"We Don't Understand"
I suppose this story shouldn't be a surprise, but it is, if only because it is so candid. Michael Wear was a White House staffer for President Obama, the "former director of Barack Obama's 2012 faith-outreach efforts". He told the Atlantic that "the administration was unnecessarily antagonistic toward religious conservatives." He told the interviewer, "It's much easier to make people scared of evangelicals than trying to make an appeal to them." According to the Atlantic, "Democrats Have a Religion Problem." According to Wear, the Democratic Party does not understand Evangelicals.
As I said, not particularly surprising, unless you are surprised at the admission.
Abstention
Recently the U.N. put to a vote a resolution to condemn Israeli settlement expansion on the West Bank. The U.S. carefully and resolvedly ... abstained. This just weeks after the U.S. Solicitor General declared that Israel has no claim to Jerusalem. It takes no imagination to see where this is going -- a complete pushback for Israel. And a simple veto on the part of the U.S. could have terminated this debacle at the start.
Now, I know that history isn't particularly important to a lot of people in power (think, for instance, "the definition of marriage for all time" or "humans have always been male or female" and so on) and I know without a doubt that Scripture is of less importance to these same people, but given what history says about Israel and Jerusalem and given what Scripture says about God's chosen people, I hope you can see the folly of this current direction and pray for change.
In a show of tolerance and nonjudgmentalism ...
Have you heard of Kim Burrell? Sorry, neither had I. Have you heard of Ellen DeGeneres? Okay, I've heard of her. She has one of those daytime talk show things, right? Well, Ellen is famous for her particular sexual preference for women and Kim Burrell ... is not. Turns out that Burrell is a singer and pastor. Sorry, Kim, not winning any points with me, there. Turns out that Kim Burrell was set to appear on Ellen DeGeneres's show and sing with a singer named Pharrell. Turns out that Kim Burrell preached a sermon that included the claim that homosexual behavior was perverted, "the spirit of delusion and confusion," and that it has "deceived many men and women."
Never mind that the Bible says it. Never mind that the definition of "perverted" is "that which is characterized by sexually abnormal and unacceptable practices or tendencies" and, given that something less than 5% of the population is calling itself "homosexual", that would statistically make their sexual desires and practices "abnormal". Therefore, her claim that it is perverted would agree with the definition. But it's all good because Ellen is above all that. She ... oh, wait ... nope. My mistake. The "homophobic" Burrell found herself uninvited after all ... because that is the definition of tolerance and nonjudgmentalism others demand even if they don't practice it. In responding to the event, "DeGeneres emphasized that feeling discrimination because of her sexual orientation has given her empathy when it comes to showing others love and acceptance." We must understand that "empathy when it comes to showing others love and acceptance" does not extend to those who disagree.
Burrell also lost her job as a radio talk show host. While it's perfectly within the rights of commercial entities (or even universities -- hers was a university radio talk show) to take action to prevent losses due to statements of their employees, for instance, in no sense can it be considered "embracing", "inclusive", or "open-minded" when someone loses their job because they state as true what the Bible says is true. Call it "homophobic" if you want (although that's not accurate), but if you want it gone, you'll need to ban the Bible and all who believe it.
So Help Me God
On one hand, the Freedom From Religion Foundation has written President-elect Trump to please keep prayer and "so help me God" out of Washington. Or, at least, the inauguration. On the other, it ain't gonna happen. Oh, no.
President-elect Trump has other plans. "Donald Trump's Inaugural weekend will include an interfaith prayer service at Washington's National Cathedral." The cathedral is overseen by Episcopal Bishop Mariann Budde who assures us that "all faiths will be represented at (Trump's) request." Of course, that seems a bit contradictory given Trump's comments during the campaign about Muslims, but, hey, he's the president-to-be; he can do what he likes. So it will include Muslims, Jews, and, best of all, prosperity preachers Paula White and Bishop Wayne T. Jackson. Michael Horton is concerned about "Donald Trump’s attempt to mainstream heresy." I'm wondering if any Christians will be participating in the event.
Socially Devisive
According to The Washington Times, "Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe is promising to veto legislation banning abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, saying such a 'socially divisive' proposal hurts the state’s image." Apparently Virginia considers allowing the murder of babies older than 20 weeks old as a positive thing and protecting the youngest of the young -- the most helpless of the helpless -- as "socially divisive". The governor fears a business backlash like the one North Carolina experienced when they said, "You should use the bathroom of the gender on your birth certificate." What he is saying, not in words but in deed, is "Business -- good; babies -- not on my watch." The further logical implications are that businesses and the whims of the public determine right and wrong and that business and the public are in favor of killing babies as well.
At the same time, apparently Kentucky has introduced a similar ban which they believe will pass in Kentucky.
I would like to point out that protecting the unborn child older than 20 weeks is not a sufficient rule. It can only be thought of as "good" in the sense that it is a step in the right direction. Preventing the intentional murder of all unborn children would be sufficient. And please note that the reason for selecting 20 weeks is the claim that science indicates that babies can feel pain at 20 weeks. Apparently "feels pain" constitutes "being human" and those who feel no pain are not? Or is it perfectly acceptable to murder the very young as long as they don't feel it? What a world we live in.
Saturday, January 07, 2017
Friday, January 06, 2017
A Lamp Unto My Feet
I dislike much of my nighttime dreaming. Most of the time it is spotty, a flickering and dark dream not in a spooky way, but in a literal sense. I can't see well. The lights come and go. Typically, they are not well lit. I don't like trying to operate in situations without light.
Psalm 119 is the longest chapter in the Bible. It is built on the Hebrew alphabet and is 176 verses of what might be called "An Ode to God's Word." One I'm sure you've heard is
I argue the reverse. It is God's Word. It is not "inspired" -- it is God-breathed. It is "exhaled" by God. As a product of God using human writers, it has the truth and authority of God. To the extent that our translations align with what God "exhaled", our Bibles are infallible, inerrant, truthful, reliable, and authoritative. While they may, at times, be hard to figure out, they are in all matters of real significance clear and understandable for all. And, in fact, I take this stand with many other believers (without quotes around the word) both today and in all of Church history.
So, why do I believe that? Many reasons.
The Bible claims to be God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16-17). Many of the writers claim to be directly quoting God or getting direct revelation from God. Jesus considered the Scriptures to be from God. Beyond that, the Bible is an absolutely unique book. Written over thousands of years by multiple writers, it retains a consistent message without contradiction. (If you've ever played the Telephone Game, you can get the significance of such a thing.)
The amount of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible is truly inexplicable apart from its supernatural origins. One or two guesses might be done, but the standard imposed by the Bible is 100% accuracy, and so far, so good.
There is the manuscript evidence. The Bible was finished in the first century, and it is the most documented ancient writing of all time. There are more than 5,000 pieces of the New Testament extant, most within 200 years of their original writings. Beyond these, we have Old Testament manuscripts that date back more than 100 years before Christ and are, as it turns out, word for word what our Bibles say today. Consider, also, the effect of this consistency. In the question, for instance, of the authorship of the four Gospels, modern scholars often scoff, assuring us that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John likely did not write them, thereby removing them from the category of "Scripture". As it turns out, however, every existing manuscript of these Gospels that include a name assignment includes the same name assignment. That is, when manuscripts from the same time from Rome, Lyon, and Egypt all have the same Gospel names, how could that happen? I'm pretty sure their Internet wasn't that fast. It seems to require that each was using an oral account or a copy of the original manuscript that included the same ascription of authorship to the same people. This kind of manuscript consistency confirms rather than casts doubt.
There are other reasons. Some will point to archaeological evidence. No archaeological find has ever controverted Scripture, and Scripture doubted has often been vindicated by later archaeology. In a similar vein, there are many extrabiblical writings that confirm biblical claims. These are nice to have; I just don't rely on them. Some will point to the changes the Bible brings in the lives of people who read it and take it to heart. It is true that changed hearts make changed lives, so this is nice to have, but I don't rely on it given the deceived nature of the human heart. Some will talk about the scientific accuracy of the Bible. Before its time, the Bible spoke of a round Earth (Job 26:10; Isa 40:22), the vastness of the stars (Jer 33:22), and the fact that the Earth did not ride on a turtle's back or whatever other means of support earlier cultures ventured (Job 26:7). I don't rely on these, either. It is interesting that the Bible is so forthright over its own failed characters, like drunken Noah, David's adultery and murder, and Peter's denial of Christ. Not a normal thing to find in writings intended to convince rather than speak pure truth. And, of course, Jesus claims, "Your Word is truth." (John 17:17)
There is lots of evidence for the Bible as a divinely-breathed, supernaturally-overseen, book of truth. Refuting it comes easy to many, but they do it by disregarding the evidence, not by demonstrating that it's false. More importantly, if "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path," it can only be so if it is truly illuminating. Given the "free thinkers" and the "Christian skeptics" and the whole "The Bible is not infallible, inerrant, nor entirely God's Word" naysayers, I cannot see how they operate like I do in my unpleasant dreams -- by flickering and unreliable light. Doubt it if they want, but don't expect me to disregard the evidence, ignore Christ, and follow along blindly ... literally.
Psalm 119 is the longest chapter in the Bible. It is built on the Hebrew alphabet and is 176 verses of what might be called "An Ode to God's Word." One I'm sure you've heard is
Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. (Psa 119:105)That's all well and good, except these days God's Word is under attack from all sides. Of course, the atheists and "free thinkers" (which, for some reason, does not include "free to think that the Bible is true") have always denied it. But it also comes from "believers" (which seems a bit of a contradictory term when they claim to "believe" ... just not God's Word). This has actually been going on for much of my lifetime, like back in the '70's when the conservative Fuller Theological Seminary declared that the Bible was not God's Word, but contained God's Word. From all sides it's "No, it is not infallible" and "No, it is not inerrant" (which, if you're not paying attention, is a claim that "Yes, it is fallible and it is erroneous") and "No, it is not God's Word" (It can't be if it is fallible and erroneous) and, ultimately, "No, we can't rely on it because, at best, it is a human construct interpreted by fallible humans without any reason to trust its words or their interpretation." In this view, then, it cannot be claimed that God's Word is a lamp to my feet or a light to my path. Perhaps it has some things of value, but we can't really be sure which parts those might be, if it is reliable, and, as such, we must conclude that it cannot ultimately be authoritative.
I argue the reverse. It is God's Word. It is not "inspired" -- it is God-breathed. It is "exhaled" by God. As a product of God using human writers, it has the truth and authority of God. To the extent that our translations align with what God "exhaled", our Bibles are infallible, inerrant, truthful, reliable, and authoritative. While they may, at times, be hard to figure out, they are in all matters of real significance clear and understandable for all. And, in fact, I take this stand with many other believers (without quotes around the word) both today and in all of Church history.
So, why do I believe that? Many reasons.
The Bible claims to be God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16-17). Many of the writers claim to be directly quoting God or getting direct revelation from God. Jesus considered the Scriptures to be from God. Beyond that, the Bible is an absolutely unique book. Written over thousands of years by multiple writers, it retains a consistent message without contradiction. (If you've ever played the Telephone Game, you can get the significance of such a thing.)
The amount of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible is truly inexplicable apart from its supernatural origins. One or two guesses might be done, but the standard imposed by the Bible is 100% accuracy, and so far, so good.
There is the manuscript evidence. The Bible was finished in the first century, and it is the most documented ancient writing of all time. There are more than 5,000 pieces of the New Testament extant, most within 200 years of their original writings. Beyond these, we have Old Testament manuscripts that date back more than 100 years before Christ and are, as it turns out, word for word what our Bibles say today. Consider, also, the effect of this consistency. In the question, for instance, of the authorship of the four Gospels, modern scholars often scoff, assuring us that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John likely did not write them, thereby removing them from the category of "Scripture". As it turns out, however, every existing manuscript of these Gospels that include a name assignment includes the same name assignment. That is, when manuscripts from the same time from Rome, Lyon, and Egypt all have the same Gospel names, how could that happen? I'm pretty sure their Internet wasn't that fast. It seems to require that each was using an oral account or a copy of the original manuscript that included the same ascription of authorship to the same people. This kind of manuscript consistency confirms rather than casts doubt.
