lord. Then there is that final one, one many of us find distasteful. "Be subject to one another." It is predicated on "the fear of Christ" (which seems to be another thing many of us find distasteful). That is, "I fear Christ, so I am willing to submit to my brothers and sisters in Christ." All of these are elements for exercising the process of being filled with the Spirit.
It is a command. It is important. And it is continuous. Leaky vessels can't afford to quit being filled, and we leak like sieves. If you are going to experience victory over "fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul" (1 Peter 2:11), it will be key. If you're going to please God, it will be essential (Rom 8:6-9). And it will be ongoing. Here, think of it this way. If you're busy spending your time doing all that we've seen here from Scripture in order to continuously be filled with the Spirit, you won't have time to be sinning.
Saturday, September 19, 2015
What is this thing called "Christian"?
CNN recently released a story about Obama's faith. The title was Misperceptions persist about Obama's faith. Then came bruhaha over Donald Trump (who, for the record, I in no way support) for is in trouble ... get this ... for not saying something. At a rally in New Hampshire a questioner asked him about what he would do as president about terrorist training camps. He answered (with a typical politician's non-answer -- "We're going to do plenty of things."). He's not in trouble for that. He's in trouble because before the question the questioner included, in his preface, the claims that Obama was a Muslim and was not born in this country. Trump didn't take him to task over these. Trump was wrong. The two-faced Hillary Clinton (whose campaign in 2008 released photos of Obama in a burka and questioned his birthplace) said that his failure to denounce the false statements is "disturbing & just plain wrong." Bernie Sanders said, "I think that's a disgrace, to again question whether or not the president of the United States was born in this country and whether he's a Christian." Chris Christie said he was certain that Obama was not a Muslim because he was certain that he was a Christian. What would Christie have done? "I would correct them and say, 'No, the president is a Christian and he was born in this country. I mean, those two things are self-evident."
I'm not defending Trump. (I can't believe anyone like him remains in the race, let alone leads any polls at all. Says a lot about the state of the nation, and it's not good.) I'm not suggesting either that the president wasn't born in this country or that he's a Muslim. I'm fairly certain, however, that politicians and most of the rest of America hasn't a clue what "Christian" means anymore.
Consider:
When asked his definition of sin, Obama defined sin as "Being out of alignment with my values." When asked if he was "born again", he answered, "Yeah ... [but] I retain ... a suspicion of dogma ... I think that religion at its best comes with a big dose of doubt ... I don't presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die."
Perhaps this kind of thing doesn't disturb you. But if "Christian" has any connection to Christ, this ought to.
I don't think the president is a Muslim. I think he's a universalist. All religions are equally valid. And that may not disturb anyone else, but when Christ disagreed with it, I'd think it would have to suggest that there is a good reason to question whether he is a Christian. Unfortunately, that word, like so many others, has so little meaning anymore that it's not an easy argument to make.
I'm not defending Trump. (I can't believe anyone like him remains in the race, let alone leads any polls at all. Says a lot about the state of the nation, and it's not good.) I'm not suggesting either that the president wasn't born in this country or that he's a Muslim. I'm fairly certain, however, that politicians and most of the rest of America hasn't a clue what "Christian" means anymore.
Consider:
When asked his definition of sin, Obama defined sin as "Being out of alignment with my values." When asked if he was "born again", he answered, "Yeah ... [but] I retain ... a suspicion of dogma ... I think that religion at its best comes with a big dose of doubt ... I don't presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die."
Perhaps this kind of thing doesn't disturb you. But if "Christian" has any connection to Christ, this ought to.
| Obama | Jesus Christ |
|---|---|
| "I believe that there are many paths to the same place. All people of faith -- Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone knows the same God." | "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6) |
| "I think that the difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and proselytize." | "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matt 28:19-20) |
| "I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell. I can't imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity. That's just not part of my religious makeup." | "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matt 7:13-14) |
I don't think the president is a Muslim. I think he's a universalist. All religions are equally valid. And that may not disturb anyone else, but when Christ disagreed with it, I'd think it would have to suggest that there is a good reason to question whether he is a Christian. Unfortunately, that word, like so many others, has so little meaning anymore that it's not an easy argument to make.
