See Connett's Thoughts

Food for Thought

2011-05-28T18:57:00.001-04:00

Before I actually get into typing up this blog post, I wanted to say "Thank you" to my dear brother, Cody Kelton. He gave me permission to use a question he posted on Facebook in this post. There are not enough kind words in the English language to express my feelings for him, so I want to simply say, "Thank you, Cody. I love you."

And now, on to the post:

Cody wrote: "It appears that God says [the Hebrews] can eat any animal they want, and then later He appears to change His mind and tells them they cannot, in fact, eat all of those animals... So what does this mean?"

Cody wrote a much longer post than this, and I have removed these two sentences from the concluding section of a passage that was several paragraphs in length, so there is some material missing from the overall thought that went into this point. In way of paraphrasing, the actual point was that at the flood you have eight people and a bunch of animals in an ark. God tells Noah how many of each animal to save, the Bible making clear that this is a distinction between the clean and the unclean (God tells Noah save seven pairs of everything clean but only one pair of everything unclean). After the flood God changes the food law, allowing men to eat animals as well as plants (prior to that God said man could eat every green thing) and thus sets us a system where all food is permitted. But, then later, God restricts what the Hebrew people could eat. So from this comes the above question.

I already wrote a brief response to Cody (so if you are one of his or my Facebook friends and have already read that post, you have my apologies, some of this will be repetitious), but I would like to write a more developed response because his question got me thinking about the whole issue of the food laws and how modern Christians should regard to those laws. My views on the matter are not cutting edge or new, and I'm not going to tell people to empty all the bacon out of the fridge, but I think there are some theological and Christological implications in the food laws that are worth considering. On the whole I think that the food laws point to the greatness of God's grace, they set up a system whereby men might understand their uncleanness before God, and they served as a very real divider between the people of God and those outside of his covenants. If all of these points are understood, and if we can see that Scripture indicates these points are correct, then we are drawn to the redemption offered by Christ as he is the door by which we enter into the grace of God, the one who cleanses us from all unrighteousness, and the one who joins us as a people and reconciles us to God.

I think the following passages of Scripture are relevant to this study: Genesis 9:3-6, Leviticus 1:3, 10; 11 (focusing on verses 24, 27, 36, 39, 43, 44-47), Numbers 23:19, Malachi 3:6, Mark 7:19, Acts 10, Romans 7:7-10 (8-25 is good also, but 7-10 is the focus), Galatians 2:11-21; 3:19-26, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, and James 1:17. There are probably other verses that we could include in this list, but the argument I want to follow touches on all of these verses, and so with these I hope I can lay out my point sufficiently. Some of these verses I use only to illustrate the same point from multiple writers, so as to make that point (hopefully) clearer. (We could, along with these verses bring in 1 Corinthians 8 and go even further in examining how the Christian should react to food in general.)

Where do we begin then? Well, we can begin with what Cody stated he already knew at the intro to his letter: God does not change his mind. We see this in Numbers 23:19, Malachi 3:6, and James 1:17. Each of these verses is clear, God does not change his mind. What he has stated is true, and will be true. We could add to this other verses, such as Hebrews 13:8, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." The point being that while Scripture says that God is grieved over a thing, or that God relents, or we see an instance where God says one thing, but then says because of an act of faith he will not actually do what he has said, we are also told, in no uncertain terms, that God does not change his mind. Thus, if all of Scripture is true, we are left with situations that require us to exercise some additional thought, so that we can see how it can be that God has remained consistent when he gives changing requirements or does not bring about a promised judgment. So then, how can it be that God has not changed his mind in regards to the human diet, but we see at least 3 different dietary commands in the Bible? And what does all of this have to do with Christ?

Here we need to begin with understanding the purpose of the law. We see in Leviticus 11:44-47 that the purpose of the food laws is to mark the Israelites as holy. Holiness means that which is separate, that which is set apart. In terms of human holiness we understand this as meaning that we are set apart to and for God. When we speak of God's holiness it is an expression of his uniqueness, his transcendence over all of creation. He is more holy than anything else, better, above, separate in a good way. Because God is holy, his people are also to be holy, and one of their marks of separation was to be their food.

Thus we read in Leviticus 11:24, 27, 36, 39, and 43 that to touch the carcass of an unclean animal would render the one who touched it unclean. Not only were the Israelites forbidden to eat the unclean, they were forbidden to have contact with the unclean. To be separate, to be holy, meant to have no contact with that which was considered unclean. So the food law given to the Israelites showed them how they were to be uniquely holy before God by telling them what they could and could not eat. No other nation could claim to have this law, to have this knowledge; holiness was given to those in covenant with God, not to those outside the covenant.

This unique covenant relationship was established not through Noah or Adam, but through Abraham. Abraham was the first Hebrew, and he was originally an Aramean. God did not establish a special covenant relationship with Noah and his sons, instead he gave them a general command as regards the food they ate: do not eat meat with the blood in it, everything else is fine. (Genesis 9:3-6) But, when it came to Abraham, God established a special relationship, giving rules for that covenant so that Abraham and his children would be able to always say that they were called by God to a special relationship that no one else could have. But, if God had given the dietary restrictions to Abraham, then Ishmael could have passed those laws down to his children (just as God did bless Ishmael because of Abraham, even if Ishmael was not the son of the promise). If God had given the dietary restrictions to Noah, then what would have set Israel apart in their diet? In setting up a covenant with Israel, God made clear that he wanted a holy people who would be set apart from any other people, and so he did not give dietary restrictions to others because then the point of the restriction would have been lost: those who did not belong to the covenant would have had the same dietary restrictions as those who did belong to the covenant thus weakening a unique covenant sign that would set God's people apart from others.

But, at the same time, the purpose of the dietary law was to enforce the clean/unclean standard that God had already applied to himself upon his people. If this seems an odd statement, then consider that Noah was told to save seven pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean animals. What would clean and unclean have meant to Noah? Prior to his receiving the command that he could eat of the flesh of animals, it would have been unclean for Noah to eat any flesh at all, so the clean animals could not have indicated a dietary restriction for Noah. However, considering what we see early on in Genesis, where Able is offering God a sacrifice from his flock, and reading that men began to call upon the name of the Lord, it is reasonable to assume that some form of ritualistic worship was common (or at least known) on earth during the time of Noah. This assumption is further buttressed by the fact that Noah built an altar and made an offering to God of some of every clean animal when he and his family exited the ark. Thus, for Noah, clean and unclean would have simply indicated those animals that were acceptable to use for offerings and sacrifices. Now that same understanding, that there are some animals acceptable and some unacceptable, applies not only to sacrificial and religious events, but to the every day events of having dinner or burying a carcass from the fields.

Here we have our first, and I would argue incomplete, answer of why God gave Noah and Moses different food laws. The food laws were part of the larger body of the Mosaic Law given to the Israelites. This body of laws was given so that the Israelites would know what it meant to be holy. Only by following this law perfectly could anyone be holy. Ergo, it did not make sense to give this law to all humans at the time of Noah because God was not establishing a special covenant relationship with all humans wherein he would show them how to be holy. God, in his mercy, chose to reveal the requirements of holiness to the Israelites, in order to accomplish his purposes.

But, what purpose would God have in revealing the requirements of holiness to the Israelites? In examination of this question I argue that we must now turn to the New Testament, where we find not only this answered, but also a more complete answer to the first question as to why God would give different food laws at different times.

The first section I want to look at is Acts 10, where we see Peter visiting a Gentile and we get a resolution to the differences brought about by the dietary laws as given above. In Acts 10 Peter sees a vision from God in which he is told to take and eat from the unclean things set before him. Peter gets this vision three times, and then end up visiting Cornelius and realizing that God is speaking about the Jews and Gentiles, calling the Gentiles clean. Here we have some indication of the distinction that God set up by giving the dietary law in the first place. The Gentiles were unclean not only because they were outside of the covenant of God and his people, but also because of what they ate (granted what they ate was directly related to the fact they had no relationship to God). But, God, through Christ, was so merciful that not only could he draw back the covenant people to himself, he could go even further and draw those to himself who had no covenant relationship with him at all. Cornelius was a God fearer, but he was not Jewish and does not seem to have taken any of the steps necessary to become a Jew, so he had no claim to a covenant relationship with God, but, through Christ, God set aside the limitations of the old covenant and its legal obligations and established a new covenant in which all men could come to God through faith. The old laws of clean and unclean animals no longer served to divide people, but now showed the immeasurable power of God's grace.

The distinction between Jew and Gentile is made even clearer when we consider Paul's testimony in Galatians 2:11-14. Here Paul recalls a time when he stood up to Peter because Peter was being a hypocrite. Peter withdrew from Gentile believers because a group of men who came from James in Jerusalem. Thus even in the early church the distinction between Jew and Gentile persisted, and it seems that this remained an issue of the clean versus the unclean. Paul's complaint against Peter was that Peter was denying the gospel, living like a Gentile and telling the Gentiles that they had to live like Jews. Thus unless they engaged in the steps necessary to become ritually clean, living like Jews, Gentiles were considered unclean by some Jewish Christians in Paul's time. So the Law, as it became a part of Jewish culture, did exactly what it was supposed to in drawing a clear distinction between those who followed it and were considered clean, and those who did not and remained unclean. Yet, as we complete the story by reading through to verse 21 we see that Christ set aside the law, because in and through Christ we have all died to the law, even if we did not know it originally, so that we can live in the righteousness of God. So Christ set aside the distinction between Jew and Gentile, and part of the Gospel is that God has one people, all joined to him through Christ.

We can say then that God gave the Law to the Israelites in order to draw a distinction between them and those around them, but he also gave the Law in order to show the power of his mercy and grace in Christ. The Israelites strained to reach perfection by punctiliously following a set of written rules and obligations, even going so far as to add to them to create barriers so they would not accidentally cross any forbidden lines. But Gentiles were alienated from God, having no conception of God's holiness and no access to the law by which they might have been made aware of the righteousness of God. Yet, in Christ, neither the Jew nor the Gentile can claim any advantage, for Christ made all equal, bringing the righteousness of God to those of us who could not attain it on our own, and were not aware of what righteousness really looked like in the first place. The law makes the grace of God all the more amazing.

But there is more yet. In order to understand God's purpose for the law, we must understand the law. In order to understand the law, in general, we can turn to Galatians 3, Romans 7:7-25, or 1 Timothy 1:8-11. What we see in Galatians 3:19-26 is that the law was given in order to imprison all things under sin, in order that we might believe in Christ. Paul makes clear that the goal of the law was not to cause sin, but the law showed sin, and thereby gave sin power, but also pointed us to Christ. This point is also demonstrated in Romans 7:7-10, in which we read that the law is not sin and is not evil, but that sin uses the law to condemn us and kill us, making our sins all the worse because now we sin not ignorantly, but knowing that what we do is wrong. And, in case we missed it the first couple of times, Paul makes clear to Timothy that the law is laid down not for the righteous but for the unrighteous; the law is good because it applies to those who are law breakers, not the just. So then, the law is there to reveal the sinfulness of humanity, so that in seeing our sinfulness we might be made fully aware of our need for a savior, and so we might come to place our faith in Christ for salvation.

What we see in understanding what Paul says about the Law is that the Law convicts us all. And since we are all convicted under the Law, if we understood it rightly, we would understand what a need we have for a savior. Consider what we read in Leviticus 1:3 and 10. We see that God requires the burnt sacrifices brought to him to be without blemish. God does not accept a sacrifice with blemish or defect.

When we think of this in relation to the food laws we see that anything that is unclean is automatically not fit for sacrifice. God will not accept a perfect and unblemished pig as part of a burnt offering any more than he would accept a blind and lame goat. And if God will not accept that which is unclean, then how can we ever be perfect offerings to him? If the food law shows us how to distinguish between the clean and unclean animals, not only to know what we can eat but also to know what we can offer as part of our sacrifice, then we should know that anything that would be unclean as a matter of diet cannot be an acceptable offering to God. And, if we read the law thoroughly and understand it rightly, we see that we are in need of perpetual cleansing. If we are in need of perpetual cleaning, recognizing as Hebrews says that the blood of animals cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, then we know that we cannot procure righteousness on our own. Thus understood the food laws served as a part of the greater Law in reminding those who attempted to be righteous that they could not achieve righteousness on their own, ultimately men would have to rely on some grace from God to perfect us because we could not perfect ourselves. This then points us back to Christ, for God would have to provide a perfect sacrifice, an unblemished sacrifice, for the sins of humanity if we were to be made righteous and holy as God is, and as God calls us to be.

The Israelites should have understood through the food laws how uncleanness does not come from outside, but from inside. Jesus in Mark 7:19 declares all food to be clean, saying that it is not what goes into the mouth that makes one unclean, but what comes out of the mouth. The Jews were given the food laws so that they could understand how unclean they were internally, no so that they would hold that as unclean which is external. If the food laws were given so as to set up a distinction between the Jews and Gentiles, shouldn't that have caused the Jews to reflect on how much more of a chasm existed between them and God? Because we tend to focus on simply following rules we miss the fact that the Law of God exists also to challenge us to consider how his rules reveal our own unrighteousness. Again, this makes the grace of God amazing, because we who are unclean internally can be called clean, not because of following laws, but because of faith.

The food laws served to distinguish God's people from those around them. The food laws served to show the holiness of God so that his people would be reminded of what they were called to be. But, understood through Christ, the food law shows the magnitude of God's mercy, that those who were unclean could be called clean through the blood of Christ. Those who strived to be clean, knowing they were always unclean, always falling short of the Law, could find redemption in a perfect sacrifice. God did not change his mind in changing what food should be eaten, but he wanted to reveal to us how wondrous his grace his, how holy he himself is, how unclean we are, and how we can draw near to him and be made righteous through his Son.

Thoughts on Genesis and Jesus

2011-05-22T15:42:00.000-04:00

So, I know it has been a while since I've written anything, most of that is just because I haven't really felt like writing anything. But, I wanted to share something I was talking about with my father. In reading back through Genesis and considering how I would approach different passages to preach about them, I began to consider Genesis 3:17-19. I thought about the curse that God placed on man, that the ground would only yield to hard labor. And I thought about how that passage should be understood in relation to the Christ event.

While perhaps there is some modification of this passage in Genesis 8 where God says he will no longer curse the ground for man's evil disposition, yet we never see anything that indicates that the curse of work has been done away with. (Here I wish to make some distinction between the curse of work and the blessing of work. What I mean by the curse of work is not just that we must work for our food, man was always supposed to be a creature of work, but the fact that work would be toilsome, would require difficulty, and would be painful. Work itself is a blessing from God, but the hardness of work, the pain that comes with work, these are aspects of the curse.) So, throughout the rest of Scripture we see men who work the land, from planting fields to caring for flocks. Jacob, in his reasons for leaving Laban, discusses the hardships of being a shepherd, and those who have worked the ground for farming or gardening know that while there can be joy in the results, the work is also hard and can be painful. So, while God may not curse the ground (more likely he is discussing cataclysmic judgments like the flood) he has not rescinded the curse of labor.

Man must work for his food, and man only eats his food by the sweat of his brow. So even Paul says that if a man will not work, then he shouldn't eat. 2 Thes. 3:10 Our command remains that we are to work to have something to give to others, and we are to work so we can eat with a clear conscience. Even if we are not working, or cannot work, we are to be willing to work, if able.

But, what are we working for? We work for food, with which we nourish our bodies, satisfy our appetites, and have energy to do more work. We work so that we do not go hungry, so that we can be happy. But all we can nourish with the results of our work is the flesh and blood body that breaks down with age and injury, and will not last long. Beauty fades, strength passes, and health gives way to sickness in time. Death is inevitable.

Yet, while we work for our bodies, consider what we read in Matthew 26, "Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, andafter blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.'" (Matt 26:26-29) Here Jesus and his disciples had gathered to partake of a meal, they had gathered to partake of the work of the sweat of their brows, and Jesus invites his disciples to go deeper. Not only does Jesus want his disciples to partake of a meal, he wants them to partake of a meal that he will share with them again in heaven, a meal that celebrates the redemption of sins that he will purchase through his blood. So the eating of bread becomes more than simply the reward for hard work, it becomes symbolic of the redemption that is offered through Jesus.

Here we see a beautiful contrast begin to develop. Where the meal we are invited to partake of reminds us of the curse of work, the meaning of the meal points us to the grace of God. What Paul says to us in Ephesians should be noted here: "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9) So Jesus invites us to partake of bread, a reminder of the curse of work, but as he does so he changes the interpretation of the event, so that the bread becomes his body, and the wine becomes his blood, bringing to mind the salvation we have received, for which we have not worked. So our labor becomes a reminder of that for which we have not labored.

Here I wish to spell out, in part, a way we might see this contrast: We have worked for our meal, but we have not worked for our salvation. We come, reading in Genesis that by the sweat of our brow we will eat our bread, but finding that Jesus has invited us to a meal that we have not worked for at all. Christ has done the work, being perfect in accordance with the Law of Moses, and now we are invited to eat at his table, where he will celebrate with us one day in Heaven. Though we eat of earthly bread, we are brought to fellowship with heavenly hosts. The contrast could not be more beautiful, or more meaningful: We come sweaty, we come exhausted, we come having labored for our bodies, and we find that Christ has labored for our souls.

While we have fed our bodies with the sweat of our brows, we need spiritual food for our souls. And how can we labor for spiritual food? God fed the Israelites with manna, but even that did not satisfy their souls, as they regularly failed to obey the Word of the Lord. If manna from heaven is not sufficient to satisfy our souls, then what earthly food might we find that will accomplish this task? Christ answers this for us as he reveals that only he is sufficient for our hunger. We who were dead in sin desire the food of life, and his body is that food. Yet we cannot labor for this food, because we can never do enough to deserve to draw near to that which is perfect, being imperfect ourselves, and so we become dependent on him to give us what we could not take for ourselves.

So, Genesis 3:17-19 becomes a passage that leads us to Christ by way of contrast. We see in Genesis 3 why we need Christ. We come from the dirt, and we labor in the dirt. We feed ourselves through our labor, and when we eat our bread we should be reminded of the hardships of life. Yet, earthly bread does not address spiritual concerns, and cannot satisfy the longings of the soul. For this we need spiritual bread, and in Christ alone do we find that bread offered. In Christ alone do we find that we are invited to a meal for which we have not labored, a meal which maybe we never even wanted, but a meal that is more important than any other we will ever eat: a meal prepared for those who have not labored but have found rest in the Son of God.

Merry Christmas!

2010-12-24T12:35:00.000-05:00

A thousand people have said it better, and there are a thousand other articles worth reading on the meaning of Christmas and why we should be celebrating, so I'll say only one thing: Merry Christmas! May the meaning of this day, that God was born, a child in the manger was the incarnate Lord himself, and that he lived, walked, died, and rose again for the glory of God and the forgiveness of sins, live in your heart now and forever. Though the holiday feelings may pass, may the truth remain, firmly established in your mind, that he alone is worthy of worship, and whoever has faith in him will be forgiven their sins. May the time with family and friends, if you are so blessed, be joyous and fill your heart with compassion and prayers for those who cannot be with those they love at this time of year, and always. May the Lord bless you, as you have a very, merry Christmas!

Good Poetry, take 2

2010-12-17T06:38:00.000-05:00

A wonderful poem by Percy Bysshe Shelley, worth remembering as we contemplate what really lasts in this world:

Ozymandias

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away".

A Lack of Sufficiency

2010-12-14T17:30:00.001-05:00

A recent conversation in the comments with my dear reader, "Anonymous" got me thinking about matters of sufficiency. Really, Anonymous got me thinking about experience, but experience then lead me to sufficiency because of the questions I had in regards to experience. Simply put, my question was this, "When is experience sufficient?" Obviously that question will have different answers for different people, and for different situations. But, there is a legitimate question with why we place "experience" as a qualification, and why certain amounts of experience are seen as sufficient, whereas other amounts of experience are not.

Admittedly, I have a dog in this game. For the cause of full disclosure: I'm looking for work in a field in which I cannot claim to have direct experience. Yes, I have experience serving in a church and working with pastors. I have been in charge of a ministry and have been involved in multiple ministries over the last 3 years. But, I have never been a pastor, I've never been an associate pastor, and I've never been in a paid position with any church.

So, for me, the idea of experience being a necessary qualification for any position seems rather difficult, philosophically speaking. But, I have to admit that there is a good rationale behind the idea. I mean, I'd rather have a doctor who has done 20 surgeries operating on me, not the just out of medical school intern who has never operated on a live patient before. Yet, that young surgeon has to begin somewhere, and it is the responsibility of those who have placed me in the care of that surgeon to know that he is ready and qualified to actually do the surgery. The idea of experience is important, because experience can demonstrate competence in a field, and almost all of us would rather have someone competent than someone untried in important positions in our lives.

But, not every job is the same. For instance, would anyone say that a mathematician shouldn't be trusted because he does not have the experience of years behind his work? Or would we dismiss the work of a physicist or a chemist, because of a lack of experience? Hard sciences, or purely logical pursuits do not require high levels of experience. Thus, we must recognize that there is a limit to what experience means, and whether or not it is important.

The challenge is to determine where a given job falls in the continuity of experience. For those jobs which are learned skills, jobs that require quick decisions and have very flexible situations, experience becomes more important. For those jobs that have rigid rules, that require the exact performance of a set duty, experience becomes less important (generally speaking). A man working on an assembly line does not need to have a great deal of experience to do his job well, so long as his job is simple and repetitious. A bank president who must deal with multiple people and multiple emergencies in a given day should probably have significant experience so that he is not quickly overwhelmed.

Yet, even in the case of someone who has significant experience and high qualifications, there is a warning. Do not begin to think that your experience, your ability, and your persistence are the reasons you are successful. Remember that success is a gift from God. (Deuteronomy 18:17-18) Give thanks to God for the good things you have received, be humble and remember that your experiences have been good because of God's blessing. Do not boast in your own might, for Scripture is clear that the power of men is fleeting, and the one who does not give thanks to God stores up wealth for others whom they do not know.

At the same time, there is the reverse fact, that sometimes it is the one without experience who has been given the blessing of wisdom. Look at the example of Elihu in the book of Job. He says,

"I am young in years,
   and you are aged;
therefore I was timid and afraid
   to declare my opinion to you.
I said, 'Let days speak,
   and many years teach wisdom.'
But it is the spirit in man,
   the breath of the Almighty, that makes him understand.
   It is not the old who are wise,
   nor the aged who understand what is right.
Therefore I say, 'Listen to me;
   let me also declare my opinion.'" (Job 32:6-10)

So it is important that we remember, that sometimes it is not a matter of age and experience. Sometimes the one God has gifted to do a certain job, or fill a position, is the one who is young and un-experienced, because it is that person who will most demonstrate the glory of God.

We could note any number of examples in Scripture of the foolish, the inexperienced, and the weak being used by God for the sake of his glory. Likewise there are multiple examples of God using experience, age, and wisdom for the purpose of bringing glory to himself. God is able to bring himself glory through whatever means he chooses, and it is not for us to say that one is too young or too old to be used by God. Thus Paul gives Timothy his famous charge, "Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity." (1 Timothy 4:12) We must also embrace this word from Paul, as a guide for our own thoughts, and make a point of not despising those who are young and those who do not have great experience, but must inquire of God to see if he is seeking to use "the foolish" for the sake of his glory.

Paul understood well the reality that it was not his experience and his work that made him anything special. He says in 2 Corinthians 3:5, "Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God." He understood that it was God who made him a minister of the gospel, not his own works. Even in something as theoretically simple as sharing the Gospel of Christ, Paul did not take credit, but acknowledged that God was the one who empowered him. So we, in whatever we do, whether seeking to fill a position, or seeking to find someone to fill a position, should be more interested in glorifying God than in worrying about matters of experience.