There are other reasons. Some will point to archaeological evidence. No archaeological find has ever controverted Scripture, and Scripture doubted has often been vindicated by later archaeology. In a similar vein, there are many extrabiblical writings that confirm biblical claims. These are nice to have; I just don't rely on them. Some will point to the changes the Bible brings in the lives of people who read it and take it to heart. It is true that changed hearts make changed lives, so this is nice to have, but I don't rely on it given the deceived nature of the human heart. Some will talk about the scientific accuracy of the Bible. Before its time, the Bible spoke of a round Earth (Job 26:10; Isa 40:22), the vastness of the stars (Jer 33:22), and the fact that the Earth did not ride on a turtle's back or whatever other means of support earlier cultures ventured (Job 26:7). I don't rely on these, either. It is interesting that the Bible is so forthright over its own failed characters, like drunken Noah, David's adultery and murder, and Peter's denial of Christ. Not a normal thing to find in writings intended to convince rather than speak pure truth. And, of course, Jesus claims, "Your Word is truth." (John 17:17)
There is lots of evidence for the Bible as a divinely-breathed, supernaturally-overseen, book of truth. Refuting it comes easy to many, but they do it by disregarding the evidence, not by demonstrating that it's false. More importantly, if "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path," it can only be so if it is truly illuminating. Given the "free thinkers" and the "Christian skeptics" and the whole "The Bible is not infallible, inerrant, nor entirely God's Word" naysayers, I cannot see how they operate like I do in my unpleasant dreams -- by flickering and unreliable light. Doubt it if they want, but don't expect me to disregard the evidence, ignore Christ, and follow along blindly ... literally.
Thursday, January 05, 2017
Catechism
If you are like most Protestant-types, the word "chatechism" is not really a part of your vocabulary. Oh, you may know the word, even know what it means, but you wouldn't actually use it because, well, that's Catholic, right?
Ask most non-Catholics and they'd be a little vague about what it is. It's the classes that Roman Catholic kids are forced to take to get "Confirmed", whatever that means. Oh, if you were informed enough, you might know that catechism is not exclusively Catholic. In fact, prior to our more informed modern times, catechism was prevalent in most groups. Many of the Reformed types have their own catechism. Perhaps you've heard of the Westminster Shorter Catechism? There were, in fact, many -- the Genevan Catechism, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Westminster Catechism. The Bapists had one back in 1689 and, in fact, actually brought one out in 2009. The Pentecostals didn't have them, but they had works that were intended to do the job. The Anglicans have one.
What is catechism? The word comes from the Greek word for "instruction" or "teach" found in the New Testament. It simply means to teach biblical truth in an orderly way. The common method as in the Westminster Catechism and the Baptist Catechism is a series of questions and answers. So the catechized -- the students of these procedures -- would learn the questions and the answers and, in the process, learn the material. They included Scripture to teach the material. They were intended for children and for the common person. These weren't to be seminary questions; they were just for everyday people.
So the Baptist Catechism, as an example, contains 60 questions for the learner to read, comprehend, and answer. The Westminster Shorter Catechism has 107. That's right, 107 questions. Here, let's get a few examples. This is kids' stuff. You should have no problem answering this.
This is the kind of stuff that the churches intended to teach everyone and from an early age. It is biblical. It is indepth. It was common to all. Catechism teaches serious doctrine along with Scripture.
So, tell me again. Are we more informed these days? Many (most?) churches have jettisoned this stuff. I think it might be a mistake. Given the "Christianity lite" that I see among believers these days, I'm wondering if we ought not bring this to our churches and put it to good use. It's not like we're currently involved in a better, more complete method of teaching biblical truth, are we?
Ask most non-Catholics and they'd be a little vague about what it is. It's the classes that Roman Catholic kids are forced to take to get "Confirmed", whatever that means. Oh, if you were informed enough, you might know that catechism is not exclusively Catholic. In fact, prior to our more informed modern times, catechism was prevalent in most groups. Many of the Reformed types have their own catechism. Perhaps you've heard of the Westminster Shorter Catechism? There were, in fact, many -- the Genevan Catechism, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Westminster Catechism. The Bapists had one back in 1689 and, in fact, actually brought one out in 2009. The Pentecostals didn't have them, but they had works that were intended to do the job. The Anglicans have one.
What is catechism? The word comes from the Greek word for "instruction" or "teach" found in the New Testament. It simply means to teach biblical truth in an orderly way. The common method as in the Westminster Catechism and the Baptist Catechism is a series of questions and answers. So the catechized -- the students of these procedures -- would learn the questions and the answers and, in the process, learn the material. They included Scripture to teach the material. They were intended for children and for the common person. These weren't to be seminary questions; they were just for everyday people.
So the Baptist Catechism, as an example, contains 60 questions for the learner to read, comprehend, and answer. The Westminster Shorter Catechism has 107. That's right, 107 questions. Here, let's get a few examples. This is kids' stuff. You should have no problem answering this.
Q: What is the chief end of man?There, see? Easy stuff. Oh, not? No, not for me, either.
A: The chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.
Scripture: 1 Corinthians 10:31; Psalm 16:11; 37:4; 73:25-26; Isaiah 43:7.
Comment: "Glorify" does not mean make glorious. It means [to] reflect or display as glorious. Other words you could use for "end" are "goal" or "purpose".
Q: What are God’s works of providence?
A: God’s works of providence are, his most holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing all his creatures, and all their actions.
Scripture: Psalm 145:17; Psalm 104:24; Hebrews 1:3; Nehemiah 9:6; Ephesians 1:19-22; Psalm 36:6.
This is the kind of stuff that the churches intended to teach everyone and from an early age. It is biblical. It is indepth. It was common to all. Catechism teaches serious doctrine along with Scripture.
So, tell me again. Are we more informed these days? Many (most?) churches have jettisoned this stuff. I think it might be a mistake. Given the "Christianity lite" that I see among believers these days, I'm wondering if we ought not bring this to our churches and put it to good use. It's not like we're currently involved in a better, more complete method of teaching biblical truth, are we?
Wednesday, January 04, 2017
Identity
There is a tendency in human beings to identify ourselves in particular groups. "I'm an American." "I'm a woman." "I'm gay." "I'm a Jones." "I'm black." Along a lot of different lines, but we all seem to use this for identity. The most common, I think, is family. It's inherent just in our identification -- the last name (at least in American culture).
This recent Christmas that fell on a Sunday, producing the dilemma of "church or family", made me ask the question of identity. Who are we? Oh, sure, we are lots of things. But who are we first? Are we "Americans"? Are we "the Smiths" or "the Lopezes"? Are we Presbyterians or Baptists or Methodists? Maybe none of the above. Maybe we're "gay" or "straight", "man" or "woman", or "married" or "single" as our first identifier. There are lots of possibilities.
So, as I like to do, I look to Scripture. What does the Bible say?
The Bible seems to list us first as "God's people". The reason I say "first" because it was Jesus who said, "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) Now, we can discuss what He meant by "hate", but it cannot be questioned that He definitely prioritized being His disciple over family and, therefore, those other lesser things like nationality or ethnicity. It would also include personal identities like "sexual orientation", gender, or career, because He also said, "If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it." (Matt 16:24-25) If death to self is fundamental to following Christ, those personal identifiers are secondary. Instead, our primary identifier must be "follower of Christ."
Close on its heels (because it includes the idea in itself) is being a part of the family of God. It was, if you recall, for this purpose that you were saved. The "good" that God works all things together for is "to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers." (Rom 8:29) So Jesus told us, "By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35) That's "one another" -- believers for believers. Sure, we're supposed to love everyone, including enemies (Luke 6:27), but clearly there is a special love between spiritual siblings in view here that is over love for others -- family, friends, neighbors, country, and anything else.
Our identity, then, is, first, followers of Christ. Paul said, "I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord." (Phil 3:8) Again, let's not get bogged down in details of what he meant by "loss". We can clearly understand that at the top of Paul's priority list he had as number one "knowing Christ". That was above everything else. Our primary purpose is to glorify God as part of the family of God.
Where is your highest identity? Is it self? Nationality? Family? Maybe it's career. "I'm an engineer" or "doctor" or ... whatever you might be. I would hope you wouldn't identify first and foremost by the gender with whom you like to have sex. Is the first identity that you claim, "I am a follower of Christ, a member of God's family"? That would seem to be the biblical one. I think it would put in order a lot of the ones that follow.
This recent Christmas that fell on a Sunday, producing the dilemma of "church or family", made me ask the question of identity. Who are we? Oh, sure, we are lots of things. But who are we first? Are we "Americans"? Are we "the Smiths" or "the Lopezes"? Are we Presbyterians or Baptists or Methodists? Maybe none of the above. Maybe we're "gay" or "straight", "man" or "woman", or "married" or "single" as our first identifier. There are lots of possibilities.
So, as I like to do, I look to Scripture. What does the Bible say?
The Bible seems to list us first as "God's people". The reason I say "first" because it was Jesus who said, "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) Now, we can discuss what He meant by "hate", but it cannot be questioned that He definitely prioritized being His disciple over family and, therefore, those other lesser things like nationality or ethnicity. It would also include personal identities like "sexual orientation", gender, or career, because He also said, "If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it." (Matt 16:24-25) If death to self is fundamental to following Christ, those personal identifiers are secondary. Instead, our primary identifier must be "follower of Christ."
Close on its heels (because it includes the idea in itself) is being a part of the family of God. It was, if you recall, for this purpose that you were saved. The "good" that God works all things together for is "to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers." (Rom 8:29) So Jesus told us, "By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35) That's "one another" -- believers for believers. Sure, we're supposed to love everyone, including enemies (Luke 6:27), but clearly there is a special love between spiritual siblings in view here that is over love for others -- family, friends, neighbors, country, and anything else.
Our identity, then, is, first, followers of Christ. Paul said, "I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord." (Phil 3:8) Again, let's not get bogged down in details of what he meant by "loss". We can clearly understand that at the top of Paul's priority list he had as number one "knowing Christ". That was above everything else. Our primary purpose is to glorify God as part of the family of God.
Where is your highest identity? Is it self? Nationality? Family? Maybe it's career. "I'm an engineer" or "doctor" or ... whatever you might be. I would hope you wouldn't identify first and foremost by the gender with whom you like to have sex. Is the first identity that you claim, "I am a follower of Christ, a member of God's family"? That would seem to be the biblical one. I think it would put in order a lot of the ones that follow.
Tuesday, January 03, 2017
Exhort
In Paul's second letter to Timothy, he tells him,
In English, the word is defined as "to urge, advise, or caution earnestly; admonish urgently." It's not mild; it's urgent. (Can you urge urgently? Oh, never mind.) It's not "Aw, gee, Fred, let me give you a hug and warm your spirit." It's strong.
Interesting thing. That's not the word in the Greek commonly translated "exhort". The word is παρακαλέω. Oh, yeah, I know, "It's all Greek to me." The word is parakaleō. "Still not helping, Stan." Sure, okay. How about this? This word is at the root of the word in 1 John 2:1 where John says, "If anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." It is the same word at the core of Jesus's word for the Holy Spirit: "Helper" (John 14:16,26; John 15:26; John 16:7). Some of you may be familiar with the term "paraklete" used for the Holy Spirit. That word. That word is translated in some texts as "Comforter". That word. In fact, the word means most literally "to call alongside". Now, wait a minute! It would seem, then, that, while our English word bears some sense of urgency and harshness, the Greek word is a lot more like, "Aw, gee, Fred, let me give you a hug and warm your spirit."
We are, indeed, undeniably commanded to exhort one another. Titus was told, "Exhort and rebuke with all authority." (Titus 2:15) The author of Hebrews says, "Exhort one another every day, as long as it is called 'today,' that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin." (Heb 3:13) There is even a spiritual gift called exhortation (Rom 12:8). We are supposed to do that. But keep in mind that the idea is not "Beat them over the head." The idea is to come alongside, to draw them close, to encourage and beseech and comfort and care for them. It isn't a harsh term. It is a loving term. And we are commanded to do it.
The perception among many is that any time you seek to call people to change directions -- to go another way -- it cannot be done out of love. This, of course, is patently false. We shouldn't believe that nonsense. Nor should we practice it. All of it -- reproof, rebuke, and exhortation -- ought at its core to be done out of love (1 Tim 1:5). Let's set aside the complaints of detractors and practice love that includes reproof, rebuke, and calling people alongside to encourage, comfort, and support them, "that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people." (1 Peter 2:15)
Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. (2 Tim 4:2)So much for "be all warm and cuddly and never, never be harsh." It ain't in there. But what I want to look at is that word, "exhort".
In English, the word is defined as "to urge, advise, or caution earnestly; admonish urgently." It's not mild; it's urgent. (Can you urge urgently? Oh, never mind.) It's not "Aw, gee, Fred, let me give you a hug and warm your spirit." It's strong.
Interesting thing. That's not the word in the Greek commonly translated "exhort". The word is παρακαλέω. Oh, yeah, I know, "It's all Greek to me." The word is parakaleō. "Still not helping, Stan." Sure, okay. How about this? This word is at the root of the word in 1 John 2:1 where John says, "If anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." It is the same word at the core of Jesus's word for the Holy Spirit: "Helper" (John 14:16,26; John 15:26; John 16:7). Some of you may be familiar with the term "paraklete" used for the Holy Spirit. That word. That word is translated in some texts as "Comforter". That word. In fact, the word means most literally "to call alongside". Now, wait a minute! It would seem, then, that, while our English word bears some sense of urgency and harshness, the Greek word is a lot more like, "Aw, gee, Fred, let me give you a hug and warm your spirit."