Friday, September 18, 2015
Attitude Indicator
I spent a few years in the Air Force (10, actually) in my younger days. My job was Avionic Navigation Systems. I remember one night when they asked me to do a "ride along" to see if one of our systems was working. It was a KC-135 out of Rapid City, SD. We started making runs between Memphis and Albuquerque refueling C-5's, at the time the world's largest aircraft. We had a pilot-in-training at the helm and a pilot-in-training in the C-5 and I was riding in a flying fuel tank with a refueler-in-training trying to stick a jet-fuel-filled stick into a small hole above the windshield of this plane while we flew at 400 mph. I was thinking, "That thing could suck us into one engine and probably not notice." Ah, yes, good times.
Well, that done (the thunderstorms stopped us early) (think about that for a moment ... fuel plane in the air, lightning, that kind of thing), we headed back home and I got to watch the ILS (Instrument Landing Systems) stuff I worked on in action. I sat in the jump seat behind the pilots watching the instruments (because, to be honest, there aren't many lights to see in South Dakota at midnight). It was odd. I could have sworn that I was sitting precisely perpendicular to the earth in my seat. I mean, I wasn't leaning or anything and the plane wasn't leaning as far as I could tell. Everything appeared to be parallel and perpendicular. But then I looked at the attitude indicator.
Yeah, that's right. Airplanes have an indicator that tells you the attitude of the aircraft. No, not how the airplane is feeling. For aircraft the "attitude" is the orientation with respect to the horizon. Seems dumb, doesn't it? As it turns out, it's not. Forces of which you're not aware -- forces like inertia and all -- will tell your brain that you are in one particular horizontal plane when, as it turns out, you're not. So there I am, perfectly perpendicular to the earth, as I said, and the artificial horizon on the attitude indicator is telling me that I'm tilted over almost 20° from perpendicular. Well, that can't be right! And then the runway lights came into view and, sure enough, we were banking. And I couldn't tell.
How does the attitude indicator know what I couldn't tell? It uses a gyro that gives it a fixed orientation to the earth. Turn the plane any direction you want and this thing won't be fooled. It knows what's up and what's down ... better than you do. Your internal sensors will tell you lies about the attitude of the aircraft. You need reliable, external sensors to get this right.
I think of that attitude indicator in a lot of conversations these days. I think it's interesting the parallel between an aircraft's "attitude indicator" and the attitudes of people that have shifted from "perpendicular". I recently saw a website with "hundreds of reasons" that Christianity is wrong. (I'm waiting for the sequel, "hundreds of reasons" why every other religion is wrong. Probably shouldn't hold my breath.) They listed some amazing arguments. Like, "The Bible assumes there are demons and everyone knows there are not." That is, this argument is based on the internal sensors without any external support. "It's true because I know it" without any other reason. In fact, a large number of the arguments on that site were based on this approach. One that amused me and saddened me at the same time was "Christianity is false because the 10 commandments didn't list a law against discriminating against LGBTQ persons." Wow. The Bible does list the behavior as sin (which, in the view of most people and in the normal definition of the term, is discrimination), but it's wrong for not making a rule against discriminating on that issue? And why is the Bible wrong on that point? Because everyone knows that such moral discrimination is wrong. The same issue. An internal attitude sensor without any external verification. It's the same approach you'll get on moral issues. Some people refer to a "moral compass" (had an interesting conversation with a few family members just the other day over that concept). Only it seems as if most people have their own "true north". The same issue. Internal measurements without any valid, reliable source.