In trying to get the best possible person for a position, and in striving to be the best possible person for a position, let us avoid making experience into an idol. Give experience its due, admit that those with experience and demonstrated ability are the ones most likely to succeed in the future. But also recognize the limits of experience, and that sometimes God desires to work through the less renowned for his renown. In success, be humble, and do not scorn meager beginnings. Bow the knee to God, and let him glorify himself as he desires.

Re-reading

2010-12-09T14:05:00.000-05:00

Today I spoke with my pastor, Robert Keats, about Genesis 1 and the book of John. I told him I was re-reading Genesis and John and trying to ask myself questions to get more from the text. In view of how John presents Christ, as the Light of the World, as the life that is the light of men, and as the incarnate Word of God, I told him I think there is more to the narrative of Genesis than I have been reading. So my questions of the text were these: What connection do the first words of creation have with what John tells us about Christ? How does, "Let there be light" relate to the Christ event?

As I began to re-read and think about Genesis, I then found yet another question that grabbed my attention: why doesn't God say anything was "good" on day two of the creation account? On the first day we see that God calls the light good. On day three, God says both the dry land and the plant life created are good. On days four, five, and six God says that the various acts of creation are each "good." And finally, on day six, after God has created everything else, he says that all he created is "very good." But, on day two, there is no statement that anything was good.

There may be nothing to this omission. It may very well be that there is nothing to be learned from the simple omission of calling anything good on day two. After all, on day six God calls everything, "very good" thus indicating that creation was exactly according to his plan and purpose. And if everything was created according to God's purpose, then obviously, what happened on day two had to a good thing. In any case, Scripture does not give a clear or definitive answer to this question.

If you choose to do a quick search on Google, you can find various answers that people have to why God didn't call the second day of creation good. Answers range from the idea that the waters above the firmament were set in the sky as a punishment for men (the flood of Noah) and therefore it was not pleasing to God to have this punishment prepared, to the idea that the creation of the firmament and the setting up of the heavens created the realm that Satan would claim as his own. Unfortunately none of the answers I read really took into account the testimony of Scripture. For instance there is nothing saying that the waters in the flood came from the water above the "firmament." Likewise, there is nothing saying that Satan had already taken his domain in the heavens being that as of Genesis 2 he had not yet tempted Eve and Adam had not yet allowed sin into the world.

I have my own theory on why God does not call day two of creation good. My theory is that day two tells us about God separating creation from himself, setting up the firmament as that which separates creation (the waters below) from the throne room of God (the waters above). Thus when we see in Revelation 4:6 that there is what appears to be a sea of glass in front of the throne of God, we are taken back to the primordial waters that covered the world, and we are reminded that God is enthroned above the heavens. God is separated from creation, because of his own design, but he does not intend for things to remain that way. By the end of Revelation, in chapter 21 we see that God intends to make a new creation, one that will not be separate from himself. God does not call the second day of creation good because it represents an imperfect idea of what God will one day do, when he will join himself to creation, when there will be nothing that separates him from what his hands have made. (I do not mean this in a pantheistic or panentheistic sense.)

Obviously, my theory is just that, a theory. I can't prove my idea is correct. If I am right, then what that shows us is that God intended, from the very beginning of creation, to bring all things into fellowship with himself. Thus when we read about the separation of day two we read about an event that was necessary according to God's divine plan, but one which would one day be undone. This tells us that it should be our aspiration to be brought back to God. And it tells us that reconciliation with God goes beyond ourselves, it involves all of creation coming into fellowship with God.

But, my point is not to attempt to prove my interpretation of Genesis. Instead, my point is that it is only through re-reading Scripture that we notice things like the second day not being called good. We only notice the connections between the waters above and the glassy sea around the throne of God when we read through both Genesis and Revelation enough times that the ideas in each of them take root in our minds. Yes, reading what others think about Scripture, or hearing someone else point out connections we may not notice in Scripture is useful. But, we will only begin to see connections ourselves when we become devoted the text of Scripture, in whatever way we have access to that text.

Re-reading Scripture has great value, because it helps us to see connections we might otherwise never notice. It also encourages us to ask questions, which can be useful to us and help us to get more out of Scripture, even if we cannot definitively answer the questions we ask. If our goal is to become more like Christ, even as Peter says we are being transformed, and Paul says we ought to live, then there is no better method to becoming like Christ than to dive into his word. There is no other way to know the mind of God than to give heed to what he has said. While there may be times we feel as though we are gleaning nothing more from what we are reading, we must remember that God can use those moments to plant something in our minds that will help us later. Re-reading Scripture is incredibly important to the Christian, and its values cannot be overstated.

Why International Missions isn't Foreign

2010-12-08T05:42:00.000-05:00

Recently I had the privilege of teaching a lesson on international missions at my church here in Carrollton, Georgia. The lesson itself was on missions going on in Thailand. In many of the international missions lessons in local churches congregations learn about the demographics of the country, they hear about a few specific missionaries, and then they are told how they can pray for those missionaries specifically. While there is nothing wrong with this method, and in fact there is a lot of very useful information to be learned from this method of teaching, I decided to take the lesson in a different direction. My goal in the lesson was not simply that the congregation would learn facts about Thailand, but that they would understand that Thailand is not that different from Carrollton, and that international missions is not just something "over there," but that it affects us here at home, and what we do here at home affects international missions.

This post is a follow up to that lesson. The fact is international missions ought not be some foreign concept or idea. International missions should flow directly from home missions, from local missions, and from every Christian's personal mission in the world. International missions is the spread of Christianity to every tribe, people, tongue, and nation, fulfilling the command of Christ to go and make disciples of all nations. (Matthew 28:18-20) Therefore, the mindset of international missions should be part of every Christian, as we strive to be faithful to what our Lord has called us to do.

There are two specific reasons I want to address as to what International missions is not foreign: people, and Scripture. If we understand the reality of who we are serving, and who we have a mission to reach, we will understand that these are not just people who live thousands of miles away, but they are brothers and sisters, and no matter how far away family may be, family is not foreign. Likewise, if we understand Scripture, then we will understand how what we are to minister is never foreign, it is the wonderful Good News of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, that all men might be reconciled to God, redeemed from sin and free to live to the glory of God. The message is not foreign, and the people are not foreign, even if the culture is totally alien to us.

It may seem like a bit of a contradiction to say that the people are not foreign if the culture is foreign, but people are not just their culture. Specifically, in terms of international missions, every person is exactly the same. What I mean is that what Paul says about humans, he says about all of us, he makes no distinction between Jew and Gentile, Greek and barbarian. Paul says, "As it is written:

'None is righteous, no, not one;
   no one understands;
   no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
   no one does good,
   not even one.'
'Their throat is an open grave;
   they use their tongues to deceive.'
'The venom of asps is under their lips.'
   'Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.'
'Their feet are swift to shed blood;
   in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known.'
   'There is no fear of God before their eyes.'

Every human has sinned. No one fears God naturally. Not one of us is innocent, and all of us are condemned before God, according to what Paul says here. Therefore, when we go to minister to humans in any place, any time, and any culture, we are ministering to sinners. Just as you, if you are a Christian, were a sinner who received the Gospel from someone who ministered to you, so they are sinners in need of ministers who will bring the gospel to them. There is nothing foreign in sin, we who walk in the light know the ways of sin, because we walked in sin ourselves.

But, not only are people the same, Scripture is the same. Yes, translation is an art and a science. And yes, there may be challenges in bringing Scripture to different cultures. Due to linguistic barriers and the lack of a written language, it may be very hard to explain Scripture or make it widely accessible to certain peoples. But, despite these challenges, Scripture itself does not change.

The reason Scripture does not change is because God does not change. Scripture is the personal revelation of a personal God. Unless God changes, his revelation will not change, and God has said of himself that he does not change. (Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, Malachi 3:6, James 1:17) Therefore, in every culture we minister the same Scripture, the same message, and the same God, that all men may know of the Lord who made them and desires that they should come and fellowship with him. This Gospel does not change, because it is the same to everyone, no matter who they are or where they are.

There are a lot of things that can be foreign in international missions, from language and culture, to location and climate. But, the things that really matter, the needs of people and means of addressing those needs, do not change. Every person needs to be reconciled to the God who made them, who requires worship from them. And the only means of reconciliation is faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, international missions may involve going to foreign places, eating foreign food, learning foreign languages, and living under foreign shelters, but there should be nothing closer to home than the ministering of the gospel to those who desperately need to know of the hope that is found only in Jesus Christ.

And be Thankful

2010-12-02T19:03:00.000-05:00

"And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God." - Colossians 3:14-16 (ESV)

From what we see in the above passage we note that there are three things Paul called the church to: put on love, let the peace of Christ reign, and be thankful. Of course these are not three distinct events, they are, in fact, very closely tied together. How can we love without the peace of Christ unifying us as a body? How can we be thankful if we are not bound to God or to others through love? In fact, the very idea of being one body is the reason we (Christians) ought to love one another.

Think about it like this: love unites. Anger, hatred, fear, distaste, and discomfort all divide. Those things which stand opposed to love do not bring the body of Christ together, they divide us. We cannot be ruled by the peace of Christ because we are too worried about whether the man sitting across from us is dangerous, or we want to get away from the smelly bag lady who sat next to us in the pew. More than that, we are not thankful to God for bringing this brother or sister into our lives, instead we sit in judgment of them, when God shed the blood of Christ to win them.

But, being thankless not only separates us from our relationship with God, it also separates us from those around us, and it separates them from us. When we do not thank those who do good things for us, we insult them. We insult them because we do not acknowledge the time, the care, or the resources they put into doing good for us. We act as though we are deserving of that which we have received, as though somehow we earned some good gift that was given to us.

In my last post I noted that every good and perfect gift comes from above, from the Father of Lights. (James 1:17) But, James really begins that thought earlier, and the context around James 1:17 is important. In James 1:16 he says, "Do not be deceived my beloved brothers." My point being that James urges us to think about what he is saying more deeply than just saying, "okay." James really intends for us to understand that every good gift, every perfect gift, comes from God. When one of your co-workers did a favor for you, making sure you wouldn't be too overburdened, that was a gift from God. When one of your friends called you up and asked if you wanted a coffee, just so they could spend time with you, that was from God. Every good gift, every perfect gift, all of them, come from God.

It is so important to grasp this because it relates directly to what Paul says about being thankful. If every good gift comes from God, then when you disregard a favor, or when you belittle the work of someone who sacrificed for you, then you are insulting the kindness of God. Likewise, when you make light of someone trying to do good for you, even if it does not accomplish exactly what you wanted, it is not simply a slight to that person, it is an insult to God, because he is the one who gave you the gift. Such an attitude shows that you have not put on love, you are not living in the peace of Christ, and you are not thankful to God. Such an attitude shows that you have taken for granted the good things you have been given, as though you deserved them, when it is most pertinent to remember that those good things are a gift, and you have not earned any of them at all.

In addition to what being thankless says about your own life, it is also harmful to others. When you disregard the good things people do for you, or try to do for you, it places them in a position of inferiority. Instead of you showing appreciation for their kindness, now they have become mere tools, and if they perform well you give them no praise, for that was all that was expected of a good tool. This is not love for your fellow man. To be thankless is an insult to those who show love and respect for you.

But, there is one more point worth making: being thankless is a little demonstration of hell on earth. What I mean by this is, if James is true, that every good gift is from God, then in hell there will be no good gifts. There will be no friends, because there will be no kindness, because God will not motivate goodness or gentleness among those from whom he separates. So, when we are thankless, we are demonstrating to those who would do good things for us a little taste of hell. We are demonstrating the real sin that lives within every one of us when we do not thank people, or God, for the good things we receive, and, in hell, that sin will be given free reign, because there will be no common grace from God to keep it reigned in.

There is simply no excuse for Christians to forget to be thankful. We, above all people, have received great and wonderful gifts that we do not deserve. We who have trusted in the death of Christ and his resurrection as the payment for our sin, and the means of reconciliation with God, have been given a promise of eternal life with the Lord. Every good gift we receive after that ought to refresh our spirits in memory of that which we have received and make us sing the praises of God, that not only did he redeem us from hell, but he also saw fit to give us more gifts on top of that. Every generous hand, from every person, should invoke in us a deep and abiding thankfulness, for we know that our God is the one who has given this to us. In short, we should have no problem fulfilling this command from the Holy Spirit, through Paul, "And be thankful."

Happy Thanksgiving

2010-11-25T16:27:00.000-05:00

I find myself in an odd situation today. I am surrounded by family, I have a beautiful wife, I have eaten my fill, and I have all the blessings that come from living in middle class America. I know that I will have a bed to sleep on tonight, I have clothes to wear and even a cellphone and a car in case I have an emergency and need to contact someone or go somewhere. In addition to this, I have a wonderful church family, I have brothers and sisters in Louisville and Savannah, and I know that there are many people who love me. In all of this, how could anyone not be thankful?

Yet, at the same time, I find myself in the same place as many Americans today: I am unemployed, my financial resources are taxed, and I'm not sure when that situation will change. In addition to this I, like many others, have an advanced degree, and feel a specific calling on my life that I would like to accomplish, and that I have dedicated years to fulfilling. Even though I have been the beneficiary of the wonderful generosity of family, so that I have a place to live, there is a distinct enjoyment missing. An enjoyment that comes from working and providing for my family. This situation is frustrating, and the reality of it cannot be escaped.

In thinking about these two situations I am forced to conclude that being thankful really is about what perspective we choose to have in life. We can look at what we want, what we have not yet accomplished, what we have lost or our ills and pains, and we can conclude that life is not as good as we would like. Or, we can choose to look at what we have received and what we have, and we can be appreciative for life itself.

The second mindset, the one that looks at life with appreciation, is the one to which the Christian is called. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4:7, "What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?" The point being that everything we have, from life, to love, to wealth, to family, all of it is a gift to us from God. In addition to this we can add salvation, hope, enjoyment, and any number of other blessings. For the Christian, we are called to be humble, acknowledging that God has given us great blessings, but that also then means we must be thankful, because in acknowledging that we have received blessing, what else can we do but be thankful to the one who has given those blessings to us?

So, on Thanksgiving, and on every day, let us consider what attitude we will have in ourselves, whether being thankful, or holding life in contempt. And, as we are challenged to be thankful for all the many blessings we have received, let us remember who we are thanking. Being thankful necessarily assumes being thankful to someone or something. So, let us give God the glory, both for what we have received, and because he is the one who gives us these things. Let us always remember what James says, "For every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change."

Let us be humble enough to appreciate the good gifts we have been given. As I said to a friend not too long ago, when I was in Virginia I saw beautiful sights from the tops of mountains. I saw valleys of green laid out before me and watched as below me hawks flew in search for prey. Such wonderful sights remind me that I do not know what the future holds, whether I will stand on mountain tops and look across open valleys, or walk on the sea shore and hear the roar of the ocean. But, I know there is still beauty in the world, even if I am in the midst of gray and dreary day.

So, I will be thankful for what I have seen, knowing that those beautiful days brought me to where I am now. I will be thankful for today, knowing that where I am now must yield to the hope of what I will see tomorrow. So, let us always give thanks to the Father of Lights. Let us worship him who gives to us perfect gifts.

Isaiah 6:1-8

2010-11-23T17:10:00.002-05:00

Recently (a couple of weeks ago) my pastor asked me to read this section of Scripture and lead the congregation in prayer as part of our worship service. Reading this passage, and the sermon of that day, both changed the way I have looked at sin since. I wanted to address this passage of Scripture and share a few of the things that really impacted me. A couple of the points come from the Hebrew in this passage, so I beg your leave to discuss those, and I ask that you trust what I'm going to say. Alternatively, I hope that my reading of this passage might encourage you to do some research on the passage yourself, that you may be challenged and transformed by the Word of God.

First, the English of this passage:

In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said:

"Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!"

And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"

Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: "Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for."

And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here am I! Send me."

The first thing that struck me was the declaration made by the Seraphim: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts!" (A better rendition might note that he is called the Lord of armies, but that's a secondary point.) The reason this declaration struck me is because of the triple repeated, "Holy!" In the original Hebrew and Greek there was no punctuation. No exclamation marks, no periods, no commas, no way to separate or accentuate a word other than either its placement in the idea, or a play on its form, or a repetition of the word itself. Thus, when we see a repeated word or term it is there for one specific reason: emphasis.

For the Seraphim to call God "holy" three times indicates a serious emphatic statement. It would be like standing in the midst of a courtroom and suddenly the bailiff picks up a bull horn and screams as loud as he can that the judge is honorable and just. If you miss the implication, it is because you choose to ignore that which has been screamed at you.

God is holy! He is utterly, indescribably holy! His holiness is to be shouted, it is declared by those beings which are in his presence day and night. This is the first and most important descriptor of God. His holiness defines his other attributes, because it puts them in proper perspective.

God's holiness is his transcendence above and beyond this world. He is like nothing in this world, utterly distinct and incomparable. It is for this reason that Scripture says of God, "Who is like the Lord?" (Psalm 40:5; Psalm 89:6; Isaiah 40:18, 25; 46:5) And here, you have heavenly beings, flying above the throne of God, which is itself a high and loft throne, and they are declaring this holiness, over and over again, yelling it loudly to one another. That's how important it is that we get that God is holy, the seraphim yell not to creation, but to one another, even though they dwell in the presence of God.

This point only began to really come home to me when I began to consider the rest of God's attributes in relation to this holiness. Think about it this way: God demonstrates his power so that we can understand that his power is beyond what we can comprehend, it is holy. God works great and wondrous miracles so that we can understand that if God is able to do things which amaze us, how much greater are his works which we can not fathom! His holiness, his indescribable nature, is declared by comparison with that which we can understand. Likewise of any of God's attributes, his anger, his patience, his justice, and particularly his love. We cannot really comprehend any of these attributes of God, because his holiness puts them beyond our grasp. We can witness a declaration of his love or justice, but that only gives us a glimpse into the reality that we cannot fully grasp, because God is beyond us.

But, here's what blows me away more than anything else, what made me really begin to consider the beauty of God's holiness: he does not do his great works for himself! What I mean is that God is holy, by his very nature, and there is nothing that adds to or takes away from this holiness. Thus, when God shows his glory through his great works, he does not add anything to himself, but simply shows us, mere humans, how wonderful he is, out of a great love for us. Remember, God has seraphim declaring his holiness, he already knows his holiness, he does not need us to praise him, but he gives us the opportunity to praise him for our good, because he loves us.

God is the only being who deserves this praise, because his beauty is perfect. So, for us to be able to praise God is a gift to us, because being able to praise God means that we are getting some glimpse of perfection, some participation in the amazing glory of the one who defines everything good and beautiful. It's like getting an invite into the most amazing art gallery ever. God is not changed or made more amazing by our worship, but we who witness his holiness are changed, because we experience that which is truly beautiful. This is the situation Isaiah found himself in: ushered into the presence of glory, confronted with that which left him dumbfounded (literally) because of how wondrous it was.

God is holy, he is awesome, and he shows his holiness to us because of his love for us, but this is only the beginning of this passage. Add to that the very beings who are declaring this: seraphim. (In the Hebrew the "im" ending is simply a plural ending, hence some translations read "seraphs" as a valid plural form of the term, since the Hebrew "seraph" is the singular form.) The word itself means "burning ones". Thus, here are "burning ones," or beings whose own glory makes them appear to be on fire (or who really are made of fire), who are declaring how holy God is. His glory is made manifest through comparison with their glory, because they are declaring his holiness, and not their own.

Then, Isaiah gives utterance to words that simply do not translate into the English with the same nuance which they have in Hebrew. Isaiah looks to the Lord and says, "Woe is me! For I am [compelled to be silent, brought to silence, made silent, or undone, ruined, destroyed]." (Everything within the brackets could be viable interpretations of this passage.) Thus, when we read from Isaiah, "I am undone" what he is saying is, "I am brought to silence." Here the idiom of silence represents the idea of death or total destruction. This ties the statement in with the rest of what Isaiah says, "For I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips."

The idea of unclean lips goes far and beyond simply the words of the people, it goes to their lives, their very being. Thus, as Christ declared, "For out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks." (Matthew 12:34) For Isaiah, for his mouth to be silenced was a condemnation of his very life. So, likewise, when Isaiah complains of the uncleanness of the lips of the people, he is condemning the way they live. They are unclean in word and deed. And he is one of those people, he is not innocent, he is not holy, he is not good. I realized as I read those words what a condemnation that should be to me: though I might know how to say the right things, though I might appear to be a "good Christian" to the world, my heart ought to be condemned before God because of my sinfulness. I am in the position of Isaiah, and I need to declare, "Woe is me! I am compelled to be silent, I should be destroyed before my holy God!"

Yet Isaiah was not left there. Here the Hebrew again plays on words and imagery: one of the burning ones takes a "glowing coal" and touches Isaiah's mouth with it. One of those who is on fire takes a coal of fire and touches that which symbolizes Isaiah's wickedness, his lips, and declared Isaiah to be clean. Imagine that scene for a minute, a flying being of fire holding a burning coal in his hand reaches out to you and touches your lips with a searing fire, and declares you to be clean.

Here the full imagery of the situation is brought out: Isaiah is not simply standing in the temple, he is standing in the middle of a sacrifice. Remember, the temple was filled with smoke after God's holiness was declared. Why would the temple be filled with smoke? Because a sacrifice was taking place. We know this because the smoke is not merely from the altar of incense, but there is a burning coal, which came from the altar, which means that a sacrifice was burning on the altar of God.

Here we tie into the imagery of Christ, because he is the lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world. (1 Peter 1:19-21) He is the sacrifice that God accepted to quench his anger, which allows a guilty people to approach a holy God. Isaiah was standing in the presence of the God who makes redemption for his saints, offering up a sacrifice to himself which we could not offer up. And Isaiah was made a participant of that sacrifice. A coal from the fire of God's sacrifice was taken and placed upon Isaiah's lips, so that he became a participant in this symbolic sacrifice that would one day be fulfilled in the death and suffering of the Messiah.

And look what happens to Isaiah because of his exposure to the sacrifice of Christ: the man who was brought to silence, who was compelled to recognize the sinfulness of his life before the holy God of the universe, suddenly has the courage to speak up and say to God, "Here I am, send me!" Because Isaiah saw the holiness of God, he was brought low, he considered himself already dead. But, because Christ died on his behalf and he was able to participate in that sacrifice, his words, the actions of his life, were made acceptable before God. Isaiah was given a boldness to go from laying on his face to standing before the awesome God of all creation, all because of the sacrifice that God prepared for himself.

The more I studied this passage, just in preparation to read it at church, the more I was faced with the reality that I had lost sight of the holiness of God. I had forgotten his glory, and I had forgotten that when I sin I am transgressing that holiness, that glory, that awesome and amazing attribute of God that cannot be fully understood here on earth, because it is the reflection of how utterly incomprehensible and beyond us God really is. But, in addition to that, my sins made light of the sacrifice God prepared for himself. Instead of allowing the coal from the altar of God to touch my lips, I would draw near to it, I would feign to touch it, and then I would go back again into the secret realms of my heart, and I would not let myself be singed by the purifying fire of God.

For this reason, for the last two weeks, I have been continually thinking to myself, "Would it glorify God for me to do that? Would it glorify God for me to go there? Would it glorify God for me to watch that, think that, or listen to that?" The seraphim constantly declare God is holy, so how could I, who have enjoyed the benefits of the death of Christ, do anything less in my own life? Do I really think God is that holy? In being confronted with these questions I was forced to reconsider how I was living, so that I could be like Isaiah, transformed by my experience of seeing the holiness of God.

To be honest, for those who have read this far, I can only apologize. There is something about being exposed to an experience that cannot quite be captured by simply writing about it. Particularly when it is the Word of God that we are confronted with, there is an intrinsic and personal challenge that is hard to express to others. I can only hope that you will be challenged by this section of Scripture as I was. I can only hope that as you have read of my experience of going through this passage, you will be able to appreciate the imagery, the nuances, and the power of this passage more. I hope you are challenged to think about the awesome holiness of God a little bit more, so that you can too can live a life changed by meeting the God of Isaiah, the God of the universe.