We are, indeed, undeniably commanded to exhort one another. Titus was told, "Exhort and rebuke with all authority." (Titus 2:15) The author of Hebrews says, "Exhort one another every day, as long as it is called 'today,' that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin." (Heb 3:13) There is even a spiritual gift called exhortation (Rom 12:8). We are supposed to do that. But keep in mind that the idea is not "Beat them over the head." The idea is to come alongside, to draw them close, to encourage and beseech and comfort and care for them. It isn't a harsh term. It is a loving term. And we are commanded to do it.
The perception among many is that any time you seek to call people to change directions -- to go another way -- it cannot be done out of love. This, of course, is patently false. We shouldn't believe that nonsense. Nor should we practice it. All of it -- reproof, rebuke, and exhortation -- ought at its core to be done out of love (1 Tim 1:5). Let's set aside the complaints of detractors and practice love that includes reproof, rebuke, and calling people alongside to encourage, comfort, and support them, "that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people." (1 Peter 2:15)
Monday, January 02, 2017
Seeker-Friendly
It isn't hard to find religion in the human race. It seems to be "hard-coded", so to speak. Atheists are few. And it takes very little effort to find stories about people who "went on a search for God" and either found Him or didn't. Funny thing, though. The Bible disagrees. The Bible says, "No one seeks for God." (Rom 3:11)
Now, wait a minute! We can objectively see that lots of people seek for God. How can the Bible make such a claim?
Well, from a biblical perspective, it makes perfect sense. Scripture says that humans "by their unrighteousness suppress the truth." (Rom 1:18) In the text that follows, Paul says that God has made Himself known to us (Rom 1:19-20), but we "exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator." (Rom 1:25) We don't "see fit to acknowledge God." From that perspective, a "search for God" is mindless. Mankind rejects what he has been given. Indeed, the claim is made that "the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot." (Rom 8:7) Elsewhere we read, "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor 2:14) So, suppressing the truth that God has revealed about Himself to us, we worship the creature instead, refuse to acknowledge God, are hostile to Him, and are incapable of either obeying or understanding.
Now, plug back in that "Lots of people seek for God" line and see how that works.
So how do we correlate this apparent contradiction? How do we put together the apparent fact that lots of people appear to seek for God with the biblical statements that we will not, do not, and cannot? How do we put together the seemingly inherent religiosity of human beings with the Bible's claim that "The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one" (Psa 14:2-3)?
In Isaiah God says, "I was ready to be sought by those who did not ask for Me; I was ready to be found by those who did not seek Me." (Isa 65:1) Jesus told His disciples, "You did not choose Me, but I chose you." (John 15:16) In Antioch in Pisidia Paul told those listening that God had provided "a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.'" (Acts 13:47) In the next verse we read "as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48) Elsewhere Jesus says, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44) and "No one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father." (John 6:65) This puts the impetus on God, not on us. The Bible says that those who come to Him are "granted" it (John 6:65; Acts 11:18; Phil 1:29; 2 Peter 1:3-4). We don't seek Him; we "receive" Him (John 1:12; Col 2:6). It is not by our effort or choices, but His (John 1:13; Rom 9:16).
So, that's how we find Him without seeking for Him. But what about all those others that appear to seek for God but don't find Him? What about the Hindus and the Mormons and the "many" who follow the gate that leads to destruction (Matt 7:13-14)? Lots of them appear to seek for God and find something or nothing, but they are seeking. How do we view that in connection to this biblical claim?
Well, first, you need to ask yourself, "Am I going to believe what the Bible says on the subject or what I think I see?" If the latter, it's easy for you. "The Bible is wrong" in some sense. But for the rest, you'll need to figure out in what sense they do not seek for God when they say (or even think) they are. There are curiosity seekers -- those who seek simply because they're curious. There are those who seek to obtain, not to know God. There are those who want what God offers without actually wanting God. They seek relief from guilt or comfort in difficult times or unconditional love. There are those who seek personal gain and those who seek "treasures" such as "spiritual secrets" or something like it. There are certainly those who "seek God" in order to demonstrate He doesn't exist. (Some of them have been surprised by God.) I think there are many reasons that sinful Man can "seek God" without actually seeking God Himself. What they are seeking is a god-substitute, a god of their own making and design. They are not seeking the Sovereign of the Universe to Whom they can bow down, submit, and worship.
We are commanded to seek for God and promised we will find Him. In order to please God, we must "believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him." (Heb 11:6). God says, "You will seek Me and find Me when you seek Me with all your heart." (Jer 29:13) Not until. Thus, what is necessary is a change of heart. That precedes "seek Me and find Me." As for the rest, what they are seeking may seem like God, but it's not. It's the benefits of God, the "good things" of God, the positives they want from God. They want the love and grace and mercy and power and comfort and peace and all the rest without the submission, repentance, change of heart, or death to self. Without an act of God, no one seeks Him. After that act of God, they certainly seek and find Him. And the "seeker-friendly" notion for churches is built on a false precept -- that there are lots of people seeking for God ... and that apparently the Bible is mistaken on that point.
Now, wait a minute! We can objectively see that lots of people seek for God. How can the Bible make such a claim?
Well, from a biblical perspective, it makes perfect sense. Scripture says that humans "by their unrighteousness suppress the truth." (Rom 1:18) In the text that follows, Paul says that God has made Himself known to us (Rom 1:19-20), but we "exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator." (Rom 1:25) We don't "see fit to acknowledge God." From that perspective, a "search for God" is mindless. Mankind rejects what he has been given. Indeed, the claim is made that "the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot." (Rom 8:7) Elsewhere we read, "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor 2:14) So, suppressing the truth that God has revealed about Himself to us, we worship the creature instead, refuse to acknowledge God, are hostile to Him, and are incapable of either obeying or understanding.
Now, plug back in that "Lots of people seek for God" line and see how that works.
So how do we correlate this apparent contradiction? How do we put together the apparent fact that lots of people appear to seek for God with the biblical statements that we will not, do not, and cannot? How do we put together the seemingly inherent religiosity of human beings with the Bible's claim that "The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one" (Psa 14:2-3)?
In Isaiah God says, "I was ready to be sought by those who did not ask for Me; I was ready to be found by those who did not seek Me." (Isa 65:1) Jesus told His disciples, "You did not choose Me, but I chose you." (John 15:16) In Antioch in Pisidia Paul told those listening that God had provided "a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.'" (Acts 13:47) In the next verse we read "as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48) Elsewhere Jesus says, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44) and "No one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father." (John 6:65) This puts the impetus on God, not on us. The Bible says that those who come to Him are "granted" it (John 6:65; Acts 11:18; Phil 1:29; 2 Peter 1:3-4). We don't seek Him; we "receive" Him (John 1:12; Col 2:6). It is not by our effort or choices, but His (John 1:13; Rom 9:16).
So, that's how we find Him without seeking for Him. But what about all those others that appear to seek for God but don't find Him? What about the Hindus and the Mormons and the "many" who follow the gate that leads to destruction (Matt 7:13-14)? Lots of them appear to seek for God and find something or nothing, but they are seeking. How do we view that in connection to this biblical claim?
Well, first, you need to ask yourself, "Am I going to believe what the Bible says on the subject or what I think I see?" If the latter, it's easy for you. "The Bible is wrong" in some sense. But for the rest, you'll need to figure out in what sense they do not seek for God when they say (or even think) they are. There are curiosity seekers -- those who seek simply because they're curious. There are those who seek to obtain, not to know God. There are those who want what God offers without actually wanting God. They seek relief from guilt or comfort in difficult times or unconditional love. There are those who seek personal gain and those who seek "treasures" such as "spiritual secrets" or something like it. There are certainly those who "seek God" in order to demonstrate He doesn't exist. (Some of them have been surprised by God.) I think there are many reasons that sinful Man can "seek God" without actually seeking God Himself. What they are seeking is a god-substitute, a god of their own making and design. They are not seeking the Sovereign of the Universe to Whom they can bow down, submit, and worship.
We are commanded to seek for God and promised we will find Him. In order to please God, we must "believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him." (Heb 11:6). God says, "You will seek Me and find Me when you seek Me with all your heart." (Jer 29:13) Not until. Thus, what is necessary is a change of heart. That precedes "seek Me and find Me." As for the rest, what they are seeking may seem like God, but it's not. It's the benefits of God, the "good things" of God, the positives they want from God. They want the love and grace and mercy and power and comfort and peace and all the rest without the submission, repentance, change of heart, or death to self. Without an act of God, no one seeks Him. After that act of God, they certainly seek and find Him. And the "seeker-friendly" notion for churches is built on a false precept -- that there are lots of people seeking for God ... and that apparently the Bible is mistaken on that point.
Sunday, January 01, 2017
Things She Doesn't Know
After 24 years of marriage, there are things she doesn't know.
She stands there asking me "Which earrings?" or "Which shoes?" as if I know. I've told her before, but she is constantly hopeful that I've suddenly come into some sort of fashion sense. I haven't. She doesn't seem to know.
She asks, apparently unaware that I don't know hoops from dangly things or what color shoes go with what color clothes or what "appropriate dress" means. "It's after Labor Day" never meant anything to me. She doesn't know.
She stands there waiting, apparently completely oblivious to the fact that I'm not looking at earrings or shoes. I can barely see them at all. It's those eyes, that smile, the way her hair plays across her forehead. I can't see a thing beyond the woman's face that I love. Earrings? What are they? But she doesn't give any indication of knowing this.
I tell her she looks great with either ... both ... all or none of them. Shoes, earrings, hair style, whatever. Because hers isn't merely exterior beauty. I see a quiet and gentle spirit, an inner beauty, both delicate and strong, tender and courageous. (After all, she has been married to me for 24 years -- that requires great courage and strength.) King Lemuel wrote, "An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels." (Prov 31:10) Well, I can. I have. A real beauty who is graced externally with beauty as well ... and just the right earrings and shoes, too. I don't think she knows that, either, although I often tell her.
Just a few things she doesn't know.
I love my wife ... dearly ... after 24 years of marriage and counting. She knows that, but sometimes I wonder. That's okay. I have time to continue to tell her and show her. And I intend to.
She stands there asking me "Which earrings?" or "Which shoes?" as if I know. I've told her before, but she is constantly hopeful that I've suddenly come into some sort of fashion sense. I haven't. She doesn't seem to know.
She asks, apparently unaware that I don't know hoops from dangly things or what color shoes go with what color clothes or what "appropriate dress" means. "It's after Labor Day" never meant anything to me. She doesn't know.
She stands there waiting, apparently completely oblivious to the fact that I'm not looking at earrings or shoes. I can barely see them at all. It's those eyes, that smile, the way her hair plays across her forehead. I can't see a thing beyond the woman's face that I love. Earrings? What are they? But she doesn't give any indication of knowing this.
I tell her she looks great with either ... both ... all or none of them. Shoes, earrings, hair style, whatever. Because hers isn't merely exterior beauty. I see a quiet and gentle spirit, an inner beauty, both delicate and strong, tender and courageous. (After all, she has been married to me for 24 years -- that requires great courage and strength.) King Lemuel wrote, "An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels." (Prov 31:10) Well, I can. I have. A real beauty who is graced externally with beauty as well ... and just the right earrings and shoes, too. I don't think she knows that, either, although I often tell her.
Just a few things she doesn't know.
I love my wife ... dearly ... after 24 years of marriage and counting. She knows that, but sometimes I wonder. That's okay. I have time to continue to tell her and show her. And I intend to.
Saturday, December 31, 2016
News Weakly - 12/31/2016
May the Lord bless you in the coming New Year.
According to Science
A recent study discovered that pregnancy changes a woman's brain. Apparently, for at least 2 years after giving birth, a mother's brain is altered by hormones and such that cause intensified perceptions of feelings and perspectives of others. It appears that the brain becomes streamlined, so to speak, making it more efficient at mothering skills such as nurturing, awareness, and teaching. That is, God designed the female body to, after giving birth, adapt the brain to focus on the task of being a mother. Or Chance did that. Pretty smart fellow, that Chance is. I don't think so. I think I'll chalk it up to a Creator.
The Divorce Question
Okay, somebody help me out here. You have read or heard, I'm sure, that more than 50% of all marriages end in divorce. Sad state of affairs. And we buy it without thinking. That statistic, in fact, is one of the biggest reasons given for decline in marriage rates these days. "Why marry? Most marriages end up in divorce."
And then you run into something like this. Using 2015 statistics, the chart shows marriage by age. Obviously, from 0-14 shows 100% of people have never been married. From there it starts to change. By age 31 52% have been married once. At the same age, 43% have never been married. Then it goes to 4% of 31-year-olds who have been married twice and a .22% married three times. At the end of the chart (90-years-old) it shows that less than 5% were never married, more than 75% were married once, and the remaining 20% were married two or more times.