I prefer to use a valid, verified source for this kind of stuff. I do this because I've been in an airplane and I know how screwy my internal attitude sensing can be. Now, let's see ... where can I find a good, reliable source for what is best for the human being? Oh, I know! Shouldn't the Manufacturer provide a user's manual for that? Oh, wait! He did! We call it "the Bible." I need that kind of gyro, always oriented to true perpendicular, always reliable, always right. That gives me a good attitude indication.
 |
| KC-135 refueling C-5 |
Well, that done (the thunderstorms stopped us early) (think about that for a moment ... fuel plane in the air, lightning, that kind of thing), we headed back home and I got to watch the ILS (Instrument Landing Systems) stuff I worked on in action. I sat in the jump seat behind the pilots watching the instruments (because, to be honest, there aren't many lights to see in South Dakota at midnight). It was odd. I could have sworn that I was sitting precisely perpendicular to the earth in my seat. I mean, I wasn't leaning or anything and the plane wasn't leaning as far as I could tell. Everything appeared to be parallel and perpendicular. But then I looked at the attitude indicator.
 |
| Aircraft Attitude Indicator |
Yeah, that's right. Airplanes have an indicator that tells you the attitude of the aircraft. No, not how the airplane is feeling. For aircraft the "attitude" is the orientation with respect to the horizon. Seems dumb, doesn't it? As it turns out, it's not. Forces of which you're not aware -- forces like inertia and all -- will tell your brain that you are in one particular horizontal plane when, as it turns out, you're not. So there I am, perfectly perpendicular to the earth, as I said, and the artificial horizon on the attitude indicator is telling me that I'm tilted over almost 20° from perpendicular. Well, that can't be right! And then the runway lights came into view and, sure enough, we were banking. And I couldn't tell.
How does the attitude indicator know what I couldn't tell? It uses a gyro that gives it a fixed orientation to the earth. Turn the plane any direction you want and this thing won't be fooled. It knows what's up and what's down ... better than you do. Your internal sensors will tell you lies about the attitude of the aircraft. You need reliable, external sensors to get this right.
I think of that attitude indicator in a lot of conversations these days. I think it's interesting the parallel between an aircraft's "attitude indicator" and the attitudes of people that have shifted from "perpendicular". I recently saw a website with "hundreds of reasons" that Christianity is wrong. (I'm waiting for the sequel, "hundreds of reasons" why every other religion is wrong. Probably shouldn't hold my breath.) They listed some amazing arguments. Like, "The Bible assumes there are demons and everyone knows there are not." That is, this argument is based on the internal sensors without any external support. "It's true because I know it" without any other reason. In fact, a large number of the arguments on that site were based on this approach. One that amused me and saddened me at the same time was "Christianity is false because the 10 commandments didn't list a law against discriminating against LGBTQ persons." Wow. The Bible does list the behavior as sin (which, in the view of most people and in the normal definition of the term, is discrimination), but it's wrong for not making a rule against discriminating on that issue? And why is the Bible wrong on that point? Because everyone knows that such moral discrimination is wrong. The same issue. An internal attitude sensor without any external verification. It's the same approach you'll get on moral issues. Some people refer to a "moral compass" (had an interesting conversation with a few family members just the other day over that concept). Only it seems as if most people have their own "true north". The same issue. Internal measurements without any valid, reliable source.
I prefer to use a valid, verified source for this kind of stuff. I do this because I've been in an airplane and I know how screwy my internal attitude sensing can be. Now, let's see ... where can I find a good, reliable source for what is best for the human being? Oh, I know! Shouldn't the Manufacturer provide a user's manual for that? Oh, wait! He did! We call it "the Bible." I need that kind of gyro, always oriented to true perpendicular, always reliable, always right. That gives me a good attitude indication.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
The End of the World as We Know It
We are commanded in Scripture, "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." (1 John 2:15) Pretty harsh. Okay. Fine. And then we read, "God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16) Okay, now wait! On one hand we must not love the world, but on the other hand the Father loves the world. Now, how is this making any sense?