To Birmingham and Back

2010-11-21T15:49:00.001-05:00

Yesterday, Jen and I went to a wonderful wedding. Our dear friend, Brandon, married his beloved, Tara. I can't tell you how excited I was and am for both of them. I haven't been excited about someone else being married in a long time. Perhaps it is because of the way Brandon became such a brother to me in the years we spent together in Louisville, perhaps it is just a matter of having learned more of the wonderful bliss that marriage is. I have no idea. I know this, Brandon and Tara are going to have one of the most blessed experiences possible, because they actually get what marriage is supposed to be about, in a way I know I didn't when I first got married.

Later, sometime, I suppose I'll go into a long reflection on marriage itself, but that isn't really why I started writing this post. In part I just wanted to mention that wonderful wedding. Believe me, it was really beautiful.

My favorite chuckle of the evening: the processional of the Bride was "Come thou fount of every blessing." I know, the song is about Christ, but I love the double meaning, the symbolic nature of marriage, and the way a bride represents, for many a man, that idea: she is the fount of every blessing (I know this is, metaphorically speaking, the way I feel about my bride, I can only hope it is the same for others). I actually did laugh a little when I saw it, though I have a feeling I'm probably the only one who really thinks or thought it was funny.

On the way back I told Jen I was feeling a bit poetic in thinking about driving there and back. She asked me what I meant, and I told her:

Today, I have driven over 200 miles. That means that for 200 miles the engine of this car has been compressing gas, combining it with heat and pressure and causing the release of energy with explosive force. The force that this engine harnesses would rip my body to shreds were I to seek to contain it.

At the same time, this energy has not only been contained, but directed, put to work turning crankshafts and powering the many aspects of this car that are essential to its function. All of that turning and energy has created friction and heat. That heat, were I to try to hold it, would singe my flesh and burn me down to the bone.

The turning shafts of metal in the car are hooked up in such a way that they spin the tires of this car. Those tires spin and move with such speed that my muscles would tear and my tendons snap if I were to try to keep up with them. And in those tires is air, countless molecules, bouncing and moving, impacting each other so often that I cannot even comprehend the number of collisions occurring within any one of those tires, much less all four of them. And we are not the only ones on the road, there are so many vehicles on any one stretch of road in America that I doubt I could count them if they were all brought together at one time.

In all of this I am brought back to what Hebrews says, that Christ "upholds the universe by the power of his word." For 200 miles, for 4 hours of driving, Christ has been keeping all of this together, where I could not hold together even one part of it. Then I realize, it is not just these 200 miles, it is for the thousands of years that the world has existed, it is through eternity past, before creation began, when he with wisdom knew what he would do, with no teacher, no educator, no instructor, and no councilor, according to his awesome power and knowledge. My God is so great he has been upholding all things, at all times, and he will do so even unto the last judgment, when he will create all things new, a perfect world for his children.

Grasp this: that this is the God we serve, this is the God we know and love, this is the power of God who is our all in all! A spinning tire, a turning crank shaft, the compression and explosion of gasoline for the purpose of travel, my God holds all of this in his hand. His word has spoken it into being and allows it to continue, and all of it is for his glory. This is the God I serve, this is my God! To whom will you compare him? To what would you hold him up as his likeness?

How great and wonderful our God is, who does all things well! His glory is proclaimed by all things, both the simple and the complex. If we but meditate on any one part of creation and seek to understand what goes on within it, we are laid low in humility as we come before the awesome might, and awful reality, of the living God. Hebrews so rightly says that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. For if he can do all of this, how much more are we assured that he can, and will, judge us who will stand before him when he calls us?

But, how wondrous it is to know that because of the death and resurrection of Christ, I stand innocent, justified before the judge of the universe! He, who has the power to number and order the collisions of atoms within the heart of a star, has the power to wipe away my sins. He, who has the glory of all of creation as a testimony to his beauty, gave that up to die on a cross for my sake. And his Father, my God, has given him a greater reward: A bride more beautiful, because she partakes of his glory, covered in his blood. This is the God I love. How could I do anything else?

Yesterday, I went to experience one wedding, and I rejoiced with my dear brother as he married his beloved, but one day, I will enjoy a better wedding. I look forward to that day, because then I will see the one for whom I have longed. How then can we not rejoice, knowing what is coming? How then can we not praise God when he demonstrates his glory for us on a daily basis? Our God, he is an awesome God. Hallelujah!

Do You Know What You Believe?

2010-10-09T20:12:00.000-04:00

Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, from which I graduated in May, recently got involved in another scuffle regarding his statement that yoga is not Christian. The complaint has come back, of course, that many devout and well-meaning Christian's practice yoga and do not find it incompatible with Christianity. Dr. Mohler has, effectively, made two responses to this. His responses are that the individual is either involved in a form of syncretism, in which yoga is being adapted to Christianity, or that what is being adapted is not yoga at all. It is worth looking at these two responses further.

Can yoga be adapted to Christianity? Dr. Mohler contends that yoga is necessarily non-Christian because of the mind emptying meditation involved in it, and the focusing of sexual energies through the body as a means of communing with God. I think Dr. Mohler makes an excellent point with this statement. The mind emptying forms of meditation that are common among many Eastern religions are simply not compatible with Christianity. The reason is because Christians are called to meditate on God's Word, his deeds and actions. It is impossible to empty the mind when filling it with thoughts of God's law, his holiness, his love, and everything else that a Christian might meditate on.

Scripture never commands Christians to empty our minds, but only to empty our minds of sinful thoughts and selfish desires, which ought to be put far away from us. Even Paul commands us to think of whatever is good and lovely. To seek to escape from ourselves or reality is not a form of Christian meditation. To be reminded of God, to find his holiness and awesomeness surrounding us constantly, that is Christian meditation.

Likewise, Scripture never says that we are able to commune with God in any way other than through his Son, Christ Jesus. We cannot approach the throne of God through focusing sexual energy, personal energy, or even spiritual energy. We approach the throne of God through prayer, according to faith in Christ, who died for our sins. Regardless of whether we feel God's presence more or less, the Holy Spirit is poured out upon us at all times, we are never separated from God. Therefore, we do not need to enter some specific pose or focus some mystical energy to hear from God and speak to God, we have his Word, written to us to tell us how to live, and we have the right to come before him in prayer to thank him, praise him, and petition him for our needs or wants.

On these two points, making up Dr. Mohler's first reaction to those who claim Christianity and yoga can be harmonized, it would seem that Dr. Mohler has said nothing controversial, what then of the second reason he gives? If you strip the meditation and other religious elements out of yoga, is it still yoga? On this point it is purely a matter of convention as to how we answer this question. What I mean is that words can change meaning over time, and often times the actual meaning of a word is purely a matter of the convention of the society in which it is used. Therefore, the question is simply, "What is yoga?"

For many people yoga does not involve any spiritual activities whatsoever. Many people go to yoga lessons and stretch and talk and smile and get a good, low impact, workout. In fact, if you were to ask most of the people across these United States, "What is yoga?" most of them would not include any discussion of "spirituality" or "religion" in their definition. (This, of course, is based purely off of my own experience, I did not go out and conduct a survey for the sake of a blog post.) Therefore, it would seem that when people use the term "yoga" to mean "a form of exercise that involves stretching, flexibility, and holding various positions that place strain on the anatomy" they are correct in saying that yoga can be practiced by Christians without a conflict of faith.

While this may very well be the common use of the term, "yoga" it is not the only use of that term. A quick search of the web reveals that if you look up the definition of yoga you find that the most relevant websites all recognize either the Hindu origin of yoga, or they discuss yoga as a means of attaining greater spiritual consciousness. Thus, it seems, that most teachers of yoga and most of those who have done research into yoga agree that it is not best defined as simply a form of exercise. The best definition of yoga must acknowledge the spiritual aspects that go along with serious yoga practice.

It would seem, therefore, that Dr. Mohler is correct in saying that if what you do when you do yoga is simply a form of exercise, then fine, just don't call it yoga.

My point in bringing all of this up though is that it is interesting to me that Christians would actually complain about Dr. Mohler saying that yoga and Christianity are not compatible. I really think the issue is simply that most of us simply do not know what we believe, or why we believe it. When Christians think that the spiritual aspects of yoga can be adapted to Christianity, my thought is they simply do not know what Christianity really teaches about our communion with God. Why would anyone seek to draw closer to God through physical and mental acts of will, when God has revealed to us that the way to grow closer to him is through his Word and his Son?

When Christians seek to redefine the term "yoga" to mean simply "exercise" then they are guilty of not understanding what the term really means, they are guilty of not understanding that words have meaning. Even in this Christians are guilty of not really knowing what they believe, because, in redefining a term, they open themselves to adapting more than just a series of poses and an exercise routine into Christianity. It is always important that we know what a word means, and that we understand that when we say we are doing something like yoga, the word means a lot more than merely sitting on a mat with our legs crossed. When we understand what we believe, then we understand that changing what we do is not a light matter, because our actions are a reflection of our beliefs.

Where do you stand on this subject? What do you really believe? Only once you have figured out what you believe can you really understand why you believe it. Have you given thought to the terms you use, the things you do, and whether those things are really compatible with your Christian faith? If you aren't a Christian, have you ever taken the time to think about what you believe?

A Good Father's Discipline

2010-09-25T07:00:00.000-04:00

My parents can tell you that I was a curious child. I'm sure in fact that they would confirm both implications of the previous statement, but I want to focus on the questioning nature of a curious soul. My mother used to say I could ask the same question in 20 different ways. I did ask a lot of questions, and often those questions were the same question asked in different ways, because I wanted to make sure that I understood what was being said. Maybe it was because I was a bit thick sometimes, but I know that often I asked questions because I wanted to understand, well, everything.

I think that same principle animates most of us. Not that we realize that we want to know everything, but that we will not do that which we do not see the purpose to doing. For instance, to this day, I rarely make my bed, because I figure I'm going to get back into it anyhow, why bother making the sheets nice just so I can mess them up when I sleep? Besides, I figure leaving the sheets open in a bit of a tangle helps to air out the bed from where I was sleeping on it all night. But, if I know that I have a guest coming, or that, for whatever reason, someone may go into my room or see my bed, I'll take the time to make it, so as to keep a presentable room when necessary. (Fortunately I am married to a wonderful woman who thinks much the same as me in this area.)

I think this is the way most of us live. When we understand the purpose of something, we are willing to do it, we may even embrace an action that we find particularly meaningful. But, when we do not understand we are less willing to do what seems to be a hindrance. Sometimes we skip over what we think to be minor steps in an order of operations, and sometimes that is okay. But, sometimes what appears to be a small thing turns out to be a major thing. The problem is that we cannot understand everything, and sometimes we have to accept that what we are called to do we must do based on our faith in the one who has commanded it, and not based on our own wisdom and understanding.

I think that is what has happened with church discipline. There was a time when we understood that discipline was necessary, and was an integral part of our faith and our walk with God. Now a days, when people can simply go to any church and can move from place to place quickly, it seems more of a hindrance for a church to worry about discipline. However, if we understood how serious discipline really was, perhaps we would be willing to do it. Perhaps, if we understood how serious discipline is, we would embrace it as part of our culture once again.

I want to take a minute to explain what I mean by church discipline. To be honest, until I went to seminary, that term was not one I was familiar with. I belonged to what I have come to think of as the typical Southern Baptist church, one that did not practice church discipline, and had ceased to even teach on the subject at all. Thus I think there is perhaps a large portion of this generation of Christians (in America) who have no idea what church discipline is. I'll try and explain it briefly.

Church discipline, most narrowly conceived, is that process by which a church attempts to correct a wayward member. Usually this starts with one person confronting another with some specific and public sin. After that person has been confronted with this sin, if he refuses to repent and turn from his sin, whoever initially confronted him will bring others with them to confront the person again. After this second confrontation, if the person who has sinned still refuses to repent, then after an appropriate season of prayer, the matter will be brought before the congregation, and the whole congregation will then join in asking the person to repent (often this is done through letter from the congregation hand delivered to the person in question, if they refuse to come to the meeting arranged for this purpose). After this, if the person remains disobedient, the congregation will then move forward to discontinue fellowship with that person, basically saying that the person's continuous disobedience brings their salvation into question.

The last point here addresses the seriousness of church discipline carried through to its end on an unrepentant person. The goal is to make clear that the behavior of the person in question is such that it cannot be tolerated by the church, and that no Christian should willingly engage in this behavior. Therefore, the response of the church, if fellowship is withdrawn, is not that the church is saying, "We don't like you" instead the church is saying, "We cannot discern that you really are a Christian, and because we do not want you to be confusion as to your eternal state, we are going to treat you as a non-Christian, so that you may realize your need for Christ and repent of your sin." Discipline is thus the most loving thing a church can do, because discipline takes seriously the question of a person's eternal fate, and encourages people to examine themselves before God that they may know if they are condemned.

But, because of the very serious nature of discipline carried out this far, it ought not be done for light matters. For matters that can be shrugged off the church should bear with, and bear up, the weaker brother, so that his faith may be strengthened. Judgment ought to be reserved for matters of clear sin, not for petty arguments and complaints. Moreover, discipline ought only ever be done for matters of public sin. "He said, she said" arguments ought never go to the point of discipline, because the matter is private, and ought to be resolved privately.

But, church discipline should not really be that narrowly conceived. The fact is that discipleship is discipline. When we tell someone that God needs to be Lord of his life, and that God has certain ways he wants things done, then we are asking them to submit to church discipline. The goal is to get the person so disciplined in spiritual matters that he can go on to train and discipline others, creating a cycle of discipleship and discipline that glorifies God through many lives. Everything the church does, from encouraging prayer and bible reading, to practicing witnessing and faithful living, is discipline. That means that we need to always be open to rebuke, to correction, and to encouragement, in every aspect of our spiritual lives.

Hebrews says that our fathers punished us for a time as they saw fit, and that no man enjoys discipline while he is going through it. But, the end result of discipline is that a man is better prepared for life, discipline is good. Likewise Hebrews says our Father does the same for us, that he disciplines us for our good. Therefore, the teaching of Hebrews is that discipline from God, when rightly understood is for our benefit. Thus, though it is painful, we should embrace it, because it will bring us glory on the day that Christ is revealed.

Often I have read this verse and thought of the discipline that I have gone through in various trials and troubles in life. From learning to do with little do to unemployment and poverty, to learning to enjoy the simple of things of life through having possessions stripped away from me, I thought this was discipline. It has taken me a long time to realize that God does not just discipline through these events, but also through the church. Those who have come along beside me, my brothers who have prayed for me, my sisters who have shared with me, my family who has taught me and walked with me in good times and bad, they have been the discipline of God in my life, and that discipline has been good for me, and good to me.

Discipline, godly discipline, is good in every way. We ought to embrace discipline, training one another, correcting one another, loving one another enough to share not only in the good, but in the bad as well. We think of discipline as only the hard times when a brother or sister refuses our correction, and we forget that the one who hardens his back is the one who is not being disciplined, because he will not submit. We, who remain pliable clay in the hands of God, are the ones who are disciplined, and we find joy because of that discipline. Sometimes we must disassociate with someone, because we want to love the stubborn soul. Embrace discipline when it first comes upon you, and discipline others as well, because we are the tools of God, his hands and feet in performing his will here on earth.

More Than Bread

2010-09-24T07:00:00.000-04:00

While wondering through the desert Satan tempted Christ by appealing to his hunger. Satan said to the Lord, "Turn these stones into bread and so you do not have to go hungry!" It may not sound like much of a temptation, but the real point was to get Christ to rely upon himself, instead of trusting that the Father would provide for him what he needed. Christ responded by quoting Scripture and standing against Satan saying, "Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." We have to eat to live, but if all we take in is bread, then while we may continue to exist, we are far from having full lives.

This was part of the problem that the church in Corinth dealt with. Instead of taking in the Word of God, they were more concerned with the bread and wine of the Lord's table. Paul condemns the church noting that some come and feast, and others are left to starve. Instead of sharing love and compassion for one another they became selfish gluttons. To partake of the Lord's supper is to share in Christ, to eat and drink of his memory and in obedience to his words, it is not just to fill our stomachs, but to live on the Word of God.

Christ promised his presence always, and proclaimed of himself that he is the bread of life. Obviously there is metaphor involved in that statement. Christ is not literally made of bread. Likewise, as much as I respect those Catholics who take seriously the traditions that have been handed down, as a protestant and one who adheres to solo scriptura, I find nothing in Scripture that makes me think that the bread literally becomes the body of Christ and the wine becomes his blood in some metaphysical way. But, despite the fact that the bread is not literally Christ, when we partake of the bread and the wine, we are joined to Christ in his presence, as we partake of the feast that he is preparing for us in heaven.

To eat of the Lord's Table is to partake of a heavenly feast. Consider this: Christ began and ended his ministry with food and wine. When his mother asked him to help with the situation at the wedding feast, Christ turned the water into wine. When Christ gave his last instructions, before his death, to his apostles, he did it over a feast including bread and wine. And, when Christ brings all things to completion, we will once again sit down to a feast with him, at the wedding supper of the Lamb. When we eat of the bread and drink of the wine of the Lord's Table, we are participating in feasting with Christ, joining with him in faith to the Father, believing that one day we will eat at the wedding supper of his Son.

This is why Paul was so severe with the church in Corinth, and why he says that when we eat of the Lord's Table and fail to recognize the body of Christ, we eat and drink judgment on ourselves. When we partake of the Lord's Table, if we do not recognize that we are eating a fellowship meal, a celebration of Christ and the feast that will join all believers together, then we are not acting in faith, but faithlessly. We turn the admonition of Christ on its head: instead of living on the Word of God, we begin to treat the feast of Christ as nothing more than bread and wine. Any church that treats the Lord's Supper lightly, not realizing the significance of what it means to partake of the body of Christ is asking for the same judgment that Paul says was already being poured out on the church at Corinth: weakness, sickness, and premature death.

It ought to be born in mind that death, weakness, and sickness, do not necessarily have to be upon individuals. Those who sit in the congregation, who are ignorant of the reality of the Lord's Supper, while certainly responsible for failing to take seriously the Word of God, are not as accountable as those who teach them. Thus as James says, "Not many of you should desire to be teachers, knowing that we who teach will be judged more strictly." In this way, because those who teach from the pulpit have failed to properly teach the Word of God, and because those who sit in the congregation have failed to hold them accountable to what has been taught, everyone brings judgment upon themselves for their faithless living before God. So, particularly in congregational churches, no one has excuse, and no individual can claim innocence if they have not been faithfully warning their brothers and sisters of the coming wrath of God.

Because Churches do not take seriously the Word of God in what it teaches about why we should do the things we do, the churches get weak. The churches grow sick. Eventually, those churches who fail to be faithful to God, who no longer reflect a healthy image of his body, die. And no amount of man made emotion and passion can change what God has already said will be the judgment of those who take the Lord's Supper lightly. But it does not have to be this way.

Our God is a God who forgives, who restores, who wounds and heals. If we will turn back to him and seek him, then he has promised us blessing in Christ. We, who are in Christ, do not need to fear that God will hold our sins against us, for we are already forgiven, covered by the blood of Christ. If we seek to partake of the blood of Christ at his table, then we must be sure that we are covered in the blood when we are away from the table.

God is faithful to himself, and he will exalt himself through judgment, and through mercy. Thus, we have great reason to pray to God for revival, if we are willing to embrace the discipline of God in our lives. We do not need to continue to eat and drink judgment to ourselves. If we will learn from the Word of God, and understand what it means to be a part of the body of God, then we have great reason to hope in God. Our God is full of grace, and he speaks to us if we will be listen to his admonitions.

Let us eat of the Lord's Table with joy and with sobriety. Let us recognize that what we do here prepares us for a feast we will share there. But, let us also remember that when we eat and drink of the elements of the table, Christ is present with us, partaking with us as we are his body. We eat and drink not simply in his memory, but also in his presence. There is great reason to rejoice for those of us who rightly recognize the body of Christ when we come to the Lord's Table, so let us rejoice!

Wash and Wear Christians

2010-09-23T07:00:00.000-04:00

One of the oldest arguments that baptists of all kinds have engaged in is the importance of believers' baptism. If you are not from a baptist tradition, I'll try to explain the idea quickly, and then address the argument itself. Basically the baptist tradition is that baptism is only for believers. That means that baptists do not baptize infants, and, historically, have not accepted those who were baptized as infants as members of baptist churches. Only those who are believers can submit to baptism, and therefore if someone was "baptized" as an infant, unless they undergo a real baptism, as a believer, they are not generally granted membership in baptist congregations.

There are exceptions to the statement that baptists do not allow membership to those who received only infant baptism (paedobaptists). John Bunyan, for instance, advocated that paedobaptists should be allowed church membership, and that they should be allowed to come to the Lord's Table. However, even in his day, there were those who argued against him. More recently John Piper and Mark Dever argued about this point, with Piper taking Bunyan's side, and Dever taking what I am calling the historical baptist side.

I would like to make a point of clarification though. I am not calling Dever's position the historical position because it predates the position of Piper, but only because it has been the position accepted by most baptists throughout history. This is why most baptist ministers, at least until modern times, would "fence the table" when inviting people to participate in the Lord's Supper. The "fence" could be put up with a statement as simple as, "We invite those of like faith and practice who are in good standing in their church..." wherein the "faith" is the Christian faith, and the "practice" is those who had received believer's baptism. The "good standing in their church" indicated that the person was not under discipline, and therefore there was no question of that individuals standing before Christ.

This last point could be broken into a whole essay of its own, and I intend to address the point eventually, but for now it is sufficient to note that most early baptist churches (and most baptist churches up to the 1950's at least) practiced church discipline and took it very seriously. It was in fact because of church discipline that this whole issue arose.

Why would church discipline cause baptist churches to need to discuss the question of membership of paedobaptists? In part it was because of the Lord's Supper. Most baptist churches held that there were effectively two (or three) ordinances of the church. In the three ordinance division you have foot washing, baptism, and the Lord's Supper. In the two ordinance division you can remove foot washing. Most baptists today do not practice foot washing, nor was it ever the majority of baptists position that it should be practiced.

Ordinances for baptists are not a means of grace. The acts of baptism and the Lord's Supper are spiritually significant and symbolic events. In the case of baptism the believer is joined to the death of Christ, and his resurrection through baptism. But, what baptists mean by that is that the believer who has been baptized has made a public demonstration of their need for cleansing, of which the baptism is only a symbolic demonstration. The actual salvation of the individual happens at conversion, in which the person is sealed by the Holy Spirit and joined to Christ eternally. Thus baptism (as commonly expressed and understood) is an outward sign of an internal reality, and an act of obedience to what Christ has commanded.

For baptists historically then the argument has been that those who refuse to be baptized after coming to faith are living in disobedience to Christ. Because the individuals are living in disobedience to Christ they cannot be given church membership, nor should they be invited to the Lord's Table. To invite someone who is living in disobedience to the Lord's Table to is make light of their sin, which is wrong. Moreover, to invite someone to the Lord's Table who has refused to participate in one ordinance of the church then includes that person in another ordinance of the church, and thus would be to treat the person as a member, even though they do not meet the qualifications of membership. Thus, those who cannot be members of the church, for a refusal to participate in the ordinances of the church, ought not to come to participate in that ordinance which is restricted to only members of the church.

To explain this position from Scripture, baptists take seriously the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11. In verse 18 he says, "For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part." This indicates that what Paul is about to say he says to the church, not individuals. Thus when he says in verse 26, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes," this is not a command to individuals, but to the church. Therefore it is those who are in the church who should eat the bread and drink from the cup.

Further, we read, "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself." (1 Corinthians 11:29) This passage is not telling people that they must simply examine themselves, but that they must understand who they are in Christ. Yes, an individual ought to examine himself to see if there is any unrepentant sin in his life, but what Paul calls us to here is a consideration of who the body of Christ is. The body of Christ is to partake of the Lord's Table, and the body of Christ is the regenerate church here on earth. The question then, for who can partake of the Lord's Supper, is one of who is a member of the regenerate church on earth.