So here's my question. If "more than 50% of all marriages end up in divorce", how is it possible that 80% of the population by age 90 have not been married more than once? Where are these large numbers of divorces coming from? I would argue that they come mostly from repeat divorces, not new marriages. So where is your "Why marry? Most marriages end up in divorce" now? It does not appear to be true.
Honor the Emperor
The Mormon Tabernacle Choir is scheduled to sing at Trump's inauguration. Well, we'll see. One member has already quit over it. Others are petitioning to stop the entire choir from singing at it.
Strange thing. My Bible says, "Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor." (1 Peter 2:17) That is particularly striking since Peter's very next thought is telling slaves to "be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust." (1 Peter 2:18) We're called to pray for those in leadership (1 Tim 2:1-2). We're supposed to be subject to them (Rom 13:1-2). I'm looking ... I'm looking ... nope! "Boycott them" and "Resist them to the end" doesn't seem to be in my Bible. I wonder what Bible the Mormons are using?
The Shocking Headline
According to the Washington Post, "2016 is over, and we’re no better morally than we were 100 years ago"
I know, I know, you're outraged. We all know better. We all know ... oh, wait ... that's news?
In 2016 we saw battles over sexism, civil rights, racism, abortion, and religious liberty. In 2016 school districts were banning books like Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird. Reports are out that real wages have been stagnant for 40 years, that life expectancy has actually declined in recent years, that suicide rates and deaths from drug overdoses are rising. Marriage has been declining. Divorce is high. An inordinately high number of people are cohabiting rather than marrying; an inordinately high percentage of children are born to single mothers. Politicians are sexting. Nope, we're not getting better.
My prayer is that in 2017 Jesus will return and ... well, I can ask, can't I? I mean, it's not like Man, sinful to the core, is going to suddenly become a gem. Even so, come Lord Jesus.
May you all have a blessed New Year. I hope, especially, that you meet Jesus in it, whether for the first time or anew, deeper, and repeatedly.
According to Science
A recent study discovered that pregnancy changes a woman's brain. Apparently, for at least 2 years after giving birth, a mother's brain is altered by hormones and such that cause intensified perceptions of feelings and perspectives of others. It appears that the brain becomes streamlined, so to speak, making it more efficient at mothering skills such as nurturing, awareness, and teaching. That is, God designed the female body to, after giving birth, adapt the brain to focus on the task of being a mother. Or Chance did that. Pretty smart fellow, that Chance is. I don't think so. I think I'll chalk it up to a Creator.
The Divorce Question
Okay, somebody help me out here. You have read or heard, I'm sure, that more than 50% of all marriages end in divorce. Sad state of affairs. And we buy it without thinking. That statistic, in fact, is one of the biggest reasons given for decline in marriage rates these days. "Why marry? Most marriages end up in divorce."
And then you run into something like this. Using 2015 statistics, the chart shows marriage by age. Obviously, from 0-14 shows 100% of people have never been married. From there it starts to change. By age 31 52% have been married once. At the same age, 43% have never been married. Then it goes to 4% of 31-year-olds who have been married twice and a .22% married three times. At the end of the chart (90-years-old) it shows that less than 5% were never married, more than 75% were married once, and the remaining 20% were married two or more times.
So here's my question. If "more than 50% of all marriages end up in divorce", how is it possible that 80% of the population by age 90 have not been married more than once? Where are these large numbers of divorces coming from? I would argue that they come mostly from repeat divorces, not new marriages. So where is your "Why marry? Most marriages end up in divorce" now? It does not appear to be true.
Honor the Emperor
The Mormon Tabernacle Choir is scheduled to sing at Trump's inauguration. Well, we'll see. One member has already quit over it. Others are petitioning to stop the entire choir from singing at it.
Strange thing. My Bible says, "Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor." (1 Peter 2:17) That is particularly striking since Peter's very next thought is telling slaves to "be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust." (1 Peter 2:18) We're called to pray for those in leadership (1 Tim 2:1-2). We're supposed to be subject to them (Rom 13:1-2). I'm looking ... I'm looking ... nope! "Boycott them" and "Resist them to the end" doesn't seem to be in my Bible. I wonder what Bible the Mormons are using?
The Shocking Headline
According to the Washington Post, "2016 is over, and we’re no better morally than we were 100 years ago"
I know, I know, you're outraged. We all know better. We all know ... oh, wait ... that's news?
In 2016 we saw battles over sexism, civil rights, racism, abortion, and religious liberty. In 2016 school districts were banning books like Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird. Reports are out that real wages have been stagnant for 40 years, that life expectancy has actually declined in recent years, that suicide rates and deaths from drug overdoses are rising. Marriage has been declining. Divorce is high. An inordinately high number of people are cohabiting rather than marrying; an inordinately high percentage of children are born to single mothers. Politicians are sexting. Nope, we're not getting better.
My prayer is that in 2017 Jesus will return and ... well, I can ask, can't I? I mean, it's not like Man, sinful to the core, is going to suddenly become a gem. Even so, come Lord Jesus.
May you all have a blessed New Year. I hope, especially, that you meet Jesus in it, whether for the first time or anew, deeper, and repeatedly.
Friday, December 30, 2016
Asking the Wrong Question
A lot of us, Christian or not, want to know what's wrong with God. Oh, no, we may not put it that way. But, whether it's the singular question that keeps someone from God or just that nagging doubt at the back of the Christian's head, lots of us struggle with this question. It takes various forms, of course. Often it's "Why do bad things happen to good people?" Sometimes it's "Why doesn't God save more people?" And there are others. They're the same question at the heart of it. Why doesn't God do something about all this bad stuff?
I once heard one teacher answer the question, "Why do bad things happen to good people?", with a simple, "They don't." Trite, sure. Preemptive, perhaps. But there is a point. Yes, bad things happen. But according to Scripture there are no good people. Jesus said it -- "No one is good except God alone." (Luke 18:19) David said it (Psa 14:3). Paul affirmed it (Rom 3:12). So, let's be more clear. Bad things -- unpleasant or some other sense of "bad" -- happen, and our complaint is that they happen to people who are not as bad (evil) as other bad people. Most accurately, our question would be "Why do unpleasant things happen to lesser sinners as well as greater?" And when we put it that way, perhaps the answer becomes more apparent.
We're asking the wrong question(s). Why would bad things happen to bad people? Because that's what should happen, given Justice. No, the better question would be "Why do bad things not happen to people?" Given that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23) -- given that God's glory has been transgressed -- and given that "Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow." (James 1:17), I'm more inclined to ask "Why?" Why, if we have so badly tarnished the good name and shining glory of our Master and Creator, does He give us one, single, solitary good thing? Paul wrestled with this in Romans 9. In discussing the objection that God isn't fair for choosing whom He will save apart from those whom He saves (Rom 9:6-19), he characterizes humans as "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" and indicates that God's purpose is to show His wrath and power (Rom 9:23). You have to wonder, then, not why God doesn't save more. You have to wonder why He saves one.
We're asking the wrong question. And, it's understandable. We are really closely allied with humans, you see. God is holy, holy, holy -- apart, other, different, not us. We are in His image, sure, but God is "not a man" (Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Job 9:32). His ways are not our ways (Isa 55:8-9). And we like best to compare ourselves among ourselves (2 Cor 10:12) because we cannot stand against God's standard of measurement. In our arrogance, then, we think God ought to be nicer to us. We're not as bad as, say, Hitler. There are lots of people worse than we are (and it doesn't seem to matter how bad we are ... there is always "worse than we are"). Why doesn't God see our great value and be nicer to us?
Wrong question. "Why does He do one kind thing to us at all?" might be better. "How astounding is it that He does so much good for us?" would be good, too. "I'm totally amazed that He would deign to choose me to save" would be a reasonable course to pursue. "God's grace is absolutely astounding" is the only possible conclusion.
I once heard one teacher answer the question, "Why do bad things happen to good people?", with a simple, "They don't." Trite, sure. Preemptive, perhaps. But there is a point. Yes, bad things happen. But according to Scripture there are no good people. Jesus said it -- "No one is good except God alone." (Luke 18:19) David said it (Psa 14:3). Paul affirmed it (Rom 3:12). So, let's be more clear. Bad things -- unpleasant or some other sense of "bad" -- happen, and our complaint is that they happen to people who are not as bad (evil) as other bad people. Most accurately, our question would be "Why do unpleasant things happen to lesser sinners as well as greater?" And when we put it that way, perhaps the answer becomes more apparent.
We're asking the wrong question(s). Why would bad things happen to bad people? Because that's what should happen, given Justice. No, the better question would be "Why do bad things not happen to people?" Given that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23) -- given that God's glory has been transgressed -- and given that "Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow." (James 1:17), I'm more inclined to ask "Why?" Why, if we have so badly tarnished the good name and shining glory of our Master and Creator, does He give us one, single, solitary good thing? Paul wrestled with this in Romans 9. In discussing the objection that God isn't fair for choosing whom He will save apart from those whom He saves (Rom 9:6-19), he characterizes humans as "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" and indicates that God's purpose is to show His wrath and power (Rom 9:23). You have to wonder, then, not why God doesn't save more. You have to wonder why He saves one.
We're asking the wrong question. And, it's understandable. We are really closely allied with humans, you see. God is holy, holy, holy -- apart, other, different, not us. We are in His image, sure, but God is "not a man" (Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Job 9:32). His ways are not our ways (Isa 55:8-9). And we like best to compare ourselves among ourselves (2 Cor 10:12) because we cannot stand against God's standard of measurement. In our arrogance, then, we think God ought to be nicer to us. We're not as bad as, say, Hitler. There are lots of people worse than we are (and it doesn't seem to matter how bad we are ... there is always "worse than we are"). Why doesn't God see our great value and be nicer to us?
Wrong question. "Why does He do one kind thing to us at all?" might be better. "How astounding is it that He does so much good for us?" would be good, too. "I'm totally amazed that He would deign to choose me to save" would be a reasonable course to pursue. "God's grace is absolutely astounding" is the only possible conclusion.
Thursday, December 29, 2016
In Defense of the Electoral College
The recent hot topic was the election of an "unpopular candidate" by a "minority" accomplished by this rickety, outdated system called "the Electoral College". It's gotta go. It isn't democratic. It's not fair! And I have to wonder.
First, what are they teaching at this college? Is it an online college, or does it have an actual campus? Is it accredited? All to be humorous, of course, but just what is this thing? So, first, a "college" may be defined as "an organized group of people with particular aims, duties, and privileges." No, this one is not part of the Big 12 or any such thing. And where does it come from? First and foremost, it is a product of the United States Constitution -- Article II, Section 1. (Thus, eliminating it would require a Constitutional amendment, not merely a change in law.) Fine, so what is it there for?
Well, as it turns out, the founders of our country were not exactly fans of democracy. Not real democracy. Not "one person, one vote" democracy. They were concerned (as are many today) about "qualified citizens". And they were deeply concerned about what Alexis de Tocqueville called "the tyranny of the majority". That is, if you could get more than 50% of the voting public to agree, you could make life miserable for the other 49% just by popular vote. So they set out a way to deter that kind of problem. They wanted more of a State-based election than a popular vote, so each State got votes. There are two for the senators and then some based on population, amounting (today) to some 538 electors. (James Madison was concerned about demagogues. If only he knew what we were going to get in our time ...) They were concerned about the Congress doing the job because they could be more easily influenced as a standing body, so the Electoral College was a gather-once-then-disband procedure. And, of course, there was the whole problem of "qualified citizens". Some of what they meant by "qualified" was in contrast with "uninformed". We still have that problem today. The Electoral College was supposed to adjust for that.
Part of the problem can be seen today in the numbers. Over 70% of Americans live in large metropolitan areas. And, generally speaking, each of these metropolitan areas these days vote the same way. Look at a state-by-state voting map. The most heavily populated states like New York and California are blue states; most of the rest are not. And that means that the 30% that don't essentially have no voice in an actual democracy.
Consider some numbers. Wyoming has an whole 586,000 residents in the entire state. The City of New York has something like 8.5 million. That's 14 votes for each person in Wyoming. Never mind, Wyoming; we don't really need to know your votes. But then, dig into these states. Look, for instance, at a voting map of New York. Turns out, geographically, that New York is a red state with the exception of New York City, Syracuse, Buffalo, and Albany. Minnesota was a blue state ... mostly just in Minneapolis. Nevada was a blue state exclusively in Las Vegas. That is, taken in terms of geographical area versus numbers of people, the country is almost exclusively Republican.
"Oh, no," you will tell me, "Hillary won the popular vote." She did. She won because California and New York voted for her. Remove California's votes (both for Trump and Hillary) and Trump would have won the national popular election by nearly 1.5 million. Take away New York, too, and Trump would have won the popular vote by more than 3 million. In other words, without the Electoral College we'd be letting California and New York decide who is our president. Do we really want them to decide?