As it turns out, the term "world" is not as simple as you might think. The word is κόσμος -- kosmos. It means literally any orderly arrangement. There, now, see? We're in trouble. No, not real trouble, but surely you can see how the term can have a broad set of meanings. Biblically it has several different uses. In John 1:9, for instance, it references the physical world, the universe, creation, our plane of existence. This is not in mind when John says we shouldn't love the world or Jesus says that God loved the world. Another sense is the world of humans. That might include government (as an orderly arrangement, you see) or the inhabited parts of our physical world. That was in mind when Satan showed Jesus "the kingdoms of the world" (Luke 4:5). When Caesar Augustus took a census of "all the world" (Luke 2:1), it was a reference to the Roman world. In this sense, then, it could refer to the world (the system) of men. All humans. Or it could refer to a group of people within the whole of the human realm. We know, for instance, that the world hated Jesus (John 15:18-19), but that doesn't mean every single human being on the planet (since His disciples were not numbered among those who hated Him, but among those who were hated by them). There is the moral world. This is a very common meaning in Scripture. It refers to the world of sinners, the world hostile to God, the corrupt world (2 Peter 1:4). This is the world that is blinded by its god (2 Cor 4:4). This is the world you cannot love and love God at the same time (James 4:4). This is the world that must be overcome (1 John 5:4-5).
Now, of course, you have to learn to differentiate meanings. When you read, for instance, about "the wisdom of the world" (1 Cor 1:20-21), you can be relatively sure this is not talking about the physical realm. That is a reference to the world as a fallen system. Or when Jesus's brothers recommended He should "show yourself to the world" (John 7:4), you can be confident they weren't talking about creation. That is a reference to the realm of mankind (in fact, a limited component of that realm). So you need to pay attention to context to avoid mistakes here.
The one that struck me recently was in Galatians. "Far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." (Gal 6:14) What a statement! Nothing to boast about but Christ crucified. (That flies in the face of many who would prefer to forget about Christ crucified.) But he says that, being crucified with Christ (Gal 2:20), "the world has been crucified to me and I to the world." What world? In what sense? Clearly this isn't the physical universe. He was still there. He was still alive. Nor did it reference the realm of humans. No, this was a reference to the moral world, the world hostile to God, the world we are commanded not to love (1 John 2:15). We've heard the phrase "dead to the world", but that normally just means fast asleep. This is not that.
To be crucified to the world and have the world crucified to you in this context means that the world's systems are of no consequence anymore. Paul specifically references legalism here (Gal 6:12-13), but it doesn't stop there. It is a life lived by the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23) where "those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (Gal 5:24). It stands in opposition to "the works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19-21). It is a different plane of existence altogether.
So how is it that so many of us are still muddling about in this world? You know, this moral world? We draw our values from it. We find our passions in it. We use it as our standard of success, of right and wrong, of pleasant and unpleasant. Remember the warning. "If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." (1 John 2:15) If your primary input for values, standards, and even pleasure are provided by the world -- the fallen moral system around us, experiences, the world's teaching systems, all of that -- then it has monumental consequences in terms of your relationship with God. And they are not good consequences. For Christians, the cross is the end of the world as we know it.
As it turns out, the term "world" is not as simple as you might think. The word is κόσμος -- kosmos. It means literally any orderly arrangement. There, now, see? We're in trouble. No, not real trouble, but surely you can see how the term can have a broad set of meanings. Biblically it has several different uses. In John 1:9, for instance, it references the physical world, the universe, creation, our plane of existence. This is not in mind when John says we shouldn't love the world or Jesus says that God loved the world. Another sense is the world of humans. That might include government (as an orderly arrangement, you see) or the inhabited parts of our physical world. That was in mind when Satan showed Jesus "the kingdoms of the world" (Luke 4:5). When Caesar Augustus took a census of "all the world" (Luke 2:1), it was a reference to the Roman world. In this sense, then, it could refer to the world (the system) of men. All humans. Or it could refer to a group of people within the whole of the human realm. We know, for instance, that the world hated Jesus (John 15:18-19), but that doesn't mean every single human being on the planet (since His disciples were not numbered among those who hated Him, but among those who were hated by them). There is the moral world. This is a very common meaning in Scripture. It refers to the world of sinners, the world hostile to God, the corrupt world (2 Peter 1:4). This is the world that is blinded by its god (2 Cor 4:4). This is the world you cannot love and love God at the same time (James 4:4). This is the world that must be overcome (1 John 5:4-5).