This is where baptism enters the issue. We have already seen that the Lord's Table is to be open to all members of the church. But, baptism is generally recognized (by baptists) as the means by which one enters into the church. Thus, if one has not been baptized, then they are not to be considered members of the church. If they are not to be considered members of the church, then they are not to take of the Lord's Supper, and they are not subject to church discipline.

But, why should baptism be a required ordinance for church membership? If, as baptists have historically professed, faith alone is the means of salvation, shouldn't the church accept all of those who profess faith in Christ, regardless of whether they have been baptized? The answer to that question must be answered "no" if the historic argument is to stand. But is the answer no?

Yes, the answer to the question is no. Yes, all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Yes, we are saved by grace through faith, and this is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God. (Ephesians 2:8) And yes, all those who are saved are part of the regenerate church here on earth. But, no, the church should not simply accept those who profess faith in Christ as members with no reservations.

The reason for this is what James says, "Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." (James 2:18) The fact is that we, as humans, cannot judge perfectly the salvation of any person. It may be that someone has been genuinely saved, though we cannot discern such from their lives. But, we are called to judge the works of one another (ourselves included) and determine if those works line up with that which Scripture commands us. Therefore, while we may wrongly exclude some from membership with the church because we cannot discern their salvation, we must labor to rightly discern the body, that we may know, as far as possible, that those who are members of the church do appear to be Christians.

Once again, this is where baptism enters the equation. If baptism is a command of Christ (and baptists hold that it is, based on: Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38, Acts 10:47, Romans 6:3, and many more passages besides) then those who refuse to be baptized are not simply refusing to undergo some specific event, they are refusing to submit in obedience to God. Therefore, while these people may evidence many other signs of salvation, the fact that they persist in refusing to be baptized causes the baptist to look at them with some reservation, recognizing that the church should be wholly obedient to Christ, and not only obedient in some, or most ways. Therefore, baptism becomes a necessary step for anyone to enter into church membership, because it is the sign that demonstrates that the person has indeed entered into the death of Christ, and risen with him.

The reason I have attempted to lay out this discussion is because unfortunately many baptists are losing their distinctiveness. Most baptist churches have failed to seriously educate their members as to what the significance of baptism is, and why the Lord's Table is so important. Most baptists would probably still say that they do not want to allow paedobaptists as members, but would they know why, from a biblical perspective? Whether you agree with the argument or not, I hope that you understand now that baptism is not just a matter of one becoming a "wash and wear Christian" but it really is important. Because it is so important we ought not neglect the discussion of baptism in our churches.

If you aren't aware, I am a historic baptist. I was raised in the Southern Baptist tradition, and I have come to embrace that tradition as I think it is the most orthodox biblical position. That does not mean that there aren't skeletons in the closet of Southern Baptists. Our racial divisions and the long standing issue of slavery that lead to the formation of the Southern Baptist convention need to be dealt with. The last generation of Southern Baptists made apology for how our tradition assisted in perpetuating slavery, but they were not able to overcome the racial divisions that still exist in most Southern Baptist churches. But, despite the problems that exist within the Southern Baptist tradition, we must continue to hold to the importance of believers' baptism, and in order to do so we must understand the importance of the Lord's Table and church discipline, understanding which has been lacking in the last 50-60 years.

The Hound of Heaven

2010-09-22T07:00:00.014-04:00

On Sunday I listened to the end of one of Ravi Zacharius's sermons with my wife as we were driving to church. If you are not familiar with him, he is a Christian apologist who addresses various philosophical issues with the Christian faith. I have always found him imminently readable and enjoyable. He is not always a scholarly apologist, sometimes writing popular works that address issues at a level easier for those with no philosophical training to appreciate. But, he is also very intelligent, and some of his works are a bit more complex.

One of his favorite poems, if I were to judge based on how often I have heard him quote from it is, "The Hound of Heaven" by Francis Thompson. It really is a very good poem. However, the poem was written in a bit of the old English style of 19th century poets. That means that some of the terms and language used is a bit archaic to our ears. If you've never read the poem though, I would encourage you to do so.

I'll post the poem here, but you should know that poetry.elcore.net has a glossed version of the poem, explaining most of the difficult terms used. The link above will take you to that gloss if you would like to read the poem but need a little help with some of the language. Again, I highly recommend that you take the time to read the poem, and hopefully, from this poetic testimony of a man who came to Christ after fleeing him for so many years, you can appreciate the love of God just a little more. It is good to serve the God who does not give up on wayward sons and daughters.

This version as taken from bartleby.com

The Hound of Heaven by Francis Thompson I FLED Him, down the nights and down the days;
I fled Him, down the arches of the years;
I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways
Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears
I hid from Him, and under running laughter.	5
Up vistaed hopes I sped;
And shot, precipitated,
Adown Titanic glooms of chasmèd fears,
From those strong Feet that followed, followed after.
But with unhurrying chase,	10
And unperturbèd pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,
They beat—and a Voice beat
More instant than the Feet—
‘All things betray thee, who betrayest Me.’	15

I pleaded, outlaw-wise,
By many a hearted casement, curtained red,
Trellised with intertwining charities;
(For, though I knew His love Who followèd,
Yet was I sore adread	20
Lest, having Him, I must have naught beside).
But, if one little casement parted wide,
The gust of His approach would clash it to.
Fear wist not to evade, as Love wist to pursue.
Across the margent of the world I fled,	25
And troubled the gold gateways of the stars,
Smiting for shelter on their clangèd bars;
Fretted to dulcet jars
And silvern chatter the pale ports o’ the moon.
I said to Dawn: Be sudden—to Eve: Be soon;	30
With thy young skiey blossoms heap me over
From this tremendous Lover—
Float thy vague veil about me, lest He see!
I tempted all His servitors, but to find
My own betrayal in their constancy,	35
In faith to Him their fickleness to me,
Their traitorous trueness, and their loyal deceit.
To all swift things for swiftness did I sue;
Clung to the whistling mane of every wind.
But whether they swept, smoothly fleet,	40
The long savannahs of the blue;
Or whether, Thunder-driven,
They clanged his chariot ’thwart a heaven,
Plashy with flying lightnings round the spurn o’ their feet:—
Fear wist not to evade as Love wist to pursue.	45
Still with unhurrying chase,
And unperturbèd pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,
Came on the following Feet,
And a Voice above their beat—	50
‘Naught shelters thee, who wilt not shelter Me.’

I sought no more that after which I strayed
In face of man or maid;
But still within the little children’s eyes
Seems something, something that replies,	55
They at least are for me, surely for me!
I turned me to them very wistfully;
But just as their young eyes grew sudden fair
With dawning answers there,
Their angel plucked them from me by the hair.	60
‘Come then, ye other children, Nature’s—share
With me’ (said I) ‘your delicate fellowship;
Let me greet you lip to lip,
Let me twine with you caresses,
Wantoning	65
With our Lady-Mother’s vagrant tresses,
Banqueting
With her in her wind-walled palace,
Underneath her azured daïs,
Quaffing, as your taintless way is,	70
From a chalice
Lucent-weeping out of the dayspring.’
So it was done:
I in their delicate fellowship was one—
Drew the bolt of Nature’s secrecies.	75
I knew all the swift importings
On the wilful face of skies;
I knew how the clouds arise
Spumèd of the wild sea-snortings;
All that’s born or dies	80
Rose and drooped with; made them shapers
Of mine own moods, or wailful or divine;
With them joyed and was bereaven.
I was heavy with the even,
When she lit her glimmering tapers	85
Round the day’s dead sanctities.
I laughed in the morning’s eyes.
I triumphed and I saddened with all weather,
Heaven and I wept together,
And its sweet tears were salt with mortal mine;	90
Against the red throb of its sunset-heart
I laid my own to beat,
And share commingling heat;
But not by that, by that, was eased my human smart.
In vain my tears were wet on Heaven’s grey cheek.	95
For ah! we know not what each other says,
These things and I; in sound I speak—
Their sound is but their stir, they speak by silences.
Nature, poor stepdame, cannot slake my drouth;
Let her, if she would owe me,	100
Drop yon blue bosom-veil of sky, and show me
The breasts o’ her tenderness:
Never did any milk of hers once bless
My thirsting mouth.
Nigh and nigh draws the chase,	105
With unperturbèd pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy;
And past those noisèd Feet
A voice comes yet more fleet—
‘Lo! naught contents thee, who content’st not Me!’	110
Naked I wait Thy love’s uplifted stroke!
My harness piece by piece Thou hast hewn from me,
And smitten me to my knee;
I am defenceless utterly.
I slept, methinks, and woke,	115
And, slowly gazing, find me stripped in sleep.
In the rash lustihead of my young powers,
I shook the pillaring hours
And pulled my life upon me; grimed with smears,
I stand amid the dust o’ the mounded years—	120
My mangled youth lies dead beneath the heap.
My days have crackled and gone up in smoke,
Have puffed and burst as sun-starts on a stream.
Yea, faileth now even dream
The dreamer, and the lute the lutanist;	125
Even the linked fantasies, in whose blossomy twist
I swung the earth a trinket at my wrist,
Are yielding; cords of all too weak account
For earth with heavy griefs so overplussed.
Ah! is Thy love indeed	130
A weed, albeit an amaranthine weed,
Suffering no flowers except its own to mount?
Ah! must—
Designer infinite!—
Ah! must Thou char the wood ere Thou canst limn with it?	135
My freshness spent its wavering shower i’ the dust;
And now my heart is as a broken fount,
Wherein tear-drippings stagnate, spilt down ever
From the dank thoughts that shiver
Upon the sighful branches of my mind.	140
Such is; what is to be?
The pulp so bitter, how shall taste the rind?
I dimly guess what Time in mists confounds;
Yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds
From the hid battlements of Eternity;	145
Those shaken mists a space unsettle, then
Round the half-glimpsèd turrets slowly wash again.
But not ere him who summoneth
I first have seen, enwound
With glooming robes purpureal, cypress-crowned;	150
His name I know, and what his trumpet saith.
Whether man’s heart or life it be which yields
Thee harvest, must Thy harvest-fields
Be dunged with rotten death?

Now of that long pursuit	155
Comes on at hand the bruit;
That Voice is round me like a bursting sea:
‘And is thy earth so marred,
Shattered in shard on shard?
Lo, all things fly thee, for thou fliest Me!	160
Strange, piteous, futile thing!
Wherefore should any set thee love apart?
Seeing none but I makes much of naught’ (He said),
‘And human love needs human meriting:
How hast thou merited—	165
Of all man’s clotted clay the dingiest clot?
Alack, thou knowest not
How little worthy of any love thou art!
Whom wilt thou find to love ignoble thee,
Save Me, save only Me?	170
All which I took from thee I did but take,
Not for thy harms,
But just that thou might’st seek it in My arms.
All which thy child’s mistake
Fancies as lost, I have stored for thee at home:	175
Rise, clasp My hand, and come!’
Halts by me that footfall:
Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstretched caressingly?
‘Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,	180
I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me.’

A Perfect Inheritance (part 3)

2010-09-21T07:00:00.000-04:00

This is the last post on the topic of our perfect inheritance, based off of the sermon I preached on Sunday, 9/19/10. In the last two posts I have attempted to demonstrate that Ephesians 1:3-14 calls us to praise God for all he has done, and has called us to recognize that we are adopted as sons of God, and so we should live according to this truth. In this post I want to talk about one final aspect of our perfect inheritance, and that is the work of the Holy Spirit. There is so much more that can be said about Ephesians 1:3-14. The fact is this is an incredibly rich section of Scripture, but lest I tire you too much, or myself, this will be final post on it for now.

This post really is to make two points, those points have to do with what we read in Ephesians 1:13-14. Paul writes, "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory." The two points I want to address deal with the fact that we have been sealed with the Holy Spirit. This is not a future tense promise of sealing, it is a present reality: we have already been sealed.

In the first and second posts I continually made the point that we are saved according to God's will. Our salvation is not dependent on us and our continued work. This final section proves that point concretely. We have been sealed, and that which is sealed, according to what Paul says, is guaranteed. How can that guarantee be violated then unless God himself is a liar about what he has sealed? Basically, either God must be a liar, or he must be weak.

Certainly we would be complete fools to argue that God is a liar. If God were a liar (such a blasphemous idea ought to be repugnant to our thoughts) then there would be no point in believing anything in Scripture. What would be the point of trying to do anything to please God? If God were a liar then everything we know of his character in Scripture and everything he tells us to do as pleasing to him could potentially be a lie. In such a situation we may as well throw the bible away, because it would be useless to us.

But, God is not a liar. Therefore Scripture is trustworthy, because it comes from him. So, if God says we are sealed, then we are sealed. If God says that our salvation is guaranteed, then it is guaranteed, there is no need to doubt that. But, is God strong enough to make good on his guarantee? That is, what if God has guaranteed our salvation, but he can't really secure it against our strength, or the strength of sin or whatever else?

If that were the case then we would be back to the first point, believing that God is a liar. If God has said we have a guarantee of salvation, and we say, "But I could walk away from God! His guarantee could become void!" then we are arguing the idea that God is in fact wrong in saying that our salvation is guaranteed. In such a situation, God is once again a liar. Therefore, because God has said we are sealed, and our salvation is guaranteed, it must be so.

Therefore we are sealed, and there is no disputing this is what Scripture says. We accept this by faith then, and we ask the question, "What does our sealing mean?" It means that we will one day receive our inheritance. All of creation will one day be given over to Christ, and we will reign over it with him. We will have perfect relationship and harmony with God, even as we are already perfect before him. This inheritance will be ours, unquestionably.

But, it also means that one day we will be given to God. The fact is that we are God's possession. 1 Corinthians 6:20 says we were bought with a price. That which is bought is owned by the one who bought it. We are God's and one day God will take full possession of us.

It is hard to explain why this is such a wonderful fact, but I'll endeavor to do so. Because we have been bought by God, we are not slaves to anyone or anything else. According to what Paul commands us in 1 Corinthians 7:23, we are not to become slaves, which means that we are not slaves now. We were redeemed, purchased by God for himself, and that means we were set free from all our sinful limitations that at one time held us down.

We are possessed by God, so we are free to hope, free to rejoice, free to give him the glory for all that he has done. We are promised that he will have us, and that reassures us that we will also receive all that he has promised us. The promises given us belong to us because we belong to God. And because we know that God will assuredly take possession of us, we do not have to fear that somehow we will lose that which he has promised us.

We are sealed to receive and inheritance, and as an inheritance to be received by God. Our God, the maker of the heavens and the earth will not lose that of which he has taken possession. There is nothing stronger than God, nothing that can from his hand that which he has grasped. There is no one who can stand before God or be victorious over God. And that means that we do not have to fear that we will ever lose that which has been given to us, we can praise God in good times and bad, knowing that our hope is sure, because of the awesome might of our God who holds us, even if we should fail to hold to him.

Give God the glory, praise him for his might. Realize that you have been sealed, and what has been promised will be accomplished. Let this sink into your life and change you. Do not be afraid that you are going to go the wrong way, but remember, God will accomplish what he wants for you, because you are his possession. Do this, as Paul says, "to the praise of his glory."

A Perfect Inheritance (Part 2)

2010-09-20T07:00:00.000-04:00

I noted yesterday that God has provided a perfect inheritance for us in Christ. Today I'd like to develop that a little more. Not only has God provided a perfect inheritance for us, he has provided us with a means to receive that inheritance. God has given us Christ, he has provided us with a perfect savior, redeeming us from the curse of the fall. He has also given us sonship through Christ, providing the means by which we are able to receive that which he has prepared for us from before the foundation of the world.

In Ephesians 1:5 we read, "He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved." Our position before God is not dependent on our prayers or our works or our thoughts, they are dependent on God's determination.

Yes, we who are sons will pray to God, because we will want to speak with our Father, and to tell him of our troubles and ask him for his help. Yes, we who are sons will seek to do the will of our Father, not because of our great debt to God, which we can never repay, but because we desire to please our Father and show him our love for him. And yes, our thoughts will be upon the mercy of God, the goodness of God, everything good and noble and worthy of the Lord, because it is only normal and natural to think about that which is most important to us, which ought to be, and will be, God. But, none of these things makes us sons of God through Christ, instead it is the will of God that brings us to himself through Christ that makes us his sons. The Lord is responsible for our position before him, so that we cannot take credit for that which he has done.

But, consider that our position before God, being dependent on God, will never falter if we fail or fall. God has already ordained that we are his sons through Christ, if we are indeed in Christ, so that it does not matter if we stumble and fall, he still calls us sons. This is what Ephesians 1:4 & 7 tells us: "he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him," and, "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses." We have this forgiveness now, not that we shall have it, but that already it is done. Already we are holy and blameless before God, and continually so, because God's word does not change. We are not now holy only to be unholy tomorrow, we are not now forgiven so that tomorrow we will be condemned. Our holiness and righteousness is not dependent on us, it is dependent on God alone, because it is what he has proclaimed.

Consider how this works in contrast with the choices of the Old Testament. In Deuteronomy 11:26 we read Moses words to the People of Israel that he was setting before them blessing and curse. In Deuteronomy 30 we can read how this blessing and curse would work out. Deuteronomy 30:19 tells us that the blessing and curse can also be called life and death. Moses tells the people to choose life that they and their children might live. But, here, in Ephesians, notice that Paul does not call us to a choice, instead he tells us of the choice that God has made for us.

We are not a people who have to choose blessing or curse, our choice has been made for us. If we are in Christ, if we are those whom God has called to him, predestining us to receive his Son, then blessing has been chosen for us. It is not a matter of our will, so that our positions as sons before God depends on our continuous choosing. God has spoken, he has declared what will be, so that our adoption is sure, our redemption is promised and is ours now, and will be ours eternally. How wonderful it is to know that we can relax, we can trust in God, we can have faith in him, and we can enter into his rest, no longer striving but knowing that God holds us in his hands eternally.

Once we stop striving to save ourselves something more amazing comes into view. We who have been adopted and have been forgiven also have been told what God wants. We who have received the adoption of God through Christ have been told of God's amazing plan, to bring all things together in Christ at the end of all things. This is a wonderful blessing because it means that we don't have to wonder at what God wants of us. We don't have to worry about whether we will choose wrongly, because we know that our goal ought to be God's goal, and God will accomplish his goal, even if it seems we have butchered it.

What I mean is that we who have been redeemed and forgiven do not need to worry that we are not going to accomplish what God wants. We ought not be lazy, because laziness is not pleasing to our Father. We ought not be paralyzed by fear of making the wrong choice, because such a fear betrays a mistrust of the Lord. We ought to be busy doing the work of him who sent us, even as he sent Christ, because it is wonderful and good work, and it is this work which provides us with fulfillment in life. God's purpose for all of creation is to bring all things together under Christ, so what more meaningful lives can we live than lives that seek to bring everything we do under Christ today?

God has given us redemption through his Son, and he has given us purpose through Christ. We know that what we do in this life, done with the purpose of bringing all things, our money, our thoughts, our work, our culture, and our friends and neighbors, all under Christ, will prove of eternal worth. We may never see an ounce of movement, but we do not need to be discouraged, because the work is not ours, it is God's. This is not the plan of men, it is the plan of God, and it will be accomplished. The God we serve made the universe, saved us according to his will, and arranged all of history to his purposes; how then can history not end up where he has directed it, so that Christ is glorified and the Father receives all glory through him?

Because of all this there is one more thing we are able to rejoice in, and that is spoken of throughout this passage: we have an inheritance. If all things will eventually be united in Christ, and we are now in Christ, then eventually all things will be united with us in him as well. That means we who are in Christ will eventually receive all things. I'm not speaking out of line here, I assure you.

Consider the promises made to the churches of Philadelphia and Laodicea. We will be made pillars in the temple of God, in the new Jerusalem. And we will sit down with Christ on his throne, even as he sat down with his Father on his throne. When you consider that there is no temple in the new Jerusalem, for God himself will be our temple, then the promise takes on its full import. We will be joined to God in a way that will be like being pillars in the midst of him, we will never leave from him or go out from him. And we will reign with Christ over all creation.

Paul says that we will judge angels! What is there left that is outside of our authority if we are in Christ then? We will reign with him, we will dwell in the presence of God eternally, and even angels will be under our authority and judgment. We who are in Christ, who stand forgiven and redeemed before God, who know the will of our Father, also have a great and wonderful (consider the real meaning of this word: full of wonder) inheritance in that we shall receive everything through Christ.

What do we have left that we should need then? You do not have a place to rest your head tonight? Don't worry, the whole of creation will be given to you, if you are faithful in Christ. Do you hunger, are you thirsty? Do what you can to eat what you need and drink so that you can be healthy, but remember, the point of life is not fine dining and expensive wine, it is to bring all things together under Christ, so that one day all things will be yours in Christ. Look forward to your inheritance, not for your physical appetites and the satisfying of your lusts, but because God has given you his own presence, he has given you Christ, he has given you a perfect inheritance, and this is your hope.

Live a life worthy of this, seek wisdom now that you will know how to rightly administer the inheritance that is to come. Give God the glory, praise him for all he has done. And share the good news of what you have, so that your rejoicing may cause others to rejoice and add again to your joy in Christ. What do you lack dear Christian? This world is not your home, do not fall in love with it, because you have a better home coming, a better inheritance than you can even imagine.

A Perfect Inheritance (part 1)

2010-09-19T12:00:00.001-04:00

From the time of the fall, as Adam and Eve were learning of their punishment from God, there was also a promise of hope set forth by the Word of the Lord. Of course, this is no new exegesis of Genesis 3. God, in speaking to Eve, told her that he would set enmity between her seed and that of the serpent, and that her seed would crush the head of the serpent and the serpent would bruise his heal. This first promise set forth all the expectations that built throughout Scripture for a messiah, an anointed one who would crush Satan under his heel. But, this promise also became an inheritance, because Eve did not bear the anointed child, instead the promise would be passed on, so that Mary would be the one to actually give birth to the Messiah, fulfilling the promise of God.

Likewise, with every promise of the Old Testament, Christ was the one to which they were pointing. The promise of land, the promise of peace, the promise of fellowship with God, and every other promise that God made was fulfilled in Christ. Not only were the promises fulfilled, they continue to be fulfilled in Christ. This is the beauty of the inheritance that God has provided for us in Christ. God has not only given us a promise of inheritance, he himself has perfected that inheritance by doing in Christ what we had no hope of doing for ourselves.

I'm getting a little ahead of myself, but this is the premise for why I call what we have in Christ our perfect inheritance. It is the basis of our praise for God, the reason for why we bless God and proclaim his glory. Some note that even if we did not have this inheritance, God's glory would not be diminished and we should still give him all the praise we do now, but that isn't a question Scripture addresses. As C.S. Lewis notes so often in the Narnia series, no one is ever told "What if?" what we have is what is, and that is what God has spoken to us about. So, instead of deliberating on theological "What ifs?" let us praise God for what he has done, let us always be reminded of our perfect inheritance.

This is where Paul begins in Ephesians. Ephesians 1:3-10 reads, " Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth."

Notice the consistent present and past tense terms used by Paul here. God has blessed us, he chose us, he predestined us, he blessed us. We have redemption and forgiveness. He lavished his grace upon us. He has made known his will to us. Even the plans for the uniting all things in Christ happened in the past tense, so that while all things are not yet joined together, the process has begun, and the fulfillment is guaranteed.

God deserves all praise, and he is worth of our blessings, because he has done great and wondrous things on our behalf. Consider what it means that we have been predestined us for adoption, and that he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world. God knew us before the world was formed. The same God who loved Christ before the foundation of the world, according to what John quotes from Jesus' own lips, loved us in Christ. God's love for us is not bound with time and space, but before there was time, as God exists (existed?) outside of time itself, God already (whatever that means in non-temporal conception) loved us in Christ, for his love for Christ is the limit of his love for us.