This election saw the greatest number of "faithless electors". The term refers to people, assigned the task of representing their state in the Electoral College to vote for the person their state voted for, who do not. Prior to this election, the largest number was 2. This time it was seven. And, really, are you surprised? There was a large call in the days following the surprise election of Trump for just such a thing. They were urged to "Vote your conscience" and to switch sides from Trump to Hillary. Two did. Five switched from Hillary to Trump. Trump won with 304 votes to Hillary's 227. Without those darn faithless electors, it would have been 301 to 230. In other words, in order for this call for electors to ignore the rules and vote for Hillary to make a difference, there would have had to be 31 faithless electors that switched from Trump to Hillary (and 0 from Hillary). Of course, that would have put the outcome into the hands of the House of Representatives ... which is Republican-dominated. Not a particularly likely plan.
Maybe not. Maybe we want a democracy. Maybe we want the largest group of people to decide who our president will be. Do we also want the largest group to decide what we do about, say, gun control? Right now the numbers look like less than 50% are in favor. A poll this year said that 49% of Americans think that abortion is immoral while only 38% did not. Gallup reports that 50% think it should be legal only under certain circumstances and another 19% think under no circumstances with only 29% thinking that it should be legal under any circumstances. Shall we put it to a vote? Oh, here's one. Apparently 43% of Americans support the Black Lives Matter movement. Vote anyone? Of course, this is nonsense. I mean, this stuff changes. Sometimes it seems to turn on a dime. The majority of Americans were opposed, for instance, to "gay marriage" until the Supreme Court made it law, and almost overnight opinions changed. Shall we really run the country on popular vote?
I'm not entirely sure that we really want a democracy. In the end it boils down to "How highly do we think of people?" If we view them as basically good, then surely we want them all to decide. If we view them as basically evil, then we would want to mitigate that evil. Of course, we know which side Scripture falls on. And, of course, we know Who is the ultimate government. Just some thoughts on that question of the day.
First, what are they teaching at this college? Is it an online college, or does it have an actual campus? Is it accredited? All to be humorous, of course, but just what is this thing? So, first, a "college" may be defined as "an organized group of people with particular aims, duties, and privileges." No, this one is not part of the Big 12 or any such thing. And where does it come from? First and foremost, it is a product of the United States Constitution -- Article II, Section 1. (Thus, eliminating it would require a Constitutional amendment, not merely a change in law.) Fine, so what is it there for?
Well, as it turns out, the founders of our country were not exactly fans of democracy. Not real democracy. Not "one person, one vote" democracy. They were concerned (as are many today) about "qualified citizens". And they were deeply concerned about what Alexis de Tocqueville called "the tyranny of the majority". That is, if you could get more than 50% of the voting public to agree, you could make life miserable for the other 49% just by popular vote. So they set out a way to deter that kind of problem. They wanted more of a State-based election than a popular vote, so each State got votes. There are two for the senators and then some based on population, amounting (today) to some 538 electors. (James Madison was concerned about demagogues. If only he knew what we were going to get in our time ...) They were concerned about the Congress doing the job because they could be more easily influenced as a standing body, so the Electoral College was a gather-once-then-disband procedure. And, of course, there was the whole problem of "qualified citizens". Some of what they meant by "qualified" was in contrast with "uninformed". We still have that problem today. The Electoral College was supposed to adjust for that.
Part of the problem can be seen today in the numbers. Over 70% of Americans live in large metropolitan areas. And, generally speaking, each of these metropolitan areas these days vote the same way. Look at a state-by-state voting map. The most heavily populated states like New York and California are blue states; most of the rest are not. And that means that the 30% that don't essentially have no voice in an actual democracy.
Consider some numbers. Wyoming has an whole 586,000 residents in the entire state. The City of New York has something like 8.5 million. That's 14 votes for each person in Wyoming. Never mind, Wyoming; we don't really need to know your votes. But then, dig into these states. Look, for instance, at a voting map of New York. Turns out, geographically, that New York is a red state with the exception of New York City, Syracuse, Buffalo, and Albany. Minnesota was a blue state ... mostly just in Minneapolis. Nevada was a blue state exclusively in Las Vegas. That is, taken in terms of geographical area versus numbers of people, the country is almost exclusively Republican.
"Oh, no," you will tell me, "Hillary won the popular vote." She did. She won because California and New York voted for her. Remove California's votes (both for Trump and Hillary) and Trump would have won the national popular election by nearly 1.5 million. Take away New York, too, and Trump would have won the popular vote by more than 3 million. In other words, without the Electoral College we'd be letting California and New York decide who is our president. Do we really want them to decide?
This election saw the greatest number of "faithless electors". The term refers to people, assigned the task of representing their state in the Electoral College to vote for the person their state voted for, who do not. Prior to this election, the largest number was 2. This time it was seven. And, really, are you surprised? There was a large call in the days following the surprise election of Trump for just such a thing. They were urged to "Vote your conscience" and to switch sides from Trump to Hillary. Two did. Five switched from Hillary to Trump. Trump won with 304 votes to Hillary's 227. Without those darn faithless electors, it would have been 301 to 230. In other words, in order for this call for electors to ignore the rules and vote for Hillary to make a difference, there would have had to be 31 faithless electors that switched from Trump to Hillary (and 0 from Hillary). Of course, that would have put the outcome into the hands of the House of Representatives ... which is Republican-dominated. Not a particularly likely plan.
Maybe not. Maybe we want a democracy. Maybe we want the largest group of people to decide who our president will be. Do we also want the largest group to decide what we do about, say, gun control? Right now the numbers look like less than 50% are in favor. A poll this year said that 49% of Americans think that abortion is immoral while only 38% did not. Gallup reports that 50% think it should be legal only under certain circumstances and another 19% think under no circumstances with only 29% thinking that it should be legal under any circumstances. Shall we put it to a vote? Oh, here's one. Apparently 43% of Americans support the Black Lives Matter movement. Vote anyone? Of course, this is nonsense. I mean, this stuff changes. Sometimes it seems to turn on a dime. The majority of Americans were opposed, for instance, to "gay marriage" until the Supreme Court made it law, and almost overnight opinions changed. Shall we really run the country on popular vote?
I'm not entirely sure that we really want a democracy. In the end it boils down to "How highly do we think of people?" If we view them as basically good, then surely we want them all to decide. If we view them as basically evil, then we would want to mitigate that evil. Of course, we know which side Scripture falls on. And, of course, we know Who is the ultimate government. Just some thoughts on that question of the day.
Wednesday, December 28, 2016
Who's the Boss?
Everyone is under authority. Everyone. Well, everyone but God, I suppose. The question is what authority? What I'm considering here is what authority in matters of the faith?
I know a lot of people calling themselves Christians who are under their own authority. Their Christianity is formed by their own sense of right and wrong, their own sense of good and bad, their own sense of fair. If you say, "You know, the Bible says ..." and contradict their view, they'll look at you like you're crazy. What difference does the Bible make? Oh, sure, they don't say that ... because they're Christians, right? But that's what it comes down to. So they read their Bibles by the light of their own standards and come to their own conclusions. "This part is myth. That part is legend. Most of this section over here is metaphor -- like most of the Old Testament. You can't take this thing at face value, you know." And they serve as their own ultimate authority.
I know others who are bound to their Bibles. I will exaggerate to make the point. "It says Jesus is the door, so we believe He is an actual door, with latch and hinges." There is no room for context, for literary style, for variation. Many of these are the "KJV Only" types where it's not merely a woodenly literal version that they demand, but the King James woodenly literal version. It doesn't matter if it makes sense. It doesn't matter if it contradicts itself. It says it; that's the end of it.
I know some who are careful to follow their particular teachers. Maybe it's some Pentecostal favorite or some Word of Faith preacher. Almost always it's someone who tells them what they want to hear. Good things. Pleasant things. "God will make you healthy and wealthy." Things like that. Because it sounds so pleasant. These teachers will pull it from skewed texts and personal revelation. "God told me so." For these people their teachers are their authority. To be more clear, their appetites are their authority and their teachers feed those appetites.
All of us operate under some authority in our Christianity. Maybe it's a favorite teacher. Maybe it's what we were brought up with. A lot of people only recognize themselves as the authority. They do what seems good to them. All other authorities are subject to this highest authority. And while we all suggest our highest authority is God, I think that remains to be seen. If that teacher or that upbringing or our own preferences serve as the authority, can it really be counted as God? If my final authority is my own thinking and judgment, who is my final authority? My own thinking and judgment.
We need to be careful as believers. We have one ultimate authority -- God. He has spoken in His Word in a miraculous and unparalleled way. No skillful reasoning or special revelation or alternate authority claim can match up to the God-breathed Word (2 Tim 3:16-17). Any other authority is less. It's important that we learn to rightly handle His Word and rightly submit ourselves to His Word. He is the authority, not our history and upbringing, our teachers, or even our own clever minds. When we substitute anything for God and His Word, we substitute an idol for God.
I know a lot of people calling themselves Christians who are under their own authority. Their Christianity is formed by their own sense of right and wrong, their own sense of good and bad, their own sense of fair. If you say, "You know, the Bible says ..." and contradict their view, they'll look at you like you're crazy. What difference does the Bible make? Oh, sure, they don't say that ... because they're Christians, right? But that's what it comes down to. So they read their Bibles by the light of their own standards and come to their own conclusions. "This part is myth. That part is legend. Most of this section over here is metaphor -- like most of the Old Testament. You can't take this thing at face value, you know." And they serve as their own ultimate authority.
I know others who are bound to their Bibles. I will exaggerate to make the point. "It says Jesus is the door, so we believe He is an actual door, with latch and hinges." There is no room for context, for literary style, for variation. Many of these are the "KJV Only" types where it's not merely a woodenly literal version that they demand, but the King James woodenly literal version. It doesn't matter if it makes sense. It doesn't matter if it contradicts itself. It says it; that's the end of it.
I know some who are careful to follow their particular teachers. Maybe it's some Pentecostal favorite or some Word of Faith preacher. Almost always it's someone who tells them what they want to hear. Good things. Pleasant things. "God will make you healthy and wealthy." Things like that. Because it sounds so pleasant. These teachers will pull it from skewed texts and personal revelation. "God told me so." For these people their teachers are their authority. To be more clear, their appetites are their authority and their teachers feed those appetites.
All of us operate under some authority in our Christianity. Maybe it's a favorite teacher. Maybe it's what we were brought up with. A lot of people only recognize themselves as the authority. They do what seems good to them. All other authorities are subject to this highest authority. And while we all suggest our highest authority is God, I think that remains to be seen. If that teacher or that upbringing or our own preferences serve as the authority, can it really be counted as God? If my final authority is my own thinking and judgment, who is my final authority? My own thinking and judgment.
We need to be careful as believers. We have one ultimate authority -- God. He has spoken in His Word in a miraculous and unparalleled way. No skillful reasoning or special revelation or alternate authority claim can match up to the God-breathed Word (2 Tim 3:16-17). Any other authority is less. It's important that we learn to rightly handle His Word and rightly submit ourselves to His Word. He is the authority, not our history and upbringing, our teachers, or even our own clever minds. When we substitute anything for God and His Word, we substitute an idol for God.
Tuesday, December 27, 2016
Warfare Worldview
The problem of Theodicy is the problem of evil. If there is a Sovereign God, how can there be evil? Conversely, if there is evil, whether moral or just bad things happening, what does that say about God? Lots of people have taken lots of approaches to this from lots of angles. There is the, "See? Proof that your god doesn't exist" on one end and the "The existence of evil proves the existence of God and, oh, by the way, He intends it for His good purposes" on the other. Of course, most people are somewhere in between.
It is my conviction that most people are in between not by choice, but by lack of it. They haven't considered the ideas, arguments, and ramifications. They just prefer not to think about it. As such, they end up with a rather casual approach holding in one hand "Bad stuff happens" and in the other "God is good" without ever actually putting them together. Probably the most popular view of this middle majority is what I'll call the "warfare worldview". We're stuck in the middle of a royal battle between good and evil. We're pretty sure who will win, but it's quite a tussle getting there.
In this view Satan is bad and God is good and Satan does bad things and God goes around mopping up after him. Good enough. Leaves God off the hook. All well and good. Except it's not. I mean, it's popular, but it's not all well and good. You'll find it in books and movies and the like, even from Christians. It largely fits in with the religious views of many groups outside of Christendom. The titanic struggle of good and evil. The hitch, however, is that it doesn't fit in with the biblical claim of a Sovereign God. And if you start with that claim, the logic breaks down all down the line. As it turns out, then, this popular Warfare Worldview is not an answer, but an evasion. To the question, "Why is there evil if there is a God?", they answer "Because there is evil and there is God." Not an answer. To the question, "What does the existence of evil say about God?" they answer, "Nothing, nothing at all." If they were honest, they'd need to tack on, "He's doing the best He can." As it turns out, evil exists not by God's will, but because God has opted out of ending it once and for all and has surrendered His Sovereignty to the whims of evil. He'll pick up the mess later. And, with that, they subside into satisfied silence. The Bible says, "Our God is in the heavens; He does all that He pleases." (Psa 115:3) But apparently that's not to say that He actually does all that He pleases. Some things (like Man's Free Will) please Him more than others (like His own will), so He goes with the higher priority (Man's Free Will) and is pleased.