Now, of course, you have to learn to differentiate meanings. When you read, for instance, about "the wisdom of the world" (1 Cor 1:20-21), you can be relatively sure this is not talking about the physical realm. That is a reference to the world as a fallen system. Or when Jesus's brothers recommended He should "show yourself to the world" (John 7:4), you can be confident they weren't talking about creation. That is a reference to the realm of mankind (in fact, a limited component of that realm). So you need to pay attention to context to avoid mistakes here.
The one that struck me recently was in Galatians. "Far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." (Gal 6:14) What a statement! Nothing to boast about but Christ crucified. (That flies in the face of many who would prefer to forget about Christ crucified.) But he says that, being crucified with Christ (Gal 2:20), "the world has been crucified to me and I to the world." What world? In what sense? Clearly this isn't the physical universe. He was still there. He was still alive. Nor did it reference the realm of humans. No, this was a reference to the moral world, the world hostile to God, the world we are commanded not to love (1 John 2:15). We've heard the phrase "dead to the world", but that normally just means fast asleep. This is not that.
To be crucified to the world and have the world crucified to you in this context means that the world's systems are of no consequence anymore. Paul specifically references legalism here (Gal 6:12-13), but it doesn't stop there. It is a life lived by the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23) where "those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (Gal 5:24). It stands in opposition to "the works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19-21). It is a different plane of existence altogether.
So how is it that so many of us are still muddling about in this world? You know, this moral world? We draw our values from it. We find our passions in it. We use it as our standard of success, of right and wrong, of pleasant and unpleasant. Remember the warning. "If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." (1 John 2:15) If your primary input for values, standards, and even pleasure are provided by the world -- the fallen moral system around us, experiences, the world's teaching systems, all of that -- then it has monumental consequences in terms of your relationship with God. And they are not good consequences. For Christians, the cross is the end of the world as we know it.
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
The Scandalous Gospel
Jesus assures us that the world will hate us (John 15:19). Given. Paul says that our Gospel -- our good news -- is offensive (1 Cor 1:18). Why is that?
I can't make sense of it based on the gospel I hear in so many places. There's the "Jesus loves you, so come" gospel. That is warm and friendly and inviting. Why would it be offensive? There is the therapeutic gospel, the "God has a solution to all your problems" gospel. How can that be a bad thing? There is the "God has a wonderful plan for your life" gospel. Okay, maybe that might edge a few the wrong way since it may hint that God's plan is better than yours, but it's not really that bad, is it? So what is it that makes the Gospel an offense? Or, to ask another way, are we offering THE Gospel when we offer these oh-so-comfortable versions?
The "offensive Gospel" has edges no one likes. No one, hearing the Gospel, wants to hear, "Although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." (Rom 1:32) They aren't pleased with well-known passages that say things like "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor 6:9-10) Conversely, the world gets upset when a Jeffrey Dahmer repents and we say he's forgiven. That, too, is offensive. Jesus's Gospel would certainly be offensive. He offered "Repent" (Matt 4:17) and "Allow the dead to bury the dead" (Luke 9:60) and "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me" (Luke 9:23) and "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26) This is a scandalous Gospel.
I'm not sure we're doing people any favors by offering them a "friendly gospel". It may be true that "Jesus loves you" and "God has a wonderful plan for your life" and even "God has the solution to your problems" (as long as we admit that "love" may not look like they think it does, God's "wonderful plan" may not be the warm and fuzzy they're expecting, and His solutions to life's problems may not be the kind of solutions most people would think of), but that isn't the Gospel. The Gospel includes "repent" and "surrender" and the warning of Hell. Anything else seems to me to be "another gospel", and you know what the Bible says about that (Gal 1:6-9).