But, since the creation of the world, God has continued to love us. Even when we were at war with him, God knew there would be a time where we would be in Christ. Somehow, in a way we cannot comprehend, God loved us even while he was at war with us and his wrath remained on us because we had not yet accepted the love and sacrifice of his Son for us. God's amazing choice, his making us holy and blameless is not dependent on present, past, or future actions we have taken, but it is according to his wisdom and insight, for his will. Yes, when we come to Christ we choose God, but it is a choice that was predestined, it was a faith given to us, it was a gift that we might come to Christ and love him as he chose us and loved us while we were yet sinners.

And yet, the love of God goes one step further to really leave us wondering at his grace. Consider this: God chose you in Christ (if you are in Christ) before the foundation of the world. That means that before creation began, God had already willed to save you. But think of what that really means! God created the world and organized all of history so that you would be born, you would live the life you have lived, and you would hear the gospel of Christ. This is perhaps one of the most amazing things to me about the whole matter: God not only balanced all of the world and the whole of creation in his mind, he also arranged all of history so that he could save us who were his enemies!

What are we left to do with this then? Praise God. Live a life that praises God. Worship the God of creation, the God who knows all things and ordained all things according to his will and for his glory. Be found in Christ so that all the blessings that Paul discusses in Ephesians, "every spiritual blessing" can be yours. Long to know God more completely so that you can know the vast and amazing reach of his love, so it can transform your life as you worship him who is worthy of all blessing and gives all blessing.

Your inheritance is perfect. It is completed, not wanting. Be found in Christ so that every promise declared as yours can be enjoyed by you both now and eternally in the future. You know that God has given Christ for us, you know the work that God has done. Why now, with all that God has done on your behalf, would you remain unchanged and unaffected by the glory of him who loves you, and have loved you, since before the world was formed?

What Really Matters?

2010-09-18T07:00:00.000-04:00

One of my favorite books in the Bible is the book of Job. There is something about the way that Job suffered despite his righteousness that appeals to me. The sovereignty of God, the antagonism of Satan, the desperation of a man attacked by forces he cannot control or understand, the misery of that man as he finds himself forsaken by friends and family, and the confusion of that man as he isn't even sure whether his God still cares for him or not, all wrapped up in the beauty of poetry. The book of Job talks about the events of life that all of us face, just as the other wisdom books in Scripture, Proverbs, Psalms, and Ecclesiastes, but with one major difference. The difference in the wisdom of Job is that it is not just songs or sayings or a thought out dissertation on the importance of wisdom, it is the story of a man's life and the wisdom gleaned from that life as it was lived in history.

One of the lessons I have been thinking about lately from the book of Job comes from an old insight that was brought to my attention. I honestly cannot remember who brought this particular point to my attention. Most likely it was my father. While he did not teach me everything I know about theology and Scripture, he certainly taught me a great deal. The insight was simply this: Job was never told why all of his misfortunes came upon him.

Often people make this point as they seek to illustrate that Scripture does not apologize for what God does. They are right about that, of course. Scripture never seeks to defend God from the charge that he allows evil or does evil. Scripture simply presents the reality that God does what he wants to do and is sovereign over all things. Thus, while the writers of Scripture are certainly aware of the problem of evil, that seemingly wicked things happen to seemingly righteous individuals, their answer is only that God is control of all things. Job definitely agrees with this perspective, as God's final interaction with Job reminds Job that he is but a man, and should not question the sovereign will and authority of the one who made him.

But, this point, that Scripture does not seek to defend God against the charge of evil, and the way that Job's problem is eventually resolved, simply by God's choosing to bless him at the end of the story, brings another point to mind. That point is best addressed by the question, "What really matters?" Was it Job's possessions, his health, his friendships or his family that really mattered at the end of the book? Yes, Job got all of those things back, and in the case of his possessions he received double, but was that the point of the book?

The real point of the book is not Job's suffering. It is not Job's loss or his righteousness. All that Job suffers and endures is but the backdrop for the conversation, which builds to one specific point: the glory of God. What really matters in Job, the crucial point that we must grasp, is that no matter what happens, God is worthy of worship and praise.

Consider why Elihu was angry with Job. Job sought to defend his own righteousness instead of God's. Elihu was not concerned that Job might have sinned in some way, Elihu was not concerned that Job might be accusing God of some wickedness or misbehavior. Elihu was concerned that the righteousness of God was not being proclaimed by a suffering Job.

Think of that. Elihu wanted Job to put aside his own pain and suffering and give God glory for who he is. Elihu waited patiently before saying anything because of the wisdom of his elders, but finally his patience gave way as the older men became silent. Consider how the text introduces Elihu to us: But Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, became very angry with Job for justifying himself rather than God. (Job 32:2) Elihu understood that what was really important was not that Job's integrity should be defended, but that God's character should be declared.

What is really important is not that any of us are ever vindicated in this life. We may be persecuted, rightly or wrongly. We may be poor, or we may be rich. We may suffer, or we may seem to pass through life with ease and comfort our consistent friends, but what does any of that matter? Our lives, if we live one hundred years or one thousand years, are still brief, and not worth comparing to the history of the world. What really matters is that we proclaim the goodness of God, the glory of God, and the character of God, so that he may be made known throughout all the world.

We are not seeking to defend God, he is not in need of our weak protestations. We are seeking to justify God in our lives, to give him the glory of his work on our behalf. We seek to vindicate God before those who would question his justice or his integrity, not by mere arguments, but by acknowledging that all that is done is done according to his wisdom. Job failed to do this in his arguments.

Job argued that he was righteous, he argued that if he could bring his argument before God, then maybe he could convince God to let him alone. But that mode of thought fails to realize that God knows full well what he is doing, and does not need to be counseled or advised in any way.

Does God not know our predicament? Is he ignorant of our plight? Is our suffering somehow lost on the God who created us and who acts with all righteousness? Why then would we think that we could bring argument against him to make him change his mind? Instead of thinking we can advise God, we ought to tell everyone of how good God is, even in the midst of our pain and suffering.

Perhaps Job began with some understanding of this reality. When Job lost his children and his possessions he tore his robe, shaved his head, fell to the ground and worshiped God. Even when Job lost his health and his wife turned on him advising him to curse God and die, Job said to her, "Should we accept good from God and not evil?" (Job 2:9) And though Job never sinned against God or accused God of anything improper, in the midst of the accusations from his friends, Job seems to have forgotten the goodness of God and that he is worthy of worship, no matter what happens in our lives.

Is it enough to be righteous? No matter how good we may be, we will never be pure and holy as God is pure and holy. No matter how just and righteous we may be, we will always be filthy compared to the spotless person of our God. Because of this, ought we not give God the glory in every situation? No matter what we suffer, it cannot diminish the wonder of God, so do not be overcome with evil, but overcome every evil situation with good, remembering the God we serve will vindicate us at the coming of Christ, so we do not need to vindicate ourselves, especially not before him.

Confident Insufficiency

2010-09-17T07:00:00.001-04:00

I'm reading through Dr. Bryan Chapell's book Christ Centered Preaching again. I haven't read the book in probably a year or so, since going through seminary. Even in seminary I read the book because I had to for a book review, and while it was good, I have a feeling that I didn't get out of it what I could have, so now I'm going to read it again, so I can be reminded of the great truths that Dr. Chapell has distilled in this wonderful volume. If you haven't read it, and you want to preach, I entreat you, read it.

One of the earliest truths that Dr. Chapell discusses is the fact that preachers are insufficient to the task of preaching. But, it's okay that we be insufficient to the task, because the real task of preaching is the winning of souls to God. The presentation of the Word of God with power to the goal of converting sinners to Christ, and empowering Christians to live their lives, in every way, in deeper relationship with God. What mortal man could be sufficient to this task? All of us are too sinful, too imperfect, too limited to accomplish the goals we should have with every sermon.

But, that's okay. In fact, that's a good thing. Because we are insufficient we are able to do exactly what we need to do. Because we are imperfect, we are able to call upon God, who perfects his power in our weakness, that he might do that which we cannot, and glorify himself through the foolishness of preaching. I told my wife one of the first lines in that book that made me chuckle is that Dr. Chapell notes that Paul commends the foolishness of preaching, but not foolish preaching.

A good preacher, a good pastor, is not called to stand up and be foolish in what he says, but he is called to be wise and give forth the Word of God. This is foolish precisely because we expect somehow that mere words will have effective power to change the lives of those that hear them. But, this is the means by which God has determined that his power should be shared. He works through his Word. The same Word that created the world holds all things together now, it raised Christ from the dead, sent the Spirit into timid fishermen and rejects from society, and even now is working powerfully in the world to accomplish the will of God. This Word no man is worthy to proclaim, but we are called to go forth and do that which we are not worthy of, because God is powerful enough to redeem the fallen.

Isn't this the same thing that applies to all of us? What are you sufficient to do on your own? Banking, physics, driving, shoveling, what is any of that in the eternal scheme of things? Yet, in Christ when we are obedient, those things which are nothing in the eternal scheme become important, because God does amazing things with insufficient people.

None of us is sufficient to fulfill the task to which we were called, because we were called to conform to the image of Christ. I don't know about you, but I have found that no matter how much I may try and force my heart to be more faithful, I don't seem to have a lot of power to change my very nature. I can control my actions, I can choose not to dwell on the sinful thoughts that enter into my mind, but I seem to have a nature that keeps on wanting to go back to sin. I am insufficient to change myself, to conform myself, to the image of Christ. But God is sufficient, and he will do that which I am incapable of doing, I just have to be faithful to him.

Likewise, Christ called upon us to go out into all nations and proclaim the gospel, making disciples of every people, tribe, tongue and nation. We were told to do this not because of the great power that was given unto us, but because all power in heaven and earth has been given unto him. Our commission does not rely upon our sufficiency, but upon the sufficiency of our God. He alone is able to do all things, without him, we can do nothing.

Take comfort in your insufficiency. Be confident that whatever God has called you to do, you are incapable of doing. And that is to his glory, because what you cannot do, he can. Where you are insufficient, God, my God, is more than sufficient. When you are faithful to God, and you work with all the strength which he gives you, then you can do great things, because you are not sufficient to do it on your own.

But, that means that you don't need to worry about whether you will save your best friend. You don't need to worry about whether your life will be perfect enough to stand against those who would test you and examine every aspect of you. You have sinned, and though you have (hopefully) put that sin behind you, you will never attain perfection in this life. You don't need to worry about those things, because the reality is that this is who you are, imperfect, insufficient to achieve the great tasks which God will set before you.

But, because God's Word is sufficient, because his power is able to do all things, when he commands you, if you are faithful to do what he says, then he will accomplish his purposes. Your life will never save anyone, only his word will. You will never have the power to save any man, only Christ can do that. You can take comfort in knowing that God is not relying upon your insufficiency, he is giving you the chance to join with his power to accomplish his purposes. This same God who made all things, who raised Christ from the dead, is able to raise the dead people we speak to, but we are not.

Praise God for our insufficiency, that he may be glorified. I will never save any man with my preaching, and that's perfectly fine with me. I may stumble, I may fall, I may make a fool of myself in the pulpit, and that's okay. As long as God's Word is proclaimed, that is all that matters. I may be a stuttering fool, I may lack all eloquence, I may be monotone and forget my outline, but if I am obedient to what God has called me to do, if I proclaim his Word, then he will be faithful to himself, and he will use his Word to accomplish his purposes. It is God who gives a man ears to hear and a mouth to speak. If he gives me an eloquent tongue, then so much more to his praise, but if not, I do not need to worry, I may be insufficient, but that's just the kind of person God wants me to be.

Have you thanked God for your insufficiency today? Have you praised God that you do not have the burden to accomplish what you cannot accomplish? Have you thanked him that he chose to let you join him in accomplishing his will? Our God is awesome, his power is beyond description. If you do not know this God, please, write me that I can share his Word with you. Seek him while he may still be found, for all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.

Poison

2010-09-16T07:00:00.000-04:00

In my post yesterday I mentioned that I have a poison ivy rash. Today I want to go into more detail on that, and tell you about why I don't hate it quite as much as I did. But, I ask you to bear with me some, as I want to go a little into the details of my particular situation. You see, my exposure is not typical. My exposure has been pretty bad actually.

I went a saw a doctor about my poison ivy rash. Two weeks out from the first exposure the rash seems to be continuing to show up on other parts of my body. Initially I had a minor rash on my right arm, and a few little spots on my left arm where it looked like I touched my arm with my fingers after they came into contact with the plant. A minor rash, at best.

I was exposed on Saturday, August 24th. By Wednesday of the next week, it looked like I described it above. I showed it to some of the people from church as my wife and I went to bible study. Most of them noted that it looked like a minor rash, they even teased me that the little rash I had wasn't sufficient to be called a poison ivy reaction. If only they had been right.

On Sunday I showed them the rashes again. By this point, on my right arm I had a think leathery scab just at my wrist and extending about an inch up my arm. It was mildly annoying and I couldn't bend my wrist very well because of it. My left arm had blossomed into a minor swelling all along my lower under arm. Now I had validation: I had a certified poison ivy rash.

So, by this point I'm in a bit of discomfort. I'm spraying calamine lotion (with pain and itch relievers) on the left arm. On the right arm it wasn't itching too much, the scab was so thick it basically just hurt a little bit. I'm still not worried though. Instead I'm making a point of keeping ice bags on my arms as I can and just trying to avoid scratching it. I'm hoping it will start to heal soon, and Sunday night brought some additional hope to my attention.

An aunt and uncle along with cousins from my wife's side came to visit us. Spencer (my cousin) told me about how he used a product called Zanfel to treat his poison ivy. He told me it could do what no other product claimed to be able to do: it could remove the Urushiol from my arms! That's right, the Urushiol that had bound into my skin could be pulled out, I could stop the spread and get rid of the itching! Excellent!

I got some. $35 without tax for one ounce. If it would do what it claimed though, it would be worth it. I took it home and used it as per the directions. The itching stopped. I thought that was the end of it all, now I could heal. God is only amused at the feeble attempts of mortals to control that which he created to serve his will.

The rash seemed to stop on my arms, but it wasn't healing very fast. Oh, and the scab on my right arm was thicker. It was starting to crack to the point of bleeding lightly. I now could not move my wrist at all without pain, or close my fingers on my right hand because it would pull the skin at the top of my hand, adding a little more pain to the situation. The swelling on the left arm began to lightly scab. And a few new bumps had developed on my right hip and side.

Add to this the general disgust that I was oozing. That's right, the serum that forms scabs was attempting to form little scabs on all the spaces where my skin had broken down a little bit. Imagine holding a rubber ball with tiny little holes in it with a pressurized gel on the inside, so that the gel was continuously forming little bubbles and lightly flowing out of the rubber ball. That's how my left arm looked. Wherever I went I tried to take a napkin or a handkerchief with me to prevent oozing on anything I might rest my arm on.

My right arm was oozing also, but the breaks in the skin were thick enough that instead of forming little scabs that couldn't adhere to anything I had large scabs that caught the hair on my arm. Ah, one more minor inconvenience, feeling the hairs on my arms getting pulled every time I moved my arm. But, at least I wasn't leaving slug spots behind me wherever I rested my right arm.

I want to add one more final annoyance of my particular exposure to poison ivy: pressure. Every time I held my arms down by my side for more than 30 seconds the blood flow in the area would get so intense it would feel like my arms were swelling up. Add to this the irritation of feeling my blood flow. That's right, the little vibrations that travel through your arm from the pumping of your blood would aggravate the sensitive skin and cause minor pain or itching. Constantly. No, no, you don't understand, I mean all the time with out end constant itching and minor pins and needles pain in my left arm, and pressure in my right arm.

But, I finally went to the doctor. Once I realized the rash is still spreading, still is spreading, I figured I have what is known as systemic poison ivy. Basically the poison ivy didn't just adhere to my skin, it got into my blood stream. Now it is traveling around, having a little carnival in my body (whoopee!) and popping up wherever it decides to make a picnic lunch. It should stop now though. I got a steroid shot and some topical steroid cream (Charlton smash!) that should help me heal. And I'm on an antibiotic since I have beautiful open wounds on both arms now.

I told my wife though that it brought a comparison to my mind. Everything I described about my poison ivy is a lot like the sinful situation of all of us. At first, when we are young or do not know much of the glory of God and his holiness, we think we only have a minor exposure. We figure, over time, we'll heal, we'll get better. Finally, after the sin has spread sufficiently in our lives, we hear others talking about how they have fought sin in their own lives, and we do the same things. We hope that by applying a cream to our sinfulness, we can stop the outbreak.

The problem is that the wounds just don't heal, the sin may not be spreading any more, but we are powerless to really heal it. Unknown to us, sin is not just on the surface, it is in our blood, in our very souls. Wherever sin decides to crop up, it will, and we are powerless to fight it. We will always be powerless, and we need someone who can treat the sinfulness within us.

Christ is our great doctor. He alone has the power to give us what we need to be free from the sinful condition of our bodies. Just as I needed a steroid shot, we need an injection of Christ into our lives. And just as I have a cream to apply to my sores to help control the outbreak and heal my skin, so also we have the Holy Spirit who continuously convicts us of sin and helps us to recover from the wounds that persist, even after we have been forgiven. Moreover the power of Christ not only removes our sin, not only forgives us, it also makes us righteous, just as I needed treatment not just for the poison ivy, but also because of the potential of infection.

Not really a new metaphor, but hopefully, Christ as our great physician means a little more to you today, as it does to me.

For those of you who want photos, continue to the bottom of the post! I have included "before" photos, and "after" photos. The first three were taken around 9/5/10, the last group was taken on 9/11/10, when I finally went to the doctor. You can decide for yourself whether you think going to the doctor was really necessary.

WARNING! These pictures are potentially disturbing. If you've ever seen a moderate/severe chemical burn these most closely resemble such. Please, if you have a weak stomach, you probably don't want to look at this. If you have young children you may wish to look at these first and then decide whether it is appropriate for them. The first three look like just cuts or scabs, the last six are more graphic. (They are only shots of my arms, but they are pretty bad.)

Here are the photos from 9/5/10:


Right wrist

Left arm (sorry for the blurry shot)

Both arms.

And here are the 9/11/10 photos:

Left arm, note the cracking around the elbow. Couldn't bend it w/o pain.

Left fore arm, under, closer look at the elbow and the weepy serum scabs.

Left arm, close look at the worst blisters nearest the wrist.

Right fore arm, upper

Right fore arm, under.

Right wrist

Why I Hate the Fall

2010-09-15T07:00:00.002-04:00

I get hot easily. I don't mean angry, I mean I bodily get hot, very easily. It could be 70 outside and I would be sweating, not copiously, but sweating none the less. I know this isn't a particularly lovely image, but it is the truth. Because I get hot easily, I prefer cooler temperatures. (There are photos from our honeymoon with my wife wearing two shirts, a jacket with a hood over her head, another jacket on top of that, a scarf, a knit hat over her head, gloves on her hands, standing with her arms crossed while she shivered as we passed through Glacier Bay. I, on the other hand, was wearing a t-shirt. And I was comfortable.)

For someone who gets hot easily and who enjoys cold weather, you would think I would like the fall. And you would be correct. I like the fall, as the leaves change, the weather gets cooler, and the crisp mornings and evenings are wonderful for good long walks.

So, why did I title this, "Why I Hate the Fall"? I used that title because I'm referring to fall of humanity. After we sinned, when we were cast out of the Garden of Eden, we were also cursed. But, it wasn't just humanity that was cursed, it was all of creation. Hence, Paul tells us that all of creation groans, in labor pains, waiting for redemption. This world isn't as it is supposed to be, its broken. (Romans 8:18-27)

The fact of the fallen state of the world was brought to my attention recently as I had a run in with what I believe has to be one of the most obvious reminders of the reality of the Fall that God created. This particular reminder is persistent, I must admit. It isn't a disease, but it lasts for as long as 4 weeks. It also serves as a constant reminder, because as long as it lasts, you will constantly deal with pain and itching, enough so that even sleeping is affected. I speak, of course, of poison ivy.

I have done a lot of research on poison ivy. Allow me to regale you with the information I have come across: The irritant that makes poison ivy so annoying is called urushiol, (You-ROO-she-ohl) it is an oil that is found on and in every part of the plant. Because it is an oil is does not dry up, even if the plant is killed it can linger for as long as a year. Oh, and the properties of an oil are just beginning.

As an oil urushiol suspends in water, so if you wash your hands the oil does not necessarily come off, instead you can transfer it to whatever you use to dry your hands, and then transfer it from that to other parts of your body. (Washing clothes exposed is okay though, the oil suspends in the water and doesn't transfer to other items, it drains out with the water.) It also vaporizes when burned, so if you burn some poison ivy the oil will vaporize with the smoke and cover whatever the smoke comes into contact with, including your lungs. The oil can also last on any object it comes into contact with, again, for up to a year. And, the method used for cleansing the urushiol can leave you even more susceptible if you come back into contact with it within the next few hours. Oh, and to make things even more interesting, the normal method of washing your hands, using hot water and scrubbing for several seconds, can actually cause the oil to sink further into your skin as it opens your pours.

Here's where things get really fun: urushiol cannot be washed out of your skin once it has bound itself into your skin. If you realize you have been exposed you basically have a max of six hours to try and wash the oil out. Washing the oil out can be done with strong soap and hot water (but remember, done wrongly that could only make the resulting rash worse!) but it is most commonly recommended to use rubbing alcohol or something else that can dissolve the oil (oil and water don't mix, basic cooking and chemistry rules). If, for whatever reason, you fail to get your skin cleaned in time (realistically you want to do it within 30 minutes) then the urushiol actually binds with the proteins in your skin. That's right, once it is in you it cannot be removed, it cannot be treated with anti-venoms, and the best you can hope for is a treatment that will make you more comfortable.

And, if you think you're one of those who is immune, be aware: poison ivy gives you at least one free pass. Because of the way poison ivy works you will not break out with a rash after your first exposure. You may think you are totally immune to it. Even on the second, third, etc. exposure, you may have no reaction. 75% of people (estimated) do react though, and just because you didn't react this time doesn't mean you won't react next time. Something about the chemical properties of urushiol cause it to not aggravate people initially, our bodies have to get sensitized to it. You also may not even realize you have urushiol on your hands as you spread it, because the rashes do not break out on your palms (the proteins the urushiol binds with are too think on your palms) but it will break out every where you touch with your palms. (I have a spot on my left arm where I have four pretty definite finger marks from where I apparently put my right hand on my left arm.)

Misery loves company. Hopefully in describing what poison ivy does I have you wincing just a little with me at how annoying it is. If you aren't there yet let me inform you of one more thing: the most common areas for rashes are the face and the groin. Yes, that's right, the two most sensitive areas on any body are the most common areas for the rash to break out, because those are the areas we tend to touch for personal hygiene reasons. Now, if you will, commiserate with me and those many people who are dealing with rashes. (Lest you think I have given you too much information I will be forthcoming: my rashes are just on my right wrist and hand and my left arm where I apparently touched myself, maybe to scratch.)

There is more I could tell you, about weeping wounds, potential for blood disease, infection, boils, blisters, pimples, etc. But, isn't it enough to note that this particular weed is in 48 of the 50 United States? Poison ivy is most common in the east, but it exists in all 48 of the continental United States. Poison oak and sumac, which are just as annoying, and I've been told may be even worse, are a bit rarer. People even imported poison ivy to Europe! (Knowingly, I might add.)

So, poison ivy has become the newest reason I hate the fall. Poison ivy serves as a perfect example, in my opinion, of why anyone who looks at the world should recognize that it isn't as it should be. After all, most animals are unaffected by urushiol (it simply gets on their fir) so it isn't like the plant enjoys any great natural protection from animals, except humans. The seeds of the plant, which also have urushiol, are even used as food by some animals. Poison ivy is only a nuisance to humans, therefore it reminds me that this world is not really my home.