I don't know how to hold that contradiction in both hands and consider it good. I know how to find peace in difficult situations because God is actually in control, but finding any comfort in "Bad stuff happens and Satan wins ... a lot" is outside of my grasp. Believing that all authority is given to Christ (Matt 28:18) while affirming the authority of Satan and Man over Christ doesn't work in my head like it does in so very many others'. So this notion of a world stuck in a grand battle between good and evil -- God and Satan -- in which we're pretty sure we know who will win, but ... well, this doesn't work for me logically, emotionally, or biblically. It sells books and movies. Popular Christian authors have done it. I can't. Maybe it works for you.
It is my conviction that most people are in between not by choice, but by lack of it. They haven't considered the ideas, arguments, and ramifications. They just prefer not to think about it. As such, they end up with a rather casual approach holding in one hand "Bad stuff happens" and in the other "God is good" without ever actually putting them together. Probably the most popular view of this middle majority is what I'll call the "warfare worldview". We're stuck in the middle of a royal battle between good and evil. We're pretty sure who will win, but it's quite a tussle getting there.
In this view Satan is bad and God is good and Satan does bad things and God goes around mopping up after him. Good enough. Leaves God off the hook. All well and good. Except it's not. I mean, it's popular, but it's not all well and good. You'll find it in books and movies and the like, even from Christians. It largely fits in with the religious views of many groups outside of Christendom. The titanic struggle of good and evil. The hitch, however, is that it doesn't fit in with the biblical claim of a Sovereign God. And if you start with that claim, the logic breaks down all down the line. As it turns out, then, this popular Warfare Worldview is not an answer, but an evasion. To the question, "Why is there evil if there is a God?", they answer "Because there is evil and there is God." Not an answer. To the question, "What does the existence of evil say about God?" they answer, "Nothing, nothing at all." If they were honest, they'd need to tack on, "He's doing the best He can." As it turns out, evil exists not by God's will, but because God has opted out of ending it once and for all and has surrendered His Sovereignty to the whims of evil. He'll pick up the mess later. And, with that, they subside into satisfied silence. The Bible says, "Our God is in the heavens; He does all that He pleases." (Psa 115:3) But apparently that's not to say that He actually does all that He pleases. Some things (like Man's Free Will) please Him more than others (like His own will), so He goes with the higher priority (Man's Free Will) and is pleased.
I don't know how to hold that contradiction in both hands and consider it good. I know how to find peace in difficult situations because God is actually in control, but finding any comfort in "Bad stuff happens and Satan wins ... a lot" is outside of my grasp. Believing that all authority is given to Christ (Matt 28:18) while affirming the authority of Satan and Man over Christ doesn't work in my head like it does in so very many others'. So this notion of a world stuck in a grand battle between good and evil -- God and Satan -- in which we're pretty sure we know who will win, but ... well, this doesn't work for me logically, emotionally, or biblically. It sells books and movies. Popular Christian authors have done it. I can't. Maybe it works for you.
Monday, December 26, 2016
The Perseverance of the Saints?
Let me state at the outset that I believe the Bible teaches that anyone who is born again, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, whose sins are forgiven by the blood of Christ, and is raised to new life is saved for eternity. I don't like to use the phrase, "once saved, always saved." I think it can be misleading. It suggests that you can become saved and then live the most profligate life imaginable and it won't matter at all because you're always saved. I believe that the Bible teaches that the one who is born of God does not make a practice of sinning, that, in fact, he or she cannot make a practice of sinning (1 John 3:9). I believe that the Bible teaches that we must continue in the faith (Acts 14:22; Col 1:23) -- must work out our salvation (Phil 2:12) -- but that we do so because "it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." (Phil 2:13) That is, there are three certainties for the saved person. First, you will remain saved. Second, you must work. Scripture refers to it as "sanctification". It is the necessary result of a changed heart. Third, that work is the product of God at work in you. Therefore, it isn't by your effort but by His. In the end, then, I believe that genuine believers will persist in the faith, working until the end because God is at work, and, so, will surely be saved once that salvation has begun.
There are lots of people who argue against this. That's fine. I can't align their arguments with the Word of God. There are lots of people who argue for this and, while they are in agreement with my basic idea -- that those who belong to the Lord will remain saved until the end -- they disagree with the whole "work out your salvation" thing. That's fine. I still can't align their arguments with the Word of God. Many argue for "eternal security" with the explicit demand that there is nothing more required of us. "You know," they say, "'not of works', like the Bible says." I agree that we are not saved by works but by faith alone, but, like Martin Luther, I contend that Scripture teaches that it is faith alone but not a faith that is alone. So there are lots of arguments (by "arguments" I mean truth claims and lines of reasoning, not verbal battles, although there are lots of those, too), good and bad.
So it was interesting to me to run across a new one I hadn't considered before. Reading in Hebrews, I came across the familiar passage in Hebrews 8 about how our High Priest, Jesus, is superior to all others. The author tells that one way He is superior to other priests is that He is present with God instead of here on Earth, an immediate intermediary. As an immediate intermediary, it says that "Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant He mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises." (Heb 8:6) So there was the Old Covenant with Israel and now there is a New Covenant (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25). Then it makes this interesting observation about the Old Covenant.
Now, we understand that the new "Israel", according to Paul, includes "the children of promise" (Rom 9:6-8) -- all who come to Christ. With this "Israel" God has made a New Covenant that fixes the problem of the Old. The problem of the Old was that the ones with whom the covenant was made didn't keep it. The New fixes that fault. That is, God's New Covenant with believers includes provisions so that they will keep His covenant because He will make it so. This idea, then, includes both the eternal security of those who have been saved as well as the certainty that those who are in Christ will work. And it does so by basing the works believers do on God's provision, not their efforts.
That's not an argument I've seen before on the topic of whether or not a true believer can lose his or her salvation. That is, I don't believe it is new information; I just haven't seen it applied to that discussion before. So where am I mistaken? What have I misunderstood or misapplied? In what way have I strayed? I don't see it. Do you?
There are lots of people who argue against this. That's fine. I can't align their arguments with the Word of God. There are lots of people who argue for this and, while they are in agreement with my basic idea -- that those who belong to the Lord will remain saved until the end -- they disagree with the whole "work out your salvation" thing. That's fine. I still can't align their arguments with the Word of God. Many argue for "eternal security" with the explicit demand that there is nothing more required of us. "You know," they say, "'not of works', like the Bible says." I agree that we are not saved by works but by faith alone, but, like Martin Luther, I contend that Scripture teaches that it is faith alone but not a faith that is alone. So there are lots of arguments (by "arguments" I mean truth claims and lines of reasoning, not verbal battles, although there are lots of those, too), good and bad.
So it was interesting to me to run across a new one I hadn't considered before. Reading in Hebrews, I came across the familiar passage in Hebrews 8 about how our High Priest, Jesus, is superior to all others. The author tells that one way He is superior to other priests is that He is present with God instead of here on Earth, an immediate intermediary. As an immediate intermediary, it says that "Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant He mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises." (Heb 8:6) So there was the Old Covenant with Israel and now there is a New Covenant (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25). Then it makes this interesting observation about the Old Covenant.
For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. (Heb 8:7)Okay, now, hold on. That first covenant was instituted by God. Is the author of Hebrews saying that the covenant instituted by God was faulty? Yes, he is. So in what way was that first covenant faulty?
For He finds fault with them when He says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in My covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord." (Heb 8:8-9)Oh, now, see? That makes sense. The fault was not with God or His covenant. It was with the "other party". The fault with the Old Covenant was that they did not continue in it. Thus, in order to correct this fault, the author of Hebrews is claiming, God has made a New Covenant. What is the New Covenant?
"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the Lord: "I will put My laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." (Heb 8:10-12)So, here is the situation. There was an Old Covenant that was great, except that Israel didn't keep their side of it. In order to remedy that, God has made a New Covenant that solves the problem of the failure to keep it. In this New Covenant, God puts His laws into their minds and hearts and they don't merely know of Him; they know Him. In return, He is merciful and sets aside their sins.
Now, we understand that the new "Israel", according to Paul, includes "the children of promise" (Rom 9:6-8) -- all who come to Christ. With this "Israel" God has made a New Covenant that fixes the problem of the Old. The problem of the Old was that the ones with whom the covenant was made didn't keep it. The New fixes that fault. That is, God's New Covenant with believers includes provisions so that they will keep His covenant because He will make it so. This idea, then, includes both the eternal security of those who have been saved as well as the certainty that those who are in Christ will work. And it does so by basing the works believers do on God's provision, not their efforts.
That's not an argument I've seen before on the topic of whether or not a true believer can lose his or her salvation. That is, I don't believe it is new information; I just haven't seen it applied to that discussion before. So where am I mistaken? What have I misunderstood or misapplied? In what way have I strayed? I don't see it. Do you?
Sunday, December 25, 2016
The Christmas Story - A Compilation
I compiled this years ago. It's the Christmas story the way I like to tell it. I've posted it before. I'm offering it again. And ... may you and your family and friends celebrate with great joy the Incarnation of the Son of God sent to save us from our sin!
________________________
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth1. And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good2. But all of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way3. There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one.4 All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God5. The wages of sin is death6.
But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us7, sent His Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins8.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men9. Although He existed in the form of God, He did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men10. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth11. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God12.
Unto us a child is born; unto us a son is given; and the government will rest on His shoulders; and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace13.
And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn14.
________
________________________
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth1. And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good2. But all of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way3. There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one.4 All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God5. The wages of sin is death6.
But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us7, sent His Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins8.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men9. Although He existed in the form of God, He did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men10. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth11. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God12.
Unto us a child is born; unto us a son is given; and the government will rest on His shoulders; and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace13.
And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn14.
________
Saturday, December 24, 2016
What Child Is This?
Hey, it's Christmas Eve! Did you actually expect a "News Weakly" today?
________
The Bible tells us that Christ was "tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." (Heb 4:15) What was that like? What was it like to have a baby that was not "speaking lies from birth." (Psa 58:3) Imagine a child who continually practiced a love for God and a love for His neighbors. Humans as a race are sinners from birth; Jesus was not. What would that have been like to be the parents of this child?
We don't know what happened to Joseph. We don't know much of what Jesus did between His birth and His ministry. What was it like for Joseph? He was asked by God to be the dad for this child. And he did it. He taught Him God's Word. He took Him to "church". He probably taught Him carpentry. But the time that Jesus scared them by asking questions in the synagogue and missing the return trip home, He told His earthly dad, "Why were you looking for Me? Did you not know that I must be in My Father's house?" (Luke 2:49) How did Joseph deal with that in his own head?
We aren't given any insights into His early years, except that He "increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man." (Luke 2:52) We know that she "treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart." (Luke 2:19) We know that at one point she came with His brothers to "seize Him" because they thought He was out of His mind (Mark 3:21). He said, "Whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother." (Matt 12:50) When she asked her Son to provide wine at a wedding, He almost rebuked her. "Woman, what does this have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come." (John 2:4) But He did as she asked. We don't know how Mary felt about any of this. We know that she was at His crucifixion. What was she thinking there as her son was dying, this "Son of the Most High" whose kingdom was to be without end and who would save His people from their sins? Mary didn't dream this up. This was straight from the lips of the Archangel, Gabriel. What was she to think?
I wonder, sometimes, what a shock to the system Jesus must have been. I can truly imagine, for much of His growing up with brothers and sisters and all, Mary had to ask at times, "What child is this?" Because this was not a normal child. And we are so grateful that this is so.
________
Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And coming in, he said to her, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you." But she was very perplexed at this statement, and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was. The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end." (Luke 1:26-33)Picture that moment. They're in Bethlehem wherever that manger was in which they laid Him when He was born. Jesus has just come into this world, just taken His first breath, with His earthly mom and dad. Both of these people know Who this is. He is "the Son of the Most High." "His kingdom will have no end." His name is Jesus because "He will save His people from their sins." He was conceived "of the Holy Spirit". There, in their arms, with freshly cut umbilical cord and being wrapped in swaddling clothes, what goes through Joseph and Mary's minds? They're in the presence of the Son of the Most High. What do they do? What do they think? What do they feel? I can't imagine.
But when [Joseph] had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." (Matt 1:20-21)
The Bible tells us that Christ was "tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." (Heb 4:15) What was that like? What was it like to have a baby that was not "speaking lies from birth." (Psa 58:3) Imagine a child who continually practiced a love for God and a love for His neighbors. Humans as a race are sinners from birth; Jesus was not. What would that have been like to be the parents of this child?