I can't make sense of it based on the gospel I hear in so many places. There's the "Jesus loves you, so come" gospel. That is warm and friendly and inviting. Why would it be offensive? There is the therapeutic gospel, the "God has a solution to all your problems" gospel. How can that be a bad thing? There is the "God has a wonderful plan for your life" gospel. Okay, maybe that might edge a few the wrong way since it may hint that God's plan is better than yours, but it's not really that bad, is it? So what is it that makes the Gospel an offense? Or, to ask another way, are we offering THE Gospel when we offer these oh-so-comfortable versions?
The "offensive Gospel" has edges no one likes. No one, hearing the Gospel, wants to hear, "Although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." (Rom 1:32) They aren't pleased with well-known passages that say things like "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor 6:9-10) Conversely, the world gets upset when a Jeffrey Dahmer repents and we say he's forgiven. That, too, is offensive. Jesus's Gospel would certainly be offensive. He offered "Repent" (Matt 4:17) and "Allow the dead to bury the dead" (Luke 9:60) and "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me" (Luke 9:23) and "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26) This is a scandalous Gospel.
I'm not sure we're doing people any favors by offering them a "friendly gospel". It may be true that "Jesus loves you" and "God has a wonderful plan for your life" and even "God has the solution to your problems" (as long as we admit that "love" may not look like they think it does, God's "wonderful plan" may not be the warm and fuzzy they're expecting, and His solutions to life's problems may not be the kind of solutions most people would think of), but that isn't the Gospel. The Gospel includes "repent" and "surrender" and the warning of Hell. Anything else seems to me to be "another gospel", and you know what the Bible says about that (Gal 1:6-9).
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
Modern Card Games
It was some time ago now, but one of the first (of, perhaps, three?) people I had to ask not to comment here anymore was a guy who made it a practice of accusing me of "playing the victim card". I tried to explain I wasn't. He disagreed ... in a less than friendly manner. I explained that repeated accusations like that made conversations difficult. And after awhile, we parted ways.
We know what it means to "play the race card". It might be something like, "She gets away with it because she's white." Or "You wouldn't treat me that way if I wasn't black." It's applying "race" as the reason (generally instead of every other possible rational reason). That kind of thing. "If I can't get you to go my way by force of logic, I'll do it by shaming you into appearing racist." But what does it mean to "play the victim card"?
There are similarities, I'm sure. In one case it's "feel bad for me because of my race" and in the other it's "feel bad for me because I'm a victim." There is generally, in both cases, the attempt to manipulate by way of feelings. In one it's "You're not a racist, are you?" In the other it's "You're not so cold-hearted that you can't see I'm suffering here, are you?" Same idea. In both cases the aim is to manipulate your responses in order to get you to agree or go along.
Here's the difficulty. In too many cases the accusation can be made -- "Don't go playing the race card" or "You're just playing the victim card" -- when no such card has been played. That is, in genuine cases of racism or victim-hood, it isn't necessarily true that the aim is to manipulate. Sometimes it is intended to speak the truth.
So, say, in the case of an actual victim, in what sense could a person point to their condition as a victim and not be "playing the victim card"? That, I think, would be the case if they were not trying to use it to persuade you to go along with them. Let's try an extreme example. "I was a victim of Auschwitz" would be a genuine victim, but if it was followed by, "and I forgave my captors," you couldn't call it "playing the victim card". It is not capitalizing on the victim status to get you to go along.