Why would anything in my home be designed particularly as a weapon to be used against me? No, this is not the home for which I long. That home, to be with Christ eternally, will not have poison ivy. Or, if it does, the urushiol will no longer bind with my skin and cause me to break out in a blistering rash. Of this I am convinced: God will not have poison ivy rashes in heaven. It would break his promise that we would never again weep. I'm looking forward to that.

Rejoice, dear Christian, as you think that the Fall which taints everything in this world will one day be reversed. As creation cries out, as though in birth pangs, it will one day deliver. God will bring forth a new heaven and a new earth. If it were not for that promise, why should we bother to endure things like poison ivy, broken bones, or even the common cold? But, the joy that awaits us is such that Paul says our current sufferings aren't even worth comparing to it. Therefore, enduring what we do now for sake of the home we anticipate, all these things will be as nothing, but the time we have may serve to glorify God as are transformed to the image of his Son, and seek to gather more disciples, not to ourselves, but to him, who is all in all. Praise our God, for his promises are great, even in the midst of discomfort and suffering.

A Promised Inheritance (part 3)

2010-09-14T07:00:00.000-04:00

In the last two posts I began typing up a series of posts based off of the sermon I preached on the 12th. This will be the last of those entries. The first part basically examined Number 36:1-4, the second 5-9, this part will examine 10-12. Verse 13 I did not preach on as it is a summation of the whole book, and basically a sermon in and of itself.

In Numbers 36:10-12 we see the results of the complaint of the sons of Manasseh, and Moses response to them. The sons of Manasseh came to Moses to have their needs addressed as it concerned the inheritance of their brother, Zelophehad. Moses then responded according to the word of the Lord, and told them what should be done in this case. The issue developed due to the inheritance of Zelophehad which passed on to his daughters, as he had no sons. The concern was that the inheritance that God had promised to the clan of Manasseh would be lost due to the marriage of their daughters to another tribe. God responded by giving a command to the people of Israel that would ensure the inheritance of every tribe, eternally.

So, we have been challenged to be a people of faith, and a people of hope, what shall we do with this last section of Scripture? What we see here is how a people of faith and love live. Those who have faith in the promises, the victory, and the commands of God must live in accordance with those promises, victories, and commands. And that is what the 5 daughters of Zelophehad do. These are women of faith, just as those who brought the complaint were men of faith.

The obedience of these women is according to the faith they had in the word of God. God had given these women permission to marry anyone they wanted, so long as they married in the clan of their father. Remember, these women had not yet received the land they were anticipating as an inheritance. Just as the men of the clan believed that God would grant this land, so also these women trusted that God would do what he had said. These women were not just obedient due to social pressures, they were obedient because of their faith.

Faith requires obedience. Another way of looking at this would be that obedience is a result of faith. We see this idea discussed explicitly in James as he notes that Abraham was saved by his works and not just his faith. James here seems to be contradicting Paul, but the reality is that Paul and James are in agreement. James notes that Abraham acted in response to what he believed, this was the proof of his faith. Without works, faith is dead, so if we claim to have faith, but have no works, what good is that faith to us?

Just as obedience is a result of faith, obedience also anticipates the result of faith, an inheritance given by God. Consider that this passage does not tell us that the daughters of Zelophehad waited until after they received their inheritance to marry, but rather that they did as they were commanded, and married within their clan. These women anticipated that they would receive the inheritance promised, their faith was active in the fact that they were not passively waiting, but actively anticipating the inheritance to come. Our faith must also lead to an obedience that anticipates the inheritance that is to come.

But, it is also our obedience to the word of God that secures our inheritance. Once again we are brought back to James and we see that he tells us that if we are not living lives in obedience to the word of God, then our faith is dead, and of no use to us. If our faith is dead, if it is of no use to us, then it cannot save us and give us reason to expect the inheritance that has been prepared for us. So, while we cannot earn our salvation by work, we secure it by our works, understanding that our faith is demonstrated in our works. Hence why Paul says that we are to present our bodies as a living sacrifice, as this is our spiritual worship.

We walk a fine line here. It is a fine line because some might say that they are saved by their works, meaning what Paul means by salvation. These people think that because they do good works, God will look on them with mercy and allow them into heaven. That position is simply false, and is not condoned in Scripture at all. Rather, what we see is that those who seek to earn their way to salvation are challenged with their imperfections, called hypocrites, and rejected.

However, those who come to God humbly, having faith in Jesus Christ, they are saved. James notes this as he says to us that we must come to God in humility, that we must love God and not the world. Our love of God requires us to have faith in Christ, and thereby we are saved. But, this is also informative for us because we see that if we love the world we are enemies of God. That means that James is reminding us of our inheritance. He is reminding us that we who love God and draw near to him are securing our inheritance through works done as a confirmation of the faith that lives within us.

Obedience is necessary in order to be called the children of God. We are not being obedient to the law though, but to the love of God, and for God, that has been placed within us. Our obedience is not what causes faith, but is in response to the faith we have. Obedience anticipates the inheritance we will have, in that we are always reminded that we are obedient expecting God to reward us who seek him. Our obedience also secures our inheritance though, as we demonstrate our faith and are assured of our salvation by the things we do.

Where have you been disobedient in this last week, day, or even hour? Have you known what is good and right to do, and not done it? Have you resisted the law of love in any way? Have you refused to trust in God, holding on to your own problems and trying to fix things yourself? Consider these things and be challenged today to be more obedient to what you know you should be doing.

For the non-Christian, the act of obedience is simple: believe in Christ. This is what God has commanded for all people. Believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, and was raised again on the third day. Believe in the gospel as it has been handed down faithfully to us.

For the Christian, obedience is equally simple: take up your cross daily and follow Christ. Have this same mind in you as was in Christ, who, for the joy set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. (Hebrews 12:2) To not be ashamed of Christ, and do not despise the discipline of the Lord. Rejoice, anticipate your inheritance that is coming, be obedient and look forward, hopeful because you have faith in Christ, you who are a child of God, who Christ is not ashamed to call his own.

A Promised Inheritance (Part 2)

2010-09-13T07:00:00.000-04:00

We have seen from Numbers 36:1-4 that we should be a people of faith: faith in God's promise, faith in God's victory, and faith in God's commands being the three of the areas that we discussed. But our faith is not just in what is, for as Paul says, "Hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees?" (Romans 8:24) So our faith is combined with a hope in the future, an expectation of what God will do through his awesome victory for us who have kept his commands and come to him by faith. Thus, we who have faith also have hope. Let us look to Number 36:5-9 to understand what we have hope in.

This passage begins with Moses giving a command to the tribes of Israel, in response to the issue that has been brought up on behalf of the daughters of Zelophehad. Moses notes that what he is about to say is not from his own authority, it is from the mouth of the Lord God. The instructions that Moses proceeds to issue from God are instructions regarding marriage not just for the women in this instance, but for all Israelite women. By following the instructions given the inheritance of the clans will never pass between them, but each will always possess what was allotted to his family, in perpetuity. What we see then is that we can have hope that God will protect the inheritance of his people.

I note that we can have hope that God will protect our inheritance because God himself is the one who gives a response to the complaint. This command is not just Moses command. This is not just a good word at the right time so as to prevent internecine warfare. Men were concerned that the inheritance that God had promised them was going to be stripped away, and God himself responded to them by giving them a law that would protect not only their inheritance, but the inheritance of all his people. God cares about our inheritance, he will protect it.

There is one major caveat that must be added to this though. I have alluded to this already: the inheritance that God is concerned about is the inheritance of his people. Those who are not God's people cannot claim the hope that God will protect an inheritance for them. God is not a cosmic vending machine where people can simply put in the necessary spiritual coin and get out the spiritual reward they were after. God is a personable God, and he has a people, and he is only going to protect the inheritance that has been promised to them.

It is this fact that should drive us to be active though, instead of fearful of the future. Paul tells us, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." (Philippians 2:12) Paul also says to us, "For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith." (Galatians 3:26) Therefore we do not need to fear, wondering whether or not we are the sons and daughters of the living God. We have confidence in our hope in God, knowing that we are his people, if we have faith in Christ. Our faith in Christ leads us to seek to be assured of our salvation though, so that we work out our faith, not doing so in our own power, but being guided by the strength of God to accomplish his ends.

You see, we do not need to be troubled by wondering if we have done enough. That is not the fear we need to have. We do not tremble wondering whether or not we have earned our way into heaven. But, through faith in Christ, we diligently seek to do the things of God, proving our faith by our works, not adding to our salvation but finding assurance in our salvation, even as James has taught us. We do not ever need to fear that God will reject us for a lack of work, for Christ has completed our work on the cross, and we are now the sons of God, our inheritance is assured! But, only if we have faith in Christ.

So we know that God will hear our concerns, and we know that God will give an inheritance to his people, but what is the inheritance to which are we looking forward? We see this addressed indirectly in this text as well. Note that in verse 7 and in verse 9 we read that the sons of Israel will each hold to his inheritance. The inheritance promised to Israel in the land was to be a permanent inheritance. God intended to give his people an eternal inheritance, if they would have faith in him.

Israel failed to have faith, as we noted before, and so their hope was stripped from them. But, even in Daniel we see the prayer of a faithful man, a prayer offered in hope. (Daniel 9) Daniel realized that the time of exile was almost over. He and his people would soon return to the land, just as God promised. Though Daniel lived in a time after the exile, his hope was not crushed forever, but he had faith that God would protect his people and provide for them the inheritance he had promised.

Likewise, we today are able to have faith in God, and to hope in an eternal inheritance that is to come. The land that was given to the Israelites was given to them in this age, and on this earth. According to Hebrews 11 these were people who never received that for which they were looking. Hebrews 4 says that Joshua did not give the sons of Israel rest. Though he would lead them into the promised land, though in his leadership they would go to war and they would take possession of most of the land, yet they would not have rest. The inheritance that is discussed in Numbers 36 is only a type of the inheritance that is to come.

What shall we say then? Are we those who have hope that God will protect our inheritance? Do we have any reason to trust that God will hear our prayers? Do we have any reason to think that God will have us as his people? Do we have any reason to hope in the eternal inheritance God has provided? If we are in Christ, the answer to all these questions is "Yes!"

Are you in Christ though? Have you put your hope in the only begotten Son of God? Have you come to him in faith and laid aside your works to enjoy his mercy? Scripture would command us to do so, for it is the only wise thing to do.

The men in Numbers 36 had faith in God and they had hope in God. Today we can have that same faith and that same hope. There is nothing that stops us from hearing the word of God, and acting in faith in response to it. The application of this section of Scripture is simple: we who long for an eternal inheritance need to have faith in Christ, for he is our only hope to be the children of God and he is our only hope to have access to God. Hebrews says that without faith it is impossible to please God. But, with faith in the Son of God we are able to have hope in the inheritance that God has prepared for those he loves, the eternal inheritance that he himself protects.

Have faith!

A Promised Inheritance (Part 1)

2010-09-12T11:30:00.002-04:00

Today I have the blessed opportunity to preach at the church my wife and I are attending here in Carrollton. (That's why I set this to come up later in the day than normal, so as not to ruin the surprise of the sermon for her since she will be hearing it today.) The text I have chosen for this sermon is Numbers 36:1-12. This sermon is the first in a two part series dealing with inheritance. Next week I will be preaching on Ephesians 1:3-14. Because my sermon will be approximately 40 minutes in length I have broken it into 3 parts for the sake of posting it here. Parts 2 and 3 will follow in the next couple of days.

Numbers 36 is the culmination of nearly 500 years of history. 470 years prior to the events taking place in the text God made a promise to a lone man, an 85 year old who had no children, Abraham, that his descendants would possess all the land in the area. 40 years earlier, God heard the cried of his people, and he sent a lone man, Moses, to deliver his people from Egypt, and to bring them into the land they were preparing to enter. Yet, though God had been faithful to deliver his people from Egypt after 430 years, and though he had destroyed the army of Pharaoh, and had done amazing works in the sight of the children of Abraham, the Israelites, they saw the inhabitants of the land that had been promised to them, and they doubted. For 40 years, those who rejected the promises of God, who doubted his faithfulness and had no faith in his word, wandered in the wilderness, until every member of that Generation, save Joshua and Caleb, died out.

Thus, the first thing we see as read this text, is that these men who have come to Moses with this legal dispute are men of faith. These are men who believe in the promises of God, the victory of God, and the commands of God. It is important that we note this because this idea is the foundation for the rest of the text, and what it teaches us today. The faith of these men is what drives them to come to Moses to seek the word of the Lord in regards to what may seem to us a minor issue, at best.

I noted that these men had faith in three things in particular, the promises of God, the victory of God, and the commands of God. I want to unpack that. First, I want to show what I mean by saying that these are men who have faith in the promises of God. These are men who believe that what God has said he will do, is exactly what he will do. They believe that because God has promised them the land, he will deliver it to them.

You see, these men have not even crossed the Jordan yet. Moses is going to die soon, God will not bring him into the promised land, and the fact that Moses stands to answer these men shows that, as of yet, these men have not entered into the land they are discussing. Yet, God promised to Abraham 500 years before that the land would be given to his descendants. These men, preparing to cross the Jordan and enter into the land promised them only have the promise of God to trust in that they will ever see the land they are concerned over. These are men who have faith in the promises of God.

Likewise though, these are men who have faith in the victory of God. 40 years ago their fathers saw the vengeance of God on the Egyptians. God worked 9 wonders in the land of Egypt, blotting out the sun and killing the first born of Egypt in order to deliver his people. And, when that wasn't enough, God even destroyed the army of Pharaoh by drowning them in the Yom Suf. God did all of this, yet their fathers feared to enter into the land, lest the people in the land should kill them and enslave them.

These men though, the ones who came to speak with Moses and the rest of the leaders of Israel, they have wandered 40 years in the wilderness. They were not there to see the wonders God did in Egypt, or, if they were, they were small and it was a long time ago. But, they have seen the mercy of God for 40 years, following after the cloud of dust by day, and the pillar of fire by night. These men have walked in sandals that have not grown old, and worn clothes that have not fallen apart for 40 years. And now, as they prepare to enter into the land of promise, they have faith that God will be victorious over those who live in the land, and will lead his people to victory.

But not only do these men have faith in God's promises, and his victory, they have faith in his command. Their concern is that when the Jubilee comes, the land given to daughters of Zelophehad would transfer to another tribe. The law of Jubilee said that on the 50th year all the land that had been sold and traded had to return to the possession of the family who had ancestral claim to that land. In the case of these women though, when they married into another tribe, the land that belonged to them would pass into the hands of the sons of that tribe. Thus, their sons would inherit a tribal identity (or a clan identity) from their fathers, but they would inherit the property of their mothers (and fathers).

This issue of inheritance presented a problem, because that would mean that on the year of jubilee, 50 years down the line, that land would permanently be joined to the new clan, because the sons of that union would now have right to claim that land. If the Israelites lived according to the law this would create a situation where the inheritance promised to one clan would pass to another clan. If you are wondering what that is a problem, it is because the land was promised to one clan, according to God's decree the inheritance had been allotted to the tribe of Manasseh. To join that land then to the tribe of Judah, or Issachar, or Simeon, or any other tribe, would create a significant problem. (Let's not even get into the multiple issues that would arise from one of the daughters marrying a man from the tribe of Levi, because the Levites weren't supposed to have any "land" possession beyond certain cities lying within the realm of each clan.)

The fact that the men were concerned about this though shows that these were men who had faith in God's commands. They saw God's commands as being good, and they sought to obey the commands of God. Think about this: the best biblical evidence we have indicates that the year of jubilee was never kept. (2 Chronicles 36:20-21; Leviticus 26:34-35; Jeremiah 25:11-12) Yet, despite the fact that perhaps they, and definitely their children, would go on to act faithlessly in regards to the law of the Lord, here they demonstrated that they really had faith that the commands of God would be fulfilled. The tragic result of history says that the people of Israel were not faithful to God, yet those who appeared before Moses were men of faith, who sought to do what was right in their own generation, and whose concern was upon the command of God to them and their families.

What are we to make of this then? What does any of that matter to us today? Please, understand me when I tell you that these are the very same issues that face us today, and we would do well to learn from the example that these men set forth. Let us be people who have faith in God's promises, God's victory, and God's commands. If we have faith in these things, it will change how we live our lives.

If we were a people who had faith in the promises of God, we would recognize that this current economy should not be our primary concern. Politics, poverty, possessions, none of these things are of tantamount importance to those who believe in the promises of God. For God has said that he works all things for good, for those who love him and are called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:28) God has said he will never leave us nor forsake us, if we do what he has called us to do. (Deuteronomy 31:8) As we hold to these promises, we are reminded also of God's victory.

But, God's victory is not just limited to this world, for we have the testimony of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ that even death has been defeated. For this reason Scripture tells us, "Death is swallowed up in victory." (1 Corinthians 15:54) Yet, we do not see this victory completed yet, thus we must be those who have faith in God's victory. We must trust that one day we will be set free, because death will be destroyed. But, even now, we can celebrate that we are no longer enslaved to death, we are those who have been set free, because of the victory of Christ, and because of the victory we will one day experience through him. (Hebrews 2:14-15)

And, as we live in delight of the promises of God to us, celebrating the victory which we look forward to, we are able to live by his commands. For, because we are free from the bonds of death, we are also free from that which divided us in life, we are able to come together as a family, obeying Christ's command to love one another. (John 13:34-35) And not only can we love one another, but we can also put away the things which we used to love, we can live without sin hindering us any longer. (1 Peter 1:14) Thus, we who have faith in the promises of God, and the victory of God, can also have faith in the command of God. We can be sure that the one who has given us a command will be with us to complete that command, so that he will be glorified. (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24)

This is what we should aspire to be: A people of faith, who love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength. We must have faith in God's promises, trusting that he who has called us will do that which he has promised us he will do. We must have faith in God's victory, for only he is strong enough to overcome our enemy, and he has done it, and will do it again, to the joy of we who wait on him. And we must have faith in God's commands, knowing that they are good, seeking to be obedient to the one who called us, not because we under the Law of Moses, but because we are free to live by the law of faith. Are you living up to that ideal? I bet if you examine your heart you aren't, there are some things you just are trusting God with, whether it be his promises, his victory, or his commands, there is room for continued sanctification. I pray you would go to God and seek to determine where he would change you, for his glory.

Lest We Forget

2010-09-11T07:00:00.000-04:00

9 years ago today a tragic event happened in our history. Let us remember to set aside time today to pray for our nation, for those who suffer still in the memory of this day, for those who serve over seas in wars that developed as a result of 9/11, for our leaders to make wise decisions, and for Muslims across the world who are enslaved to the lie of Islam. Let us pray to be peacemakers, leading people to Christ for the glory of God.

There is so much to pray for, every day. But, in memory of this day, let us turn back to prayer, for our God is great, and he has told us to come to him in prayer, asking for what we want. James says we have not because we ask not, and when we do ask, we ask with evil motives, seeking to spend what we get on ourselves. (James 4:1-10) Let us repent, turn to God, ask that our motives might be changed, and that we might pray to him and ask for what is good in his eyes. As we remember the tragedy that happened this day, let us not remember it like the world: as just a tragedy, as a reason for anger, resentment, and violence against those who would harm us. Let us remember it as Christians: in repentance, in humility, and in hope that God will redeem a fallen world for the sake of his glory.

Today, let us pray.

The Right Thing for the Wrong Reason?

2010-09-10T07:27:00.000-04:00

By now, if you've been watching or reading the news, you should be aware that the pastor who was going to burn Qur'ans tomorrow has decided to call off the event. Unfortunately his reasons for canceling the event were not due to concern for his fellow Christians who are serving as missionaries over seas. Nor did he call of his plans because he saw the offense it would cause within the Muslim world and the way it would negatively impact the spreading of the gospel. His reason, according to the news, was because he claims the Imam who is building the community center and mosque at Ground Zero promised him that the mosque would be moved.

In short it appears that the right thing is being done, but the reasoning behind these actions is all based on worldly concerns. It ought to always be the goal of the Christian to glorify God and to spread the gospel. This pastor seems to confuse American with Christian.

Too much has been made of this event by the media, so that a fringe lunatic became an international sensation. But, one thing that has come out of this event is that we were able to be reminded that there is a stark differences between what concerns the world, and what concerns the church. While the world was concerned about social and political unrest, and rightly so, what they missed was the profound spiritual impact of this event. The cross of Christ truly is nonsense to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God to salvation. Let us always remember that our focus needs to be different than the world's.

What Can Wash Away My Sin?

2010-09-09T07:00:00.000-04:00

If someone told you they thought George Washington was a good President, not because of what he did or did not really do in history, but because they had experienced the good effects of his presidency in their own lives, what would you say? Can we make any realistic claims about knowledge, about anyone or anything in history, based purely on our own experiences? Taken in another way, if someone said to you that he believed in Jesus, not because of anything in the bible, but based purely on the fact that he had experienced some transformative event in his life, would you say that is sufficient? The question really is, what is sufficient for salvation? The reason I phrase the question in this way is because I am hoping that none of us would say that it is sufficient for people to say they think they are saved without having a good reason for that claim (and of course the only good reason is because they have hope in Jesus Christ).

I'm going to let the cat out of the bag here and just state upfront that I think that anyone who claims to have a relationship with Christ, not based on what Scripture says but on what they have experienced, has either been deceived, or is deceiving himself. My reasoning is because no one can know they have a relationship with Christ unless Scripture has told them. Also, no one can have a relationship with Christ unless they know Christ. You cannot have a relationship with someone you don't know, after all, how would you know the relationship is real? Personal feelings are not a sufficient ground for salvation.

The only sure and trustworthy ground for believing one is saved is the gospel of Jesus Christ. That means that no one is saved apart from the revealed truth of Scripture. Paul says, "[The gospel] is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." (Romans 1:16) In John 17:3 Jesus says himself, "And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." Peter says, "since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God..." (1 Peter 1:23) In no verse in Scripture do we see that anyone can come to faith in Christ and be saved without a knowledge of the gospel.

Knowledge itself, of course, does not save us. Faith saves us. But, faith in what? We cannot have faith in a Christ we do not know. "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." (Romans 10:17) Unless we have heard the word of God, we cannot have the faith necessary for our salvation.

I bring this up because I think we sometimes all need a reminder of why we should spend time with God's word. God is powerful, he is able to do abundantly more than we could dream or ask, but he has also stated his divine plan and the means by which he will save his people. We cannot save anyone if we do not tell them the word of God. The most powerful tool we can use in evangelism isn't a tract, it isn't a witty opening question or a brilliant segue into "spiritual" things. The most powerful tool we can have for attempting to save a lost world is a good working knowledge of the word of God. That doesn't mean we have to become experts, but there is also no reason we ought not attempt to become as expert as we are able, after all, it couldn't hurt to know more about the bible if we intend to witness to others.

But, there is a second caution here too: we cannot be saved apart from belief in the word of God. When we begin to throw out sections of the bible, or when we begin to say that this or that miracle couldn't have happened, then we begin to enter into truly dangerous ground. After all, if we reject one miracle, what is the rationale for holding on to any miracles? If it is impossible that God could have done any specific amazing thing, then why assume he can do anything at all?

As we begin to dismantle the word we also have to necessarily lose passages like the ones above. After all, if we say that one part of Scripture must be thrown out, where do we stop? Do we throw out John because we find his references contradictory to Matthew? Do we accept Matthew but then throw out Mark because different details are listed about Jesus' life? Do we argue that Acts teaches a different concept of Christ's divinity than the one that is found in Galatians? If we do any of these things, then which Jesus are we left to accept? Which gospel have we embraced?