We don't know what happened to Joseph. We don't know much of what Jesus did between His birth and His ministry. What was it like for Joseph? He was asked by God to be the dad for this child. And he did it. He taught Him God's Word. He took Him to "church". He probably taught Him carpentry. But the time that Jesus scared them by asking questions in the synagogue and missing the return trip home, He told His earthly dad, "Why were you looking for Me? Did you not know that I must be in My Father's house?" (Luke 2:49) How did Joseph deal with that in his own head?
We aren't given any insights into His early years, except that He "increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man." (Luke 2:52) We know that she "treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart." (Luke 2:19) We know that at one point she came with His brothers to "seize Him" because they thought He was out of His mind (Mark 3:21). He said, "Whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother." (Matt 12:50) When she asked her Son to provide wine at a wedding, He almost rebuked her. "Woman, what does this have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come." (John 2:4) But He did as she asked. We don't know how Mary felt about any of this. We know that she was at His crucifixion. What was she thinking there as her son was dying, this "Son of the Most High" whose kingdom was to be without end and who would save His people from their sins? Mary didn't dream this up. This was straight from the lips of the Archangel, Gabriel. What was she to think?
I wonder, sometimes, what a shock to the system Jesus must have been. I can truly imagine, for much of His growing up with brothers and sisters and all, Mary had to ask at times, "What child is this?" Because this was not a normal child. And we are so grateful that this is so.
Friday, December 23, 2016
So This Is Christmas
In 2005 there was a Christian Christmas firestorm (and again in 2011). What brought about this maelstrom? Christmas had the audacity to fall on a Sunday. The dilemma, of course, was what to do? Many churches were backing off -- "Only one combined service today" -- or closing entirely "in honor of Christmas". "We need to be sensitive to our staff and volunteers so they can be with their families on Christmas." Seems odd, given the apparently large numbers of what I like to refer to as "Chreaster Christians", those folk that consider themselves Christians because they dutifully attend on Christmas and Easter. The truth is Christmas services are among the most attended Sundays of the year. Just not when it is actually Christmas Day. Others howled. "How can you close the doors (a lot or a little) on Jesus's birthday?!"
Welcome to 2016. It's doing it again.
Churches are offering different options this year. Maybe it's a heavy focus on Christmas Eve services. Maybe a pre-recorded online service at your leisure. And, of course, a good number are taking a quick, single-service approach. You know, so they don't mess up the real Christmas -- family and opening gifts.
In earlier times I might have been animated about this. Not so much now. Sanders did too well in the primaries. Hillary looked like a shoe-in. Trump was elected. First World nations are more secularized than ever. So are their churches. The new "Evangelicalism" bears no resemblance to ... you know ... Evangelicalism. Oh, and my Bible says that "in the last days" this is how things will go. It won't be pretty. When Jesus asked, "When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?" (Luke 18:8), the answer was surely "Yes" with the clear caveat that it won't be a large number. It used to be that Christians called Sunday "the Lord's Day" and regarded it as the "Christian Sabbath" -- a mandatory day of rest and a day in which every Christian was sure to be in church. Well, we've thrown most of that out now. Show up if you want on any given Sunday. Or not. Whatever. Today's Christian sees church as a more personal experience, not "the communion of the saints".
So, when we see that churches would much rather defend the tradition of being with family opening gifts on Christmas than the tradition of worshiping Christ with His followers on the celebration of His birth, it should come as no surprise. I am not complaining. I'm merely suggesting that each of us ought to examine our own hearts in the matter. Is it more important to open gifts or to give the gift of worship (Rom 12:1) to the One whose birthday we're recognizing? Is it more important to be with family (Luke 14:26) or to be with the family of God on such a day? I'm not saying that gifts or family are bad things. I'm just asking you to consider what is your higher calling. Just a Christmas 2016 priority check. You're welcome.
Welcome to 2016. It's doing it again.
Churches are offering different options this year. Maybe it's a heavy focus on Christmas Eve services. Maybe a pre-recorded online service at your leisure. And, of course, a good number are taking a quick, single-service approach. You know, so they don't mess up the real Christmas -- family and opening gifts.
In earlier times I might have been animated about this. Not so much now. Sanders did too well in the primaries. Hillary looked like a shoe-in. Trump was elected. First World nations are more secularized than ever. So are their churches. The new "Evangelicalism" bears no resemblance to ... you know ... Evangelicalism. Oh, and my Bible says that "in the last days" this is how things will go. It won't be pretty. When Jesus asked, "When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?" (Luke 18:8), the answer was surely "Yes" with the clear caveat that it won't be a large number. It used to be that Christians called Sunday "the Lord's Day" and regarded it as the "Christian Sabbath" -- a mandatory day of rest and a day in which every Christian was sure to be in church. Well, we've thrown most of that out now. Show up if you want on any given Sunday. Or not. Whatever. Today's Christian sees church as a more personal experience, not "the communion of the saints".
So, when we see that churches would much rather defend the tradition of being with family opening gifts on Christmas than the tradition of worshiping Christ with His followers on the celebration of His birth, it should come as no surprise. I am not complaining. I'm merely suggesting that each of us ought to examine our own hearts in the matter. Is it more important to open gifts or to give the gift of worship (Rom 12:1) to the One whose birthday we're recognizing? Is it more important to be with family (Luke 14:26) or to be with the family of God on such a day? I'm not saying that gifts or family are bad things. I'm just asking you to consider what is your higher calling. Just a Christmas 2016 priority check. You're welcome.
Thursday, December 22, 2016
For My Daughter
This is for my daughter whose birthday is Christmas Day and for all the rest of you who share the same fate ...
Wednesday, December 21, 2016
Essential Virginity
One of the most hotly-contested biblical concepts today (and by "today" I include "at this time of year") is the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. We hold that Jesus was born of a virgin (Isa 7:14; Luke 1:27), that He had no earthly father but was produced by the Holy Spirit (Matt 1:20; Luke 1:35) impregnating Mary who had "never known a man" (Luke 1:34). This, of course, is outside of the realm of "normal". I mean, no human being actually comes into being that way. Ergo, clearly, the story is not true. And, look, it is certainly tradition, but can't we just all agree to disagree on this one? Does it really matter in the overall scheme of Christianity? One of the primary schisms between conservative Christianity and liberal Christianity was specifically this point -- the Virgin Birth. But is it really that important?
First, let's keep the question clear. We're talking about virgin conception, not anything beyond that. "Virgin Birth" is a bit misleading in that regard. Second, we're not talking about either the "Immaculate Conception" -- the claim that Mary was sinless, tacitly impossible since she referred to Jesus as her "Savior" (Luke 1:47) -- or the perpetual virginity of Mary, a second Roman Catholic (but not biblical) doctrine. Neither is in view here. Just whether or not Jesus was born of a woman who had never had sexual relations with anyone, but was fathered by God. Just that far.
Detractors (starting from the position of denying miracles because if miracles are possible, there is no problem with this one), argue that "virgin" (Isa 7:14; Matt 1:23) should be translated "maiden" and that all that "virgin" stuff isn't necessary. The fact that "maiden" referred to an unmarried woman who was expected to be a virgin is irrelevant. Clearly the disciples simply worked in a "virgin birth" because that was so popular at the time among the followers of pagan deities and, hey, if they can have a god of virgin birth, we can, too. Never mind that the whole Mithras connection is a fabrication. Still, can't we just get along? How important is this Virgin Birth thing?
It is, as it turns out, not peripheral. It is essential.
1. The Bible teaches it. Included in that, the authors of the Gospels believed it. Beyond and because of this, the Church has always believed it. Never, prior to the Enlightenment, was there a question regarding that particular claim of Scripture. Thus, if there was no Virgin Birth, then the Bible is not reliable and the Holy Spirit failed to lead His own into all truth until the 19th century or so.
2. The Virgin Birth is necessary for our understanding of Christ. First, it is only in this Divine-Father-and-human-mother scenario that we can get to the biblical identity of Christ as both human and divine. If He was the product of human father and mother, He was only human. Second, the Virgin Birth is essential to explain how Christ did not inherit the sin nature. Scripture teaches that He "in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." (Heb 4:15) No other human can make that claim because all other humans are born with a sin nature (Rom 5:12; Psa 51:5).
Consider the alternative. Yes, Scripture refers to the Virgin Birth, but let's say it never happened. As it turns out, then, Mary was a ... sexually immoral woman, either with Joseph or another man. Jesus was born out of wedlock and the Pharisees' accusation of Him being an illegitimate child (John 8:41) was valid. Jesus was a product of sin, complete with a sin nature. If He managed to live out a sinless life, then it is a distinct possibility than any other person could do the same. However, that "if" would be a massive one and we'd likely have to actually rule it out because 1) no one else has ever done it and 2) the Bible says it can't happen. Well, now, we're starting to run into real problems here. Apparently the Bible is not reliable. After all, it claims the Virgin Birth and, yet, we've ruled it out. The Bible says that Jesus was sinless but that's not likely, either. And, oh, by the way, if He was not sinless, He is also ruled out as ... wait for it ... Savior (Heb 7:27). So, if the Virgin Birth is a myth, we have a failed Holy Spirit who could not lead us into all truth for thousands of years, an unreliable "Word of God", and, ultimately, a non-Savior.
Given the impact if the Virgin Birth is a lie, it is not a side issue. Jesus's divinity, His sinlessness, His ability to save, and the reliability of both the Bible and the Holy Spirit all hinge on this point. That makes it a fundamental issue.
First, let's keep the question clear. We're talking about virgin conception, not anything beyond that. "Virgin Birth" is a bit misleading in that regard. Second, we're not talking about either the "Immaculate Conception" -- the claim that Mary was sinless, tacitly impossible since she referred to Jesus as her "Savior" (Luke 1:47) -- or the perpetual virginity of Mary, a second Roman Catholic (but not biblical) doctrine. Neither is in view here. Just whether or not Jesus was born of a woman who had never had sexual relations with anyone, but was fathered by God. Just that far.
Detractors (starting from the position of denying miracles because if miracles are possible, there is no problem with this one), argue that "virgin" (Isa 7:14; Matt 1:23) should be translated "maiden" and that all that "virgin" stuff isn't necessary. The fact that "maiden" referred to an unmarried woman who was expected to be a virgin is irrelevant. Clearly the disciples simply worked in a "virgin birth" because that was so popular at the time among the followers of pagan deities and, hey, if they can have a god of virgin birth, we can, too. Never mind that the whole Mithras connection is a fabrication. Still, can't we just get along? How important is this Virgin Birth thing?
It is, as it turns out, not peripheral. It is essential.
1. The Bible teaches it. Included in that, the authors of the Gospels believed it. Beyond and because of this, the Church has always believed it. Never, prior to the Enlightenment, was there a question regarding that particular claim of Scripture. Thus, if there was no Virgin Birth, then the Bible is not reliable and the Holy Spirit failed to lead His own into all truth until the 19th century or so.
2. The Virgin Birth is necessary for our understanding of Christ. First, it is only in this Divine-Father-and-human-mother scenario that we can get to the biblical identity of Christ as both human and divine. If He was the product of human father and mother, He was only human. Second, the Virgin Birth is essential to explain how Christ did not inherit the sin nature. Scripture teaches that He "in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." (Heb 4:15) No other human can make that claim because all other humans are born with a sin nature (Rom 5:12; Psa 51:5).
Consider the alternative. Yes, Scripture refers to the Virgin Birth, but let's say it never happened. As it turns out, then, Mary was a ... sexually immoral woman, either with Joseph or another man. Jesus was born out of wedlock and the Pharisees' accusation of Him being an illegitimate child (John 8:41) was valid. Jesus was a product of sin, complete with a sin nature. If He managed to live out a sinless life, then it is a distinct possibility than any other person could do the same. However, that "if" would be a massive one and we'd likely have to actually rule it out because 1) no one else has ever done it and 2) the Bible says it can't happen. Well, now, we're starting to run into real problems here. Apparently the Bible is not reliable. After all, it claims the Virgin Birth and, yet, we've ruled it out. The Bible says that Jesus was sinless but that's not likely, either. And, oh, by the way, if He was not sinless, He is also ruled out as ... wait for it ... Savior (Heb 7:27). So, if the Virgin Birth is a myth, we have a failed Holy Spirit who could not lead us into all truth for thousands of years, an unreliable "Word of God", and, ultimately, a non-Savior.
Given the impact if the Virgin Birth is a lie, it is not a side issue. Jesus's divinity, His sinlessness, His ability to save, and the reliability of both the Bible and the Holy Spirit all hinge on this point. That makes it a fundamental issue.
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
That's (Not) Christmas to Me
Most people can tell you what "Christmas is to me." Funny thing. A lot of what Christmas is to a lot of people is not Christmas to me. But, then, I am a bit of a curmudgeon at times.