In recent times I have complained about the loss of religious liberty we see in America today. Some may disagree that any such thing is occurring. So be it. Most are aware of it and some I've talked to are glad about it. "'Bout time religion got pushed down." Many of those complaining about these facts are doing so to try to reverse the trend. It could easily be argued that they're playing the victim card. "Oh, poor us, we're being mistreated and you need to stop." I get it. But in my case I actually don't believe that this is my intent. What I have tried to do is call Christians not to trust in a court system or religious liberty laws or our society to defend our rights. I've tried to suggest that it is expected, even beneficial to have these so-called rights removed. Many (most?) who see the problem are up in arms over it. I'm suggesting that we try the biblical approach.
Now, we are certainly not "persecuted" like others around the globe are. Using that term is a bit difficult because it does sound like the victim card is being played, and not when it refers to a real victim. But Jesus referred to persecution in terms of insults and false accusations of evil. And it cannot be doubted that we're seeing this today. What I'm saying is not "Stand up and fight for your rights" or even "Do your best to convince people to change." I'm saying, "Expect it. And rejoice!" I'm not saying, "They need to change!" It's us. I'm hoping to stir Christians to biblical thinking and response. And I don't think that qualifies as "playing the victim card".
We know what it means to "play the race card". It might be something like, "She gets away with it because she's white." Or "You wouldn't treat me that way if I wasn't black." It's applying "race" as the reason (generally instead of every other possible rational reason). That kind of thing. "If I can't get you to go my way by force of logic, I'll do it by shaming you into appearing racist." But what does it mean to "play the victim card"?
There are similarities, I'm sure. In one case it's "feel bad for me because of my race" and in the other it's "feel bad for me because I'm a victim." There is generally, in both cases, the attempt to manipulate by way of feelings. In one it's "You're not a racist, are you?" In the other it's "You're not so cold-hearted that you can't see I'm suffering here, are you?" Same idea. In both cases the aim is to manipulate your responses in order to get you to agree or go along.
Here's the difficulty. In too many cases the accusation can be made -- "Don't go playing the race card" or "You're just playing the victim card" -- when no such card has been played. That is, in genuine cases of racism or victim-hood, it isn't necessarily true that the aim is to manipulate. Sometimes it is intended to speak the truth.
So, say, in the case of an actual victim, in what sense could a person point to their condition as a victim and not be "playing the victim card"? That, I think, would be the case if they were not trying to use it to persuade you to go along with them. Let's try an extreme example. "I was a victim of Auschwitz" would be a genuine victim, but if it was followed by, "and I forgave my captors," you couldn't call it "playing the victim card". It is not capitalizing on the victim status to get you to go along.
In recent times I have complained about the loss of religious liberty we see in America today. Some may disagree that any such thing is occurring. So be it. Most are aware of it and some I've talked to are glad about it. "'Bout time religion got pushed down." Many of those complaining about these facts are doing so to try to reverse the trend. It could easily be argued that they're playing the victim card. "Oh, poor us, we're being mistreated and you need to stop." I get it. But in my case I actually don't believe that this is my intent. What I have tried to do is call Christians not to trust in a court system or religious liberty laws or our society to defend our rights. I've tried to suggest that it is expected, even beneficial to have these so-called rights removed. Many (most?) who see the problem are up in arms over it. I'm suggesting that we try the biblical approach.
Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you. (1 Peter 4:12)John wrote, "Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you." (1 John 3:13) That's not a victim card. That's "Be ready for it." Remember, it was Jesus who said, "Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." (Matt 5:10-12)
They took his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and then released them. So they went on their way from the presence of the Council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for His name. (Acts 5:40-41)
In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 1:6-7)
Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. (James 1:2-4)
Now, we are certainly not "persecuted" like others around the globe are. Using that term is a bit difficult because it does sound like the victim card is being played, and not when it refers to a real victim. But Jesus referred to persecution in terms of insults and false accusations of evil. And it cannot be doubted that we're seeing this today. What I'm saying is not "Stand up and fight for your rights" or even "Do your best to convince people to change." I'm saying, "Expect it. And rejoice!" I'm not saying, "They need to change!" It's us. I'm hoping to stir Christians to biblical thinking and response. And I don't think that qualifies as "playing the victim card".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)