If there is no salvation apart from the gospel of Christ, and the written word of God is the only trustworthy source of information for that gospel (surely we aren't going to say that tradition is more accurate that Scripture? If we go that route we are really in for some trouble and contradictions!) then we are in serious theological trouble when we start dividing that word into what we find "acceptable" and what we will reject. When we assume the role of judging the word of God, instead of allowing it to judge us, then we have rejected the authority of Scripture in our lives. To reject the authority of Scripture is to reject the one who gave Scripture that authority. When we are the lords of Scripture, then the Lord of Scripture cannot be our Lord. If that which we have received is faulty, then we have received a flawed gospel, and a flawed gospel does not have the power to save, for only the true gospel of Christ has the power to save.

If we do not have the gospel, then what hope do we have? Are we so wise that we can reconstruct history as though we were there when all the documents we have are flawed? Is our knowledge so great that we can correct what claims to be eyewitness testimony from 2000 years ago? If that is the case, why do we need the bible at all? We may as well make our own gospel, for in our wisdom we are quite sure to only find the gospel we want when we get to decide what parts of the bible are true and which are false.

Marking Bibles

2010-09-08T07:00:00.001-04:00

Okay, this post is a radical change from what I would normally do. I don't know how many people actually like to mark in their bibles, I do. I like to take notes, write observations, put cross references, and otherwise mark in my bible to make study easier or to remember what I noticed at some point. I'm assuming that most of those who are reading this think of Scripture as worth studying and worth learning. However, even if you do not normally mark in your bible, this post may be of use to you if you are a student, or you mark in books for whatever reason.

I'm way behind the times on this, and wasn't even aware that people had done research on what the best pens for writing in bibles was. But, I did some research yesterday, and I didn't bother to actually favorite the blog post I found on marking in your bible, but I found a blog post that recommended specific pens and tools for writing in bibles. Today I went out with my beloved wife and purchased one of those pens and tried it out, I have to admit, I'm liking what I've found so far.

The pens recommended were Pigma Micron pens. These are archival quality pens, which means they are non-acidic, non-bleed, and do not smear. Add to this that they are not ballpoint pens, which means that they do not dig into the page the same way ballpoint pens do. They also are pigment based (if you could tell from the name) so they have minimal fading and once set are waterproof. If you want more information, here is a link to their website: Sakura of America.

So, I bought one of the black 005 pens (a .2mm line) and I have found that it seems instant drying, does not bleed through the pages, and does not leave telltale indentations that can be felt on the back of the page or even on the next page of my bible. All of this is a big deal to me as a lefty since it means I don't have to worry about ink transfer onto my hand, and smudging the line if I cross my hand over it during writing. As far as taking notes in my bible, the writing is smooth, the lines are crisp, and with there being no indentations I don't have anything preventing me from doing underlining without worrying about damaging the page I'm working on.

I intend to take the advice of the pages I was able to read yesterday and purchase additional sizes and colors for different uses. There is a local hobby store that sells six packs of the pens in 005 size and other sizes. The reason for the different sizes is to have a larger size for underlining and a smaller size just for taking notes. (The 005 is the smallest size. The websites I read recommended using a 01 or an 03 for underlining.)

The only down side (for me) is that these are not the cheapest pens I could buy. I can't buy a pack of pens for $1.50 like I could with cheap disposable ballpoint pens. These are $2.99 at the local store, and the cheapest I could find them online were around $2.00. A pack of six costs $15.99 here in Carrollton, GA. It may not seem like a lot to most people, but we are on a tight budget. However, the cost will be more than worth it if these pens live up to my expectations.

One last point: why these as opposed to regular pens and highlighters? Well, highlighters have a tendency to bleed through, and they are not good for note taking. Ballpoint pens are not the best for taking notes in a bible due to the indentations they tend to leave in the page, along with the propensity of most to bleed through at least a little. Gel pens are better than ballpoint pens, but they also leave indentations, and the ink can degrade the already thin pages of most bibles (this is true of ballpoint pens also). Archival quality pens are non-acidic, so they don't degrade the pages, the other benefits I mentioned a bit earlier.

To me all of this matters because I want to have a good quality note taking pen so I can write in my bible to minimize the notes I need to carry with me when I'm preaching. By being able to take notes directly in my bible I do not need to worry about losing my outline, or having papers fall out of my bible if I move it while preaching. In addition, taking notes in my bible lets me do more intensive bible studies without worrying about keeping a specific notebook.

This post may not be of use to you, in fact you may be thinking this is a waste of time for you, if so, my apologies. I do hope that you will at least consider how you might continue to develop your own time in bible study so that you can get more from the time you spend in the Word of God. If you aren't doing regular bible study, then maybe this is a good time to start. Set a schedule, get organized, and find a method that works for you. I like to write, so I even write in my bible, but more important than the pen you choose is that you take the time to study in the first place.

Friends and Failures

2010-09-07T07:00:00.000-04:00

I told my wife the other day that one of the ways I have seen her love for me throughout our relationship is that no matter what has happened, I have never felt like a failure in her sight. I have felt stupid, I have felt like a jerk, and I have felt insufficient to the task of loving her as I should, but I have never felt like a failure. Even when I felt insufficient, her kindness, gentleness, and compassion reminded me that I would always be insufficient, but that God had called us to be together, and through him I could love her as I have been commanded. Even when I felt like a jerk, she has forgiven me and accepted my apologies. We have not been married terribly long, less than 5 years, but in that time, I have managed to feel like a failure in many other situations, but never in her eyes.

As I told my wife, I have felt like a failure at work and with friends. I have never done any job perfectly, I have always made mistakes, and the response of my co-workers or my employers has always made me feel like a failure. I continued the work I had, but the fact that I could not complete the tasks that had been laid on me made me feel as though I had failed to live up to the expectations for me. Among friends I have likewise failed to live up to the ideals set for me, forgetting or failing to complete something I said I would do. Failure is, perhaps, inevitable for most of us in life, and it is a stinging feeling to stand before others knowing that they entrusted a task to you, and now you have harmed your reputation in their eyes by not fulfilling the task given you.

But, as I talked to my wife, I began to realize that it wasn't just her who had treated me with such open compassion. I told her that I think one of the reasons she and I both miss so many of the wonderful friends we made in Louisville was because they treated us with that same compassion. I could list name after name, but I fear that I would forget someone. The friends, the family, we were joined to in Louisville by the grace of Christ, never once condemned us or faulted us for any failing.

As I thought of those who opened their lives and their hearts to us, I realized just how important that love was to us. I know that even today I could call up any of the men who served in small groups with me, who came to be accountability partners, and I could share anything with them, and they would not consider me a failure, they would love me and encourage me with kindness and honesty. Don't misunderstand, they wouldn't condone sin in my life, they would challenge me to take steps to remove any moral corruption I might confess, but the fact that I had stumbled into sin would not make me a failure in their eyes, it would only serve as a way to draw us closer together as brothers and friends. I know that if I were obstinate they would be firm, and if I were confused they would offer wise counsel to correct me, and it is a wonderful feeling to know that I can count on those men, no matter what. Those who have become my brothers in Christ are as close to me, and some of them even closer, than the brothers I grew up with, because I know that no matter what, they will always be there to pray for me, to correct me, to rebuke me, and to celebrate with me, and I can only pray that I will likewise always be there for them if they need me.

This is how Job says friends should be. Specifically Job says, " A despairing man should receive loyalty from his friends, even if he abandons the fear of the Almighty." (Job 6:14, There is some debate on the best way to translate this sentence, but that's a discussion for another day.) Now, I'm not despairing, but I know that if I were, my brothers would not walk away from me. Even if I were to forsake the faith, I know that these men would pray for me, would encourage me, and would seek to win me back. The fact is that I would have to try and destroy the friendships that Christ has blessed me with, because my brothers love me, and they love me as Scripture describes love, not in the way of the world.

Do you have friends like these? Are you a friend like Job describes? If you cannot think of any friends you have like these, know that Christ is such a friend to sinners. If we will come to him, have faith in him as our Lord and Savior, no matter what failings we may have, he will not call us a failure when we come to be judged. Christ's compassion is beyond the compassion of my brothers, but they have demonstrated that compassion to me, and I encourage you, if you do not know that compassion, go to Christ and find forgiveness given freely. Do not fear that God will call you a failure, for he gave his own Son to redeem you and I; in Christ we are successful.

To my friends, my brothers and sisters in Louisville, Carrollton, Savannah, Atlanta, and wherever the Spirit may lead you: Thank you. I love you all, I pray for you often, and I ask that you too would pray for me. We cannot know what God has intended for our lives, and it may be that I shall never see some of you again, though I pray that God would let me rejoice with you once again. But, no matter what happens in this world, I know that one day I will rejoice with you at the throne of our God and Father. Once again: I love you. May God richly bless you and use you to expand his kingdom.

Why so Literal?

2010-09-06T07:00:00.000-04:00

In modern politics no line is probably more laughable and more revealing than the line spoken by former President Bill Clinton during his grand jury testimony in addressing the question of whether he had sexual relations with Paula Jones. That infamous and oft quoted line is, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." The line is revealing because it demonstrated the moral failures of a man who was willingly attempting to avoid honestly answering a question he understood. The line is laughable because it assumes the very thing it asks: by using the word, "is" directly after saying that it depends upon what "is" means, Clinton reveals he knows what "is" means. Unfortunately, what may be laughable and of limited political importance and duration can be serious and infinitely destructive in theology.

Let's take a look at a couple of examples and let me see if I can't shed a little light on what I mean. Starting with Romans 5:12 Paul lays out an argument for the power of Christ's death as a deliverance from sin. However, Paul's argument only works if there was a literal man, Adam, and if his sin inaugurated all other sin. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 15:21 and on, Paul ties the actual historicity of Adam directly to the Gospel. What Paul makes clear is that if there were no literal man, Adam, and there were no literal single event of sin entering the world, then the death of Christ is meaningless for us as Christians.

Why is the death of Christ meaningless without the existence of Adam? Because Adam is our progenitor. Not only physically is Adam the first man, he is also the first representative of man before God. Adam was a type of Christ, so that if there is no literal Adam, then there is no type to which Christ refers. What that means is that if Adam is only a literary construct, then we have no corporate representative in him bringing sin upon all men. But, if we have no corporate representative in Adam, why should we assume we have a corporate representative in Christ?

The fact that Christ serves as a propitiation for the sins of all men is tied up in the fact that Adam serves as a corporate representative before God, a perfect man who sinned and thus introduced a sinful nature to his own. We see this in 1 Corinthians 15:22 when we read, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." If there is no man, Adam, in whom we have all died, then what hope have we that we shall be made alive in Christ? Because Adam serves as our corporate representative, and because we have all partaken of a sin nature through Adam and Eve, so also we are able to partake of a spiritual nature because of the life of Christ, who is the spiritual representative before God for those of us who have faith in him.

But, some modern scholars would do away with a literal Adam. Some scholars argue that Adam is a literary figure, Genesis is not to be taken literally up through chapter 11, everything preceding Abraham is allegorical, or a literary story written to illustrated God's power as the one who organizes and brings order to the world. This is not a new argument, necessarily. For instance Origin and Augustine both argued for an allegorical reading of Genesis 1. Both of these church fathers argued that Genesis 1 could not be read as literal history because the idea of creation in seven days, or the idea of the days as literal periods of time, made no sense to them for different reasons.

My argument is not with those who would argue that Genesis 1 is allegorical, or that Genesis 1 and 2 are meant to be a story discussing how God ordered the earth and made man for the purpose of fellowship with him. However, those who hold that all of Genesis 1-10 cannot be history, those who reject the literal existence of Adam and Eve, those who deny that there was a unique creation of man that resulted in one couple who sinned in that Garden of Eden and who were cast out by God, those individuals do massive theological harm to the gospel of Christ. Those who deny the historicity of Adam and the way sin entered the world through a man are forced to do away with passages like Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Timothy 2:13, and Jude 14. All of these passages refer to a literal Adam, and all of them tie the existence of Adam directly the gospel.

It is here that theologians begin to undertake gymnastics to avoid dealing with the text as it exists. Scholars argue that we can do away with Adam because it does not have any significant impact on the gospel. After all, why do we need to have Adam in order for sin to have entered into men and have become part of our nature? Why do we need to have Adam to recognize the power of the blood of Christ to forgive us our sins? Adam is only a matter of secondary importance, and doing away with Adam does not effect the death of Christ on our behalf, or the efficacy of his blood for our redemption.

But, doing away with Adam does away with Paul. For instance, Paul says that all of Scripture is inspired by God, specifically he says it is breathed out by God. (2 Timothy 3:16) If Paul is wrong about there being a literal Adam then either God did not inspire him, or God got something wrong, or God allowed error on his part in what he inspired. In any of those conditions we are now left with Scripture that is potentially full of errors, Scripture that we must analyze carefully, dissect and correct, so that we are able to determine what is true and what is false. If that is the case then nothing in Scripture is safe from this examination, all of Scripture must be parsed and examined lest there be any historical error in it at all. And, even if we are able to determine some parts are accurate, what do we do with those sections we cannot empirically test?

For instance, if Paul is wrong about there being an Adam, and if Paul is wrong about the importance of Adam to the gospel, then what else is Paul wrong about? Obviously Paul's understanding of the gospel will no longer suffice, because his understanding relied upon an historical Adam. So what understanding will we replace Paul with? Who will become our teacher when we cannot trust Scripture to be accurate in what it teaches?

There are those who, for whatever reason, refuse to embrace the full criticism of Scripture that comes with removing Adam from the Bible. But, why should any truly rational person who accepts that Adam did not exist stop only there? Why shouldn't we question Paul? Why shouldn't we question Chronicles, reject Hosea as a prophet, (he references Adam as a literal man) do away with Luke, and then even question the necessity of the death of Christ himself?

When we engage in biblical criticism that questions the very integrity of Scripture, it is both revealing and laughable to the watching world. It is revealing to those who look on because they can see that we do not really trust our own holy book. We think that our holy book, that which claims to be inspired by God, is need of correction, because it is incompatible with a modern world. Our criticism is laughable because we still want to find some value in a set of stories written thousands of years ago, even though we don't think they are historically true or philosophically sound. While attempting to defend our bible we make it into a joke, because we are not willing to make the full commitment to treating it either as a sacred text, or a near eastern fable.

We do not need to reject science or reason to be Christians. Human genetics, modern technology, stem cells, antibiotics, gene therapy, microchips, and so much more has been discovered over the years, and none of these things contradict or contravene Scripture. But, when we say that there cannot be an Adam because evolutionary theory does not allow it, or when we say that Genesis cannot give a factual account of the creation of the world because geology contradicts it, then we are not simply accepting science, we are worshiping science and reason. I'm not saying that only those who accept a young earth are Christians, not at all; but those who reject the early chapters of Genesis or who mock Scripture based on what current scientific theory says, those people are a danger to the faith. They are a danger to the faith because they have placed Scripture under another authority, they have set themselves up as judges over the word of God, and they have found it wanting; and what then is there to act as a corrective if their wisdom leads them to reject the claims of the gospel entirely? When we accept those people who exalt science or human deliberation above the word of God, and place them in positions of authority, then we ought not be surprised when they dispute every doctrine and ridicule every portion of what we once though was sacred.

I know that what I have said will offend some. My intent is not to offend, but to point out the logical inconsistency we engage in when we attempt to ignore the plain meaning of Scripture because we think modern history and science trump with Word of God. Let us be consistent. Elijah said, "If Yahweh is God, then follow him, but if Baal is God then follow him." Let us heed those words today: If Yahweh is God, then follow him, but if human science and reason is greater than the God of the bible, then follow it.

Christians and Politics

2010-09-05T07:00:00.000-04:00

Where do we draw the line in political disagreements? For instance, there are those in conservative political circles today who make comments such as "the Kenyan in Chief" and "the African in the White House." While I will put aside the arguments people make in regards to whether these comments are racist, (I personally think people who utilize arguments like this intend certain racist implications) I do think Christians need to think about whether such comments should ever be heard coming across our lips, or seen coming across our keyboards. Regardless of whether you support or dislike any leader or President, don't you have a Scriptural command to submit to his authority as leader and to show him the respect due him as the one God has placed in charge of the country? (Romans 13:1-7, pay special attention to verse 7, "Respect to whom respect is owed.") Christians do not have the freedom to say whatever we like, we have an obligation to obey Scripture in regards to the words that come out of our mouths.

James says that the tongue can set things on fire, and is itself set on fire from hell. (James 3:6) What did he mean by that? Simple, our hearts are not pure. Christ says that from the abundance of a man's heart he will speak. (Matthew 12:34) Therefore, recognizing that we are undergoing sanctification, even while we are not yet perfect, we must be slow to speak. Our hearts are still idol factories, as Calvin put it, and therefore they are prone to lead us to speak devilish words as devilish idols fill them, unless we take the time to first bridle them with by the power of the Spirit of God.

Speaking hastily and disrespectfully of our leaders leads to our disgrace. Those who we might have had the opportunity to speak the gospel to are turned away because we are so busy denigrating the President, that we do not realize they still hold him in respect. Even if they do not hold him in respect, they may still think that the office of President is such that it is worth respecting, regardless of the one who sits in the chair. Is our personal animus or anger toward any individual worth losing the opportunity to speak to someone about Christ? (Yes, I think this admonition should apply to those currently in the position, and those who previously held the position. Are we any more justified in calling Bush an idiot than we are in calling Obama a traitor?)

In addition to this, our words demonstrate that we do not trust the sovereign God who establishes all authorities. In Ephesians chapter 1 we read that Christ has been placed high above all authorities and has all things under his feet. Is the American electoral system then able to thwart the will of God? Can we possible vote into office someone who God did not intend so that his will is not being accomplished?

Some may say, in response to all this, "Does that mean that we should support the anti-Christ when he appears?" We ought to always pray for all of our leaders. Scripture does not give us any indication that there is anyone we ought to exempt from our prayers. Likewise, if the anti-Christ has authority over us, then in every way that we are permitted to do so from Scripture, yes, we should submit to him (that is, in every way that we can obey him without disobeying God, we would be required to render obedience). This does not mean we submit to him in everything, it does not mean that we agree with him at all, but it does mean that we recognize that God has given him authority for a time, and we must submit to God's good will in recognizing whatever authority he has put in place.

Consider the relationship of Pharaoh and the Israelites. Could God have commanded Moses, "take your people and flee, do not regard Pharaoh as having any authority!" He could have, but he says that he raised Pharaoh up for the very purpose of displaying his might. God wanted that Pharaoh (whichever he was) to have authority at that time so that the Lord could demonstrate his might over all things in bringing Israel out of Egypt. If we are spiritually Israel, then why should we assume that God would never want to do the same with us?

Note also that in Revelation it is said that those who overcome do so through not loving their lives. They overcame him by the blood of the lamb. The martyrs in heaven, who die for the faith, they are the victors. It is not the "Christian rebel" here on earth who overthrows a government through weaponry and violence who is given accolades in the throne room of heaven. It is the one who is faithful to Christ, who shares the witness of Christ, and who dies honoring God who is seen as victorious. (As I spoke with another brother about, this does not mean that men like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who tried to assassinate Hitler, we wrong in using violence in their situations. I think the particularly situation in that place and time was such that Bonhoeffer did what he thought was the most moral thing he could because of the horror of the reality he was faced with. And I think he was right. But such situations are so far from the norm that giving justice to such considerations would require a whole other blog post.)

Politics is important. God has given Americans a way by which the average person may exercise some level of authority in how we are governed. We should never take that for granted or say, "I won't vote because I trust God will cause the person he wants to be elected." Such a fatalist position is never encouraged or defended in Scripture. But, at the same time, our words ought not be offensive when we speak of political opponents. More important than any election is the kingdom of God and spreading the gospel here on earth, and we must watch our tongues to that end.

What is the value in calling the President an impostor or a fraud? Why only insult or denigrate, when there is opportunity to build up? Remember, we are called to be people of encouragement, not people of discouragement. There are appropriate ways, and times, for making your disagreements with a particular politician or position known. But, is it worth it to damage your witness and lose the opportunity to represent Christ just for the sake of blowing off some steam? Let us act wisely in regards to what we say and how we say it, particularly in regards to such a divisive topic as politics.

A Missing Conscience

2010-09-04T07:00:00.000-04:00

Most people don't think they are evil. I can't remember where that quote came from, but I find it to be true. Usually a thief will have some reason he steals, that is he justifies himself by saying that he has no choice, or he needs what he takes, or something of that nature. Likewise with almost anyone who commits a crime, and likewise with us too. We find plenty of reasons to excuse our actions, our thoughts, and our attitudes, after all, we're only human, right?

I worry that this generation seems to be even worse than previous generations at justifying nearly every act imaginable. I know that every generation seems to be the worst generation ever. I'm sure that 1500 years ago someone somewhere was making comments about how the kids don't respect their parents any more, hanging upside down half-naked from the pear trees in the yard instead of dutifully doing the chores they were assigned. But, we really do seem to have a moral disconnect in this generation, where people just don't understand that there are such things as good and evil. If I'm right, then that poses a certain difficulty for the church, because now we have to train people not only in Christian behavior, but in thinking about morality in general.

Don't get me wrong, this generation, the one I belong to and the one right after mine (I shudder sometimes when I realize that I am now old enough to note that there is a generation after mine, I suppose it is the inevitable result of the passing of time, but one does not think of that in youth) aren't complete moral anarchists. We still understand that stealing is wrong, usually. We still understand sleeping with another person's spouse is wicked, most of the time. We still get the fact that there are others around us and we should be considerate of them, with exceptions. I guess the real problem is that we've learned (wrongly) that nothing is really absolute, and so everything becomes relative, even morality.

Living in such an age isn't an entirely bad thing though. The truth is that for Christians we live in perhaps a better time than our parents grew up in, because of immorality. When we live and act according to the way Christ has commanded us, we really can be radically different. That doesn't mean that there are no good people left in the world, that only Christians have ethics, but that our ethic is distinct in this time and age. Our ethic is different because it calls upon us to consider others as better than ourselves, it requires us to be sacrificial in how we treat those we do not know. We live in a great age to demonstrate the difference between Christ and the god of this world.

I know some will ask, "What commands are you talking about?" Christ makes clear that love is the defining principle behind all the law and prophets. He says, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind, and and with all your soul,' this is the great and first commandment. And the second is like it, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" He also says, "Whatever you would have someone do for you, do that for them. Upon this hangs all the law and the prophets." (Pardon if I messed up a word there, I'm quoting off the top of my head and I get my translations mixed up, sometimes combining them.)

But, I want to make clear my affirmation to what Paul says also, Christians are not under the law, we are under grace. We do not have to serve the law of love as though it will somehow make us righteous, rather because we are under the grace of Christ how we act ought to show that the law of love flows from us. We are no longer children, enslaved under the law so that love is a burden and a challenge, we are the children of God, coming to maturity in Christ, so that love is a gift given to us by our holy and righteous Savior. Why should we slave under the law, finding it a burden and a challenge, when we can embrace with great joy the opportunity to fellowship with the Spirit of God in doing good works?

Remember, we do those works which God has prepared for us to do, which he does through us. We are not struggling to be moral, we are righteous and forgiven, therefore how can we act in any way but that which is moral? To be immoral is to turn back to the flesh from which we were redeemed. Why should we now be enslaved again under that which we have been freed from by the awesome power of God?

We have an opportunity to live lives that really do set us apart from others. We can love like no one else. We can put others before ourselves and serve to the glory of God. We will be taken advantage of, we will be mocked and insulted, but we will also reach some who have been forgotten by a generation that no longer remembers how to think about morality. But, we need to think about what would do, we need to bring our minds under the control of the Spirit, that we might see how we can serve others, we need to be a people to whom morality matters.

If we would be a moral people, we cannot excuse ourselves or justify ourselves for anything, but we must acknowledge our failings. We have to reflect upon the fact that we do not always act morally, so that we can learn from our mistakes. Paul commands us to be not conformed any longer to this world, but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. Unless we reflect upon our own thoughts and our own deeds, we can never fully reflect the glory of Christ as he would have us to do.