We know, for instance, that Joseph was much older than Mary when he married her, but the kind old man walked to Bethlehem while he let his wife ride the donkey. Of course, the idea that Joseph was older comes from extrabiblical writings that supported the Roman Catholic "perpetual virginity" of Mary. You won't find a hint of it in Scripture. And, if you look, you also won't find that donkey she rode. That's not Christmas to me.
We know plainly about the three kings or wise men that rode camels into Jerusalem, inquired about the newborn king, then found the newborn in the manger and worshiped with the shepherds. Hey, we even know those guys' names. There was Melchior, a Persian scholar, Caspar, from India, Balthazar, a Babylonian scholar. In fact, we have confirmation written into Lew Wallace's Ben-Hur: A Tale of Christ (1880). There you have it. Everyone knows it. Except, as it turns out, it's not in your Bible. Oh, sure, wise men (or magi or kings, depending on the translation) road into Jerusalem, asked about the new king, and visited Jesus in Bethlehem, but that's all that actually comes from your Bible. No manger. No mention of three. No names or origins. No, the "three" comes from the number gifts given, even though 4 of them could have given gold, 6 others frankincense, and another 2 myrrh (pulling numbers out of the air for effect). And the rest of it comes from other Roman Catholic apocryphal writings. Scripture, in fact, indicates that they traveled a long time and went not to a stable, but a house (Matt 2:11). And, if you recall, Herod ordered the deaths of all male children under the age of 2, a quite unnecessary thing to do if, after diligently inquiring when they saw the star (Matt 2:7), Herod knew He was only just born. Killing all 1-year-olds would have been overkill (to make a bad pun). I include the wise men in my Christmas, but have no love for the "three", their names, or their origins. (In fact, I personally greatly doubt that they were as scattered as the tradition holds.)
Oh, and then there are those angels. We love those angels. Imagine the choir that serenaded those poor frightened shepherds with the "good tidings of great joy." Many a Christmas song has been written to mimic their singing. Except, of course, the Bible doesn't say they sang. The Bible says "And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, 'Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.'" (Luke 2:13-14) Now, maybe they sang it and maybe they didn't, and maybe Christmas to you requires that they did, but that's not Christmas to me. What they said was what was important.
There is so much more. For some it's snow, of all things. Then there is the lights, the gift exchange (or just given), the trees and decorations, the annual neighborhood competition of who can put up the most brilliant display and the disdain of those who don't play, the Christmas songs blaring from every speaker in every store and beyond ... these are Christmas. Just not to me.
My point is not to be negative. My point is not to knock Christmas. My point is that the traditions of Christmas are not the point; Christ is. We often get so wrapped up in wrappings and tied up in tinsel that we miss the real thing. While we're thinking of gifts and lights we're missing the Gift, the Light of the world (John 8:12). The Christmas story is one of God's gift of His Son to whomever believes in Him and shall not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:16). Everything else is just ... glitter -- not gold, not even valuable, just shiny. Not Christmas to me.
We know, for instance, that Joseph was much older than Mary when he married her, but the kind old man walked to Bethlehem while he let his wife ride the donkey. Of course, the idea that Joseph was older comes from extrabiblical writings that supported the Roman Catholic "perpetual virginity" of Mary. You won't find a hint of it in Scripture. And, if you look, you also won't find that donkey she rode. That's not Christmas to me.
We know plainly about the three kings or wise men that rode camels into Jerusalem, inquired about the newborn king, then found the newborn in the manger and worshiped with the shepherds. Hey, we even know those guys' names. There was Melchior, a Persian scholar, Caspar, from India, Balthazar, a Babylonian scholar. In fact, we have confirmation written into Lew Wallace's Ben-Hur: A Tale of Christ (1880). There you have it. Everyone knows it. Except, as it turns out, it's not in your Bible. Oh, sure, wise men (or magi or kings, depending on the translation) road into Jerusalem, asked about the new king, and visited Jesus in Bethlehem, but that's all that actually comes from your Bible. No manger. No mention of three. No names or origins. No, the "three" comes from the number gifts given, even though 4 of them could have given gold, 6 others frankincense, and another 2 myrrh (pulling numbers out of the air for effect). And the rest of it comes from other Roman Catholic apocryphal writings. Scripture, in fact, indicates that they traveled a long time and went not to a stable, but a house (Matt 2:11). And, if you recall, Herod ordered the deaths of all male children under the age of 2, a quite unnecessary thing to do if, after diligently inquiring when they saw the star (Matt 2:7), Herod knew He was only just born. Killing all 1-year-olds would have been overkill (to make a bad pun). I include the wise men in my Christmas, but have no love for the "three", their names, or their origins. (In fact, I personally greatly doubt that they were as scattered as the tradition holds.)
Oh, and then there are those angels. We love those angels. Imagine the choir that serenaded those poor frightened shepherds with the "good tidings of great joy." Many a Christmas song has been written to mimic their singing. Except, of course, the Bible doesn't say they sang. The Bible says "And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, 'Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.'" (Luke 2:13-14) Now, maybe they sang it and maybe they didn't, and maybe Christmas to you requires that they did, but that's not Christmas to me. What they said was what was important.
There is so much more. For some it's snow, of all things. Then there is the lights, the gift exchange (or just given), the trees and decorations, the annual neighborhood competition of who can put up the most brilliant display and the disdain of those who don't play, the Christmas songs blaring from every speaker in every store and beyond ... these are Christmas. Just not to me.
My point is not to be negative. My point is not to knock Christmas. My point is that the traditions of Christmas are not the point; Christ is. We often get so wrapped up in wrappings and tied up in tinsel that we miss the real thing. While we're thinking of gifts and lights we're missing the Gift, the Light of the world (John 8:12). The Christmas story is one of God's gift of His Son to whomever believes in Him and shall not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:16). Everything else is just ... glitter -- not gold, not even valuable, just shiny. Not Christmas to me.
Monday, December 19, 2016
The Road Less Traveled
There is a wide range of information you can find at your local church. Some churches are really good at "working the crowd", so to speak. They know how to whip up the good feelings. Not much actual biblical truth going on, but people sure feel good about that church. Others offer increasingly more. There are the topical preachers that give some biblical insight on everyday topics and the expository preachers that preach through biblical texts and then there are Bible preachers that really dig in deep. A range of stuff.
It seems, however, that no matter how wide that range seems to be, there are still some roads less traveled, so to speak. Why do you suppose it is that in even good churches with good preachers and teachers some of these things don't seem to be very hot topics?
Take, for instance, marriage. We get a smattering of marriage messages. You might even find a "young marrieds" group. But the predominance of dysfunctional marriages suggests that we're not getting that message out. I mean, there are separations and divorces among believers. There is a host of misinformation and lies offered in churches. Some husbands are overbearing, even abusing authoritarians that use (read "misuse") the Bible to beat their wives over the head with "submit" and more, all the while ignoring "love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her." Perhaps more husbands are the opposite, passive, mealy-mouthed, quiet, "go along to get along" types who fail to take the responsibilities God gave them for wife and kids. In my experience, the gap between these two is large in principle and operation, but very sparsely populated by actual husbands. I can find lots of examples on both ends, but very few genuinely godly, biblical husbands.
How about wives? They are taught by some to "submit under every circumstance" and told that if there are marriage problems they are all their fault. They didn't submit enough. Do what he wants! Or they are taught some version of "look out for #1" where the #1 in view is themselves, their dreams, their feelings, their personal desires. Very few women, either pre-marriage or in marriage, are actually taught about biblical marriage. It seems like most of what's being offered in churches is lies from some chauvinistic, sexist patriarchy (as opposed to actual, biblical patriarchy), the world's warm, embracing "don't let anyone get in the way of your dream" ... even if it means violating biblical commands, or a vapid silence punctuated from time to time with vague suggestions about womanhood and wifery. (I made that last word up; you know what I'm talking about.)
What about parenting? This is so absent from most churches these days. Why would I say that? Because most churches have children in them and most of those children would disqualify their parents from being elders (1 Tim 3:4; Titus 1:6). I know of churches where a mother or a father is serving in roles like "Head of Children's Ministries" with kids who are out of control in the children's ministry. There is no instruction about raising kids, teaching kids, responsibility for kids, loving kids. It's like these churches take a "hands off" approach to teaching biblical parenting. Too controversial, perhaps? Won't be appreciated or well received? Undoubtedly.
In fact, it seems like many of these "roads less traveled" are in that category. They won't be well received or appreciated. Men don't want to be held accountable to either surrender self and love their wives or to step up to their God-given responsibilities to love and lead their wives and children. Women do not want to hear "submit to your husbands as to the Lord" or anything approaching it. "Me? Submit to him? He doesn't know enough to come in out of the rain!" Parents really don't want to hear that they are held responsible by God to teach and train their children in a world where "Be you kids' best friend" is the rule of the day. It's true, in fact, of the others of these types of issues. We don't really want to hear teaching and preaching on giving, sexual sin, submission to government, or even discipleship. We seem to largely ignore areas like qualifications of elders/bishops/overseers or deacons, prohibitions of women teaching in authority over men, and other "unfriendly" biblical positions. Lots of roads down which we don't want to go and too many churches oblige.
On the other hand, these seem to be both entirely relevant and fairly central in Scripture. And this is problematic. If the command is to "teach them to obey all that I have commanded" (Matt 28:20) and we demur on key points and important issues of the day, should we, as churches and Christians, consider ourselves as being obedient? I don't see how we can. Is it because we have not been taught to obey all that He commands? Possibly. But if we intend to reasonably claim to love Jesus, we will need to keep in mind Jesus's words: "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." (John 14:15) Hopefully that doesn't fall under the "road less traveled" category, too.
It seems, however, that no matter how wide that range seems to be, there are still some roads less traveled, so to speak. Why do you suppose it is that in even good churches with good preachers and teachers some of these things don't seem to be very hot topics?
Take, for instance, marriage. We get a smattering of marriage messages. You might even find a "young marrieds" group. But the predominance of dysfunctional marriages suggests that we're not getting that message out. I mean, there are separations and divorces among believers. There is a host of misinformation and lies offered in churches. Some husbands are overbearing, even abusing authoritarians that use (read "misuse") the Bible to beat their wives over the head with "submit" and more, all the while ignoring "love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her." Perhaps more husbands are the opposite, passive, mealy-mouthed, quiet, "go along to get along" types who fail to take the responsibilities God gave them for wife and kids. In my experience, the gap between these two is large in principle and operation, but very sparsely populated by actual husbands. I can find lots of examples on both ends, but very few genuinely godly, biblical husbands.
How about wives? They are taught by some to "submit under every circumstance" and told that if there are marriage problems they are all their fault. They didn't submit enough. Do what he wants! Or they are taught some version of "look out for #1" where the #1 in view is themselves, their dreams, their feelings, their personal desires. Very few women, either pre-marriage or in marriage, are actually taught about biblical marriage. It seems like most of what's being offered in churches is lies from some chauvinistic, sexist patriarchy (as opposed to actual, biblical patriarchy), the world's warm, embracing "don't let anyone get in the way of your dream" ... even if it means violating biblical commands, or a vapid silence punctuated from time to time with vague suggestions about womanhood and wifery. (I made that last word up; you know what I'm talking about.)
What about parenting? This is so absent from most churches these days. Why would I say that? Because most churches have children in them and most of those children would disqualify their parents from being elders (1 Tim 3:4; Titus 1:6). I know of churches where a mother or a father is serving in roles like "Head of Children's Ministries" with kids who are out of control in the children's ministry. There is no instruction about raising kids, teaching kids, responsibility for kids, loving kids. It's like these churches take a "hands off" approach to teaching biblical parenting. Too controversial, perhaps? Won't be appreciated or well received? Undoubtedly.
In fact, it seems like many of these "roads less traveled" are in that category. They won't be well received or appreciated. Men don't want to be held accountable to either surrender self and love their wives or to step up to their God-given responsibilities to love and lead their wives and children. Women do not want to hear "submit to your husbands as to the Lord" or anything approaching it. "Me? Submit to him? He doesn't know enough to come in out of the rain!" Parents really don't want to hear that they are held responsible by God to teach and train their children in a world where "Be you kids' best friend" is the rule of the day. It's true, in fact, of the others of these types of issues. We don't really want to hear teaching and preaching on giving, sexual sin, submission to government, or even discipleship. We seem to largely ignore areas like qualifications of elders/bishops/overseers or deacons, prohibitions of women teaching in authority over men, and other "unfriendly" biblical positions. Lots of roads down which we don't want to go and too many churches oblige.
On the other hand, these seem to be both entirely relevant and fairly central in Scripture. And this is problematic. If the command is to "teach them to obey all that I have commanded" (Matt 28:20) and we demur on key points and important issues of the day, should we, as churches and Christians, consider ourselves as being obedient? I don't see how we can. Is it because we have not been taught to obey all that He commands? Possibly. But if we intend to reasonably claim to love Jesus, we will need to keep in mind Jesus's words: "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." (John 14:15) Hopefully that doesn't fall under the "road less traveled" category, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)