We are justified in Christ, so we have no need to condemn ourselves for our actions, but we also have no need to excuse our actions. We can face our immorality because we are forgiven. We can acknowledge our evil before God and pray that he will change us, so that an unjust generation might know the justification we have experienced. We can love because we are loved, and we must love or we make our God a liar. Let us contemplate in each action and in every situation, what does love look like in this situation; let us be consistent in loving God and loving our neighbor, not under the enslavement of law, but because we are free.

Something from Nothing

2010-09-03T07:00:00.002-04:00

A fair warning advisory: This post contains both scientific descriptions and philosophical argumentation. I don't mean just a little, but a pretty good bit. I've tried to be as reader friendly as possible, but I take no responsibility for dizziness, headaches, or cranial combustion if you proceed further.

I'm not an economist. I'm also not a chemist, a biologist, a physicist or any other professional scientist. However, I do understand basic laws and logic. For instance a popular saying among economists is, "There is no such thing as a free lunch." This saying also applies to every other branch of science also, including physics.

Okay, I'm sure that some people are lost, or bored, already, so let me try and explain myself. In physics you have some basic principles, laws, which govern what is and is not possible. For instance, you have the laws of thermodynamics. There are, basically, four laws of thermodynamics, going from the zeroth law to the third law. Those theories or arguments which violate these laws are necessarily false.

For instance, the zeroth law states basically that if system A is equal to system B, and system B is equal to system C, then system A is equal to system C. Just a basic application of logic to real world events. A quick example might be if I am as tall as Jon, and Jon is as tall as Jen, then I am as tall as Jen. This rule works in all places and at all times, because it is a logically necessary truth.

The first law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only alter forms. Here is where things begin to get a little chintzy, if you will. For instance, I have heard it argued (I haven't done any reading on the subject in years) that at a subatomic level (that means that we are measuring things smaller than atoms, usually smaller even than just protons and neutrons, little bitty tiny things that are beyond human imagining in their small size) this does not hold perpetually true. Okay, time to clarify what I mean: at a subatomic level, in theory, quarks and anti-quarks can spontaneously occur, thus something pops into existence for a very short time (once the two collide their respective state cancels the other, thus reducing them back to nothing) and then it is gone again. However, on the whole the law stands, because the something that comes into existence cannot stay in existence for any length of time, it must necessarily meet with its anti-partner and cease to be.

The second law works in much the same way. The second law states that entropy increases, or that energy flows from a state of higher concentration to a state of lower concentration. Again though, this law only holds true when we think of it in absolute terms. Because all things (things here being physical objects) have some form of particle existence, it is possible that for a short period there might actually be a decrease in entropy, or a gain in energy, for a system. Think of it this way: the second law is really a law of averages. Because air molecules bounce around they tend to disperse, bouncing off of one another and moving through "empty" space until they bounce off of something else. However, it is theoretically possible that if we waited long enough, all of the molecules could, from bouncing off of one another and the walls in the room, all move in the same direction at the same time and thus instead of spreading out group up in one section of the room. But, that situation wouldn't last long, the molecules would immediately start to spread back out again, thus proving the second law true, the energy of the molecules would move from a state of higher concentration to a state of lower concentration.

The third law helps us make sense of all this stuff. Basically the third law says that as the energy in a system spreads out it reaches a constant minimum. Really the law says that as the heat in a system reaches absolute zero, the entropy in the system reaches a constant minimum. In effect this means that absolute zero cannot be reached (as it would require an absolute cessation of all energy) and at the same time means that there is some optimal minimum that all the energy in the universe will necessarily continue toward, until all usable energy is gone.

Okay, that's a lot of science, and I know that it was probably a bit confusing, but I promise we're getting to a pay off. The pay off is this: if we start with absolutely nothing in the universe, then it is necessarily true that we would always have absolutely nothing in the universe. We know this because the laws of thermodynamics make it impossible, now that the universe exists, that it could come into existence currently. Moreover, if these laws are logical laws, that is they themselves are not governed by the existence of the universe, but govern the existence of the universe, then regardless of whether or not the universe exists, the laws still hold true.

On the other hand, if the laws of thermodynamics are in fact governed by the existence of the universe, then there is some higher law which governs them, or there is a necessary mutual dependence of the universe upon the laws of thermodynamics, and the laws of thermodynamics upon the universe. If the second is true (trust me, by logical progression we eventually get there anyway, either with the laws of thermodynamics or whatever is behind them) then we are completely incapable of saying how the universe began anyway, because there is no law to which we can appeal to create the universe outside of the universe itself. Basically, if the only laws which exist in the universe are tied to the universe, then without the universe existing there is nothing to cause the universe to come into existence. Without time there is nothing to start time, because the moment prior to time beginning is not really an infinitely long nothing, it is just absolutely nothing, it is non-time. In non-time there cannot suddenly be the event of time, there can only be non-time.

What we are left with is the necessity of that law, whatever it was, that created the universe being independent of the universe. That is, something outside of space-time and all normal realms of causality just made the universe, all that there is, come into being suddenly and without any prior necessity. Logically and scientifically, this is impossible. The existence of the universe is itself a miracle without explanation. It is this inexplicable event that gives us a first reason for giving God the glory, for he alone is the one could create the entire universe from nothing.

Okay, now I know some people are thinking I just waived a mystical wand and got the conclusion I wanted, so I'm going to try and restate the argument above in brief, just for the sake of clarity. If the law that dictated the creation of the universe is interdependent with the universe for its existence, then it cannot explain the creation of the universe, because it could not have existed prior the universe itself. But, if the law that dictated the creation of the universe exists independent of the universe, then it would have been a one-time event law, dictating the creation of the universe and then dictating a universe wherein the laws of thermodynamics would prevent it from ever occurring again. Because the law is necessarily prevented from recurring by the laws of thermodynamics, there is simply no way to prove the law exists, because the events leading the creation of the universe cannot be tested or repeated in a lab. To argue that there is a scientific law that required the universe to come into existence is to state a philosophical position, not a scientifically provable position. To argue that God created the universe is just as much a philosophical argument, but at least seems more plausible to my mind than the alternative.

Why is the idea of God creating the universe more plausible to my mind? God is not bound by space-time, he is not necessarily constrained by the laws of creation, which he created. God is the only explanation that is sufficiently large, and sufficiently reasonable to explain why we have such an exquisitely ordered universe, and how that universe could come into existence from nothing. Can I understand how God could exist and make decisions in non-time? Can I comprehend how God could exist as a trinity, as a spirit, when literally nothing but him existed? Of course I can't explain or comprehend these things, but I know that without them being true I would be left with an illogical universe and the unexplainable mystery of existence. Instead of worrying about what I cannot explain though, I can instead give praise and glory to God, because he is just that wonderful, just that great, and he brings order to what would otherwise be pure insanity.

I bring all this up because Dr. Stephen Hawking has concluded that God is not necessary for the universe. He says, in the article linked above, "The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second." Dr. Hawking appeals to some unknown law of science and says that it is scientific law that makes it necessary that we exist. There is no reason to assume this is true, there is simply no law we can point to that says we must exist, the whole argument is a matter of philosophy, and, in reality, it is a matter of theology. Dr. Hawking has turned science into a god, he has declared that the personal God of Scripture is not necessary, and is not real. This is theology, it is the heart of man worshiping an idol so that he does not have to worship the only true and living God. This is the fulfillment of Romans 1:20-23.

Let us not become darkened. Let us not be fools before God. If the world would call us fools, if the greatest scientific minds of our generation would say our God is unnecessary and unreal, let us rejoice in that. For what they worship cannot save them; but our God, the glorious Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, he is able to save. In the end, all else will prove futile, but those who love God will be vindicated and be with him forever.

Hero Worship

2010-09-02T07:00:00.000-04:00

I remember before graduating seminary talking to my wife about heroes. I was wondering if there was any culture, any civilization, that did not have some kind of heroic myths that were passed from generation to generation. Granted, I don't know every culture that has ever existed, and though my background is in history, most of my historical studies have been constrained to Medieval Europe, and have been more focused on technology, philosophy, and religion than stories. But, every civilization I can think of, from the ancient Greeks to the medieval Chinese, to the American Indians, all of them had stories about heroes. The heroes could differ from situation to situation, sometimes a man and sometimes a woman, sometimes a great warrior and sometimes a cunning trickster, but they were all heroes.

It seems to me a hero has to do at least two things in order to be a hero. A hero has to accomplish some great task that others were incapable of achieving, and a hero has to save either a person or a group of people. More than that though, the task accomplished has to be somehow attached to the act of saving. What I mean is that a hero cannot perform some incredible feat of evil, and then go on to save a group of people in a minor act and still be considered a hero. A true hero has to achieve an act of great nobility, and it must be the noble act which saves people.

I told my wife that Hamlet, I think, is a great example of a hero (though a tragic one). Think of Hamlet, a man who is born to a position of power and authority, who has that taken from him by a conniving and wicked uncle. Then, as his father's apparition confronts Hamlet with what has happened Hamlet realizes that he has basically two options: he can commit suicide, or he can try and avenge his father. To avenge his father Hamlet acts crazy, tries to drive away Ophelia, though he is unsuccessful, and ultimately dies. Yes, Hamlet is a tragic character, and his death could have been avoided, but he accomplishes a great good in that he slays his father's murderer and he rids the throne of Denmark of the stain that would have tainted it had Claudius lived.

I started thinking about heroes again because of the prevalence of comic book movies. I liked comics when I was growing up. I enjoyed Spider Man, X-Men, and any number of other heroes. I didn't care for the sometimes sermonizing and patronizing way some of the stories were written, but I liked the characters. Every kid imagines having amazing powers, but what I liked about the comics I read was that despite the characters' amazing powers, they always had a powerful evil they had to fight against. It was never enough that they had to fight some external foe, they always had some internal struggle they had to face at the same time, and conquering the latter would often lead to conquering the former.

It seems like that same formula is common with most heroes. Hercules became great because of the great deeds he performed, but he performed those great deeds because of his sometimes stupid actions. For instance, in one telling of the story of Hercules rescuing Alcestis, he traveled to Hades and wrestled with Thanatos (death) because he had been drinking instead of mourning with his friend. Similarly, it was because Hercules had been overcome with madness and had slain his own children that he was sentenced to perform the 10 labors (that became 12). Hercules great deeds were in response to his own failings, so that his actions were overcoming his personal faults.

I bring this up because it seems like we all need a hero. We need to believe in someone who demonstrates that men can overcome their own limitations and achieve greatness. We need to believe that we can strive to be like that person; we can be better than we are and do something great. We may think heroes are just myths, but it is the ideal of the hero that inspires us to try when it seems like all hope is lost.

As I thought about the heroes that have come down to us, and the heroes we have created I began to wonder something. Obviously, heroes live from generation to generation not just because they teach us, but because they inspire us, we want to believe in the heroic, even if we don't believe in a specific hero. But why? Why do we believe in the heroic? I wonder if it isn't because that is the way we were made by God, I wonder if he did not build the desire for heroes into us.

If God did build in that desire for heroes it would make a lot of sense. After all, one of the historic teachings of Christianity is that God calls all men to come to him for salvation. And what greater hero story can we have than the story of Christ himself? God took on the form of man, he took on the weakness and needs of humanity, faced temptation, refused to sin, and despite it all he was killed by men who were sold out to wickedness. But, even in the face of defeat, Christ rose from the dead, he rose and became the victor, though to every appearance he was the greatest loser of all time.

Because of the death and resurrection of Christ we can be better than we are without him. God gives us the Holy Spirit, so that we can live victoriously despite every defeat we seem to suffer. We have a true hero, who demonstrates to us that we can be heroic too. Not that we achieve anything apart from Christ, but we can do all things through him who died upon the cross for us. We long for heroes because we need a hero, we need someone who really can rescue us from every danger, even death itself.

I guess my point is that hero worship is okay. It is good for culture to have heroes, to believe that the sacrifice of one can be sufficient to rescue many. When people understand this they are more prepared to understand the gospel of Christ. We don't need to rage against the imperfect hero, but we need to point people to the perfect that inspires all other imitations. Christ is the archetype of the hero, suffering, a man like us, yet powerful, more than we could ever be, God himself in human form, our savior, our true and perfect hero. Hero worship is okay, when we are worshiping the one who really is our hero.

Paradox in God

2010-09-01T07:00:00.001-04:00

I mentioned the idea of paradox yesterday, and I would like to develop that idea a little bit more today. Particularly I would like to develop the idea of paradox and how it relates to our conception of God, how it can, in fact, be informative for us as we think about God. In looking at how we can understand more about God as we understand paradoxes, we will need to touch on a classic idea of Christian apologetics. The idea I want to look at is the definition of God. As we examine the definition of God, I hope that we will understand the value of recognizing that there is a paradox present in our formulation of God, and how that paradox is resolved through our relationship with Christ.

Okay, when dealing with any paradox, or any apologetic, you have to be a little familiar with some of the basic rules of logic. But, you also have to be familiar with the definitions of some of the terms you may encounter. For instance, while the term "apologetic" is becoming more widely understood these days, many people still think of an apology as merely saying, "Sorry!" for something. When we discuss an apology in terms of apologetics though we do not mean you are asking for forgiveness, instead the term means you are setting up a logical defense for a position. So, what I want to examine is an apology (a rational defense) for the normal Christian understanding of God.

But, what is the normal Christian understanding of God, and why would it need a defense? Well, the normal understanding of God, as espoused by Christians throughout history, is that God is present everywhere, knows everything (including all possibilities and potential situations), is capable of doing any which he may desire, and is totally good, along with these attributes God is also totally holy (that is morally pure, separate from creation, and sufficient in himself). In addition to these points though, as matters of derivation, because God is holy he is also just, punishing perfectly for any breach of the moral law (because he cannot stand any impurity in his presence). Because he is all powerful he is capable of enforcing any punishment he might set out, and because he is all knowing there is no breach of morality of which God is unaware.

It is in this area that some people have argued there is a necessary contradiction: because God is holy he must be totally just, or else his holiness is compromised. But because God is all good he must be merciful because mercy is recognized as a good trait, particularly when those who are weaker humbly petition for mercy from a higher authority. Yet, if God is merciful he cannot be just, because when mercy is practiced justice necessarily abrogated by the act of mercy. So there exists a contradiction in the way Christians think of God: he cannot be both totally just and full of mercy (merciful) at the same time.

This is the beauty of theology. When we understand the doctrines of the faith and we begin to think about them logically we can understand how they are connected, where they conflict, and whether or not there may be some means of reconciliation available to us. In this case we are faced with what would have remained an apparent paradox to the observant Jew in the time of the prophets. God had commanded sacrifices to be performed constantly, he required ritual cleanliness before any could approach his thrown, but, at the same time, the prophets rebuked the people when they came before God with their sacrifices, because the people themselves were not pure. (Jeremiah 7)

What then could there be for a solution? We see in Psalm 32 that David extols the blessed state of the man who has been forgiven of his sins. And in 2 Samuel 12:13 we read that God had put away David's sin, as soon as he confessed. Yet, how could there be forgiveness for David without the appropriate sacrifice of a sin offering? How could God so quickly forgive David his iniquity when David had not yet performed the required rites incumbent upon him?

Every day two lambs were to be offered at the temple, and every day a bull was to be offered as a sin offering for the people of God. (Exodus 29) Yet, Hebrews makes clear that despite these offers being given day after day, the offerings were never able to cleanse the people from their sins. (Hebrews 10:1-4) An observant Jew would have been aware of this, recognizing that because God is totally just the blood of a bull cannot cleanse a man, and indeed it was not the blood at all that cleansed, but it was the faith of a man to come before God and ask for forgiveness. Throughout Scripture whenever men responded to God in faith, confessing Sin, humbly going to God and asking for forgiveness, God always has responded with mercy. But, on what basis could there be mercy, would this not conflict with his just and holy nature?

Christian apologetics can rightfully answer this question where no other religion can. In no other religion is there a satisfactory answer for how to resolve the paradox of God's justice and his mercy. If men strive by dint of great works to earn a place before God, they will always fail because no good work done now can erase the actions done in the past. If men say, "We know that God is a good God and capable of forgiving us," but they have nothing by which God may grant them such forgiveness, then they have a system that, at best, will not be logically sound. Whether by works or by simple hope, there is no way that anyone can argue that they have a holy God who is both just and merciful, because their God will necessarily be off balance in one direction or the other.

Some get around this by rejecting the idea of a holy God. That is, people think that God would not demand perfection, because no man can be perfect. Such a god tolerates some sin in his presence, or maybe he tolerates all sin, if you are a Universalist, but he might require some people to do some kind of post-death activity to get cleaned up enough to be with him for eternity. This god is a puny and pathetic god, a god who is not just, who is not holy, and who is incapable of cleansing those who would stand before him. There is no reason to serve this god, because it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you exist, eventually you could find a way to stand before him. This god, if we want to be strictly logical, is irrelevant to life, because he makes the sun to rise upon the innocent and the guilty, and when they die they all get to see his face as well.

But, the Christian God, he punishes to the full extent of his ability. He is totally holy, he proclaims that he will judge every disobedient person with fire and vengeance. (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9) There is nothing to laugh at in regards to his justice and power, and there is great reason to serve him and to obey his words. The true God, the only Father of Lights, his holiness is not diminished by his mercy. We have much to rejoice at because of this, because that holiness which now prevents us from drawing too near to him will one day be the holiness we will partake of in full!

But, how can God be both just and merciful? Our answer is the cross of the Lord, Jesus Christ. Because God is a just and righteous God, he demanded full payment for every sin. But, because God is a merciful and kind God, he provided a payment for us who could not satisfy the debt ourselves. Instead of sentencing all men to eternal separation from his holy presence, God placed his judgment upon his Son, so that Christ proclaimed on the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Because God allowed his Son to die on the cross, because God chose to place the judgment due us on the lamb he provided, he preserved both his justice and his mercy.

There is a paradox in the Christian understanding of God, but it is a paradox that drives us to Christ. Our theology does not take us away from the glory of God, but leads us back to give God even more glory. We do not need to fear logic, but in examining logic, even when it claims a contradiction in our faith, we can acknowledge that our God is so great that he has saved us through a paradox of his own character, a paradox that makes him greater than any human conception of God could be. To this God, the only perfect and wonderful maker and savior of all men be the glory. Let us rejoice that in paradoxes God reveals himself, otherwise we would have only the promise of judgment and fear, instead of a hope for life and joy.

Beautiful Paradox

2010-08-31T07:00:00.004-04:00

There are some moments that you just have to take when they come along. Do you know what I mean? Have you ever had a moment come along that just seems tailored for you, personally? The moments I'm talking about are times like a friend asking if anyone happens to have a glue stick on them, and you just happen to carry glue sticks with you, for no reason other than, "someone might need one." I'm reminded of one of those moments I had in Louisville.

We were discussing Scripture, and how sometimes we come across something that seems to be a contradiction, but upon further reflection isn't. In order to explain the concept our pastor decided to remind the class (it was in Sunday school) that these are what we generally call "paradoxes." If, for whatever reason, you are unfamiliar with the term it means what I just explained: something that appears to be a contradiction, but isn't necessarily. Its a good term, particularly because there are several paradoxical statements in Scripture. But I digress.

As he was attempting to get the class used to the term he asked, "Does anyone know what a paradox is?" Now, this was one of those moments for which I live. I love the odd words of the English language. In fact I try to regularly increase my vocabulary, because there is such a rich diversity of terminology available to us who speak English. Thus, of course I knew what a paradox was, even if very few members of the class were familiar with the term.

Because I knew the term, and because no one else was speaking and I could tell some people were a little embarrassed to admit they didn't know the term, I had to immediately speak up. So I did. As my pastor was getting ready to explain the concept I said, "I know what a paradox is. A paradox is two doctors." Did I mention I also love the Marx brothers and particularly enjoy the banter between Groucho and Chico?

While my wise crack didn't get much of a chuckle (I got a few smiles) the idea of paradox made more of an impact on those in the church. And for good reason, paradoxes are important to the Christian faith.

Think about just a few of the paradoxes we must embrace to be Christians: success is often measured by persecution, only by dying to ourselves can we find life in Christ, only by ceasing to attempt to earn our position before God through our works can we find a hope of peace in the work he has done for us, even the symbol of our hope and the power of our faith is an instrument of torture and murder. Our faith is one where it seems that logic would lead us to an exact opposite conclusion of how to attain righteousness. What man would say that only by agreeing to die daily can a man actually have any hope of life? Who would have concluded that the idea that God had forgiven all of our unrighteous deeds, past, present, and future, could lead to a moral revolution that would inspire men to serve and love others more than themselves? Our God is greater than we can imagine still, because he does his great works through the most insignificant of people: us.

Though we look poor, God says we have great wealth in heaven. Though we are broken, God says we are to be the healers of others. Though we are people from many lands and languages, God says we are all one family. Though we are often persecuted, God says we are to be the most peaceful people of all. Though we are often condemned for our faith, we are the only ones who enjoy true freedom.

I know that the American church does not experience the same poverty of other churches. We do not experience the same persecution, and we are not usually imprisoned for our faith. We live in a land that has been different than others for over 200 years, and we can praise God for that. But, we have also failed to be the integrated church we could have been, we have failed to be a people broken by our own iniquities and the iniquities of our nation far more often than we have embraced the brokenness to which God has called us.

Yet, our God is still a God of paradoxes. That church which has been most unfaithful can still become the most faithful. God's Word is described as powerful and living, and as our God still lives, he can still do miracles. We are not a people without hope, no matter what our current circumstances may be. For no matter what confronts us, our God is still the controller of the universe, and our circumstances come from his hand. We can praise him in times of ease, and sing of his goodness in times of suffering. Let us embrace the God of paradoxes, the only true God, who turns defeat into victory, and brings eternal life from the death of his son on the cross.

Christian Guilt

2010-08-30T07:00:00.000-04:00

In Hebrews 9:13-14 we read, "For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God." We, are no longer bound by guilt, by shame, or by trying to earn salvation before God. That also means that we, who are in Christ, are no longer bound to try and redeem ourselves before men. If God has forgiven us our sins, then what can a man say to bring shame upon us? We, who stand washed in the blood of Christ, have a perfect forgiveness, no one can hold any sin against us, because all our wrongs have been paid for by the perfect Lamb of God.

Before I go on, I do want to say that this forgiveness does not mean that we are not responsible for the wrongs we have committed against others on earth. A murderer who comes to faith may be forgiven by God, but to claim before the authorities, "I'm innocent of this murder because Christ has forgiven me" is just foolishness. Yes, we may be able to stand before God and have bold assurance that he will not hold our sins against us, but if we refuse to seek the forgiveness of those we have wronged, or if we refuse to go before the authorities and pay for our crime, then we are still sinning in that we are not submitting to that authority which God has placed over us. The forgiveness of Christ does not change our past, it makes us a new creation, so that we have an assurance of salvation before God, and a confidence of our forgiveness even when men may condemn us. Worldly condemnation does not mean we must bow under the burden of guilt, but it means that we must take responsibility for what we have done.

This forgiveness should affect us deeply. We should be able, and willing, to go to those who have been wronged, acknowledge that they have been wronged, and then tell them that we want to make right what we have done. We may not have money, but we can help with time and with many other resources that are available to us. What we have confessed before God though, we do not need to be embarrassed to confess before those who know they have been wronged, but in humility we can show that Christ really is living in us by how we live our lives.

I bring this up because I look around much of the deep South in America today and I realize that as of yet there has not been racial reconciliation for wrongs that occurred 150 years ago. I had family on both sides of the slavery issue, and I had family on both sides of the treatment of American Indians, so I understand that this is long standing and deeply painful issue. But, we who are Christians can take the steps to begin reconciliation at least within our churches. We do not need to be a divided people with black churches and white churches where "different worship cultures" keep us separated.

Racial differences seem to make a lie out of what Scripture says, that in Christ there is neither slave, nor free, male nor female, Greek nor Jew. I recognize that Paul is not talking in absolutes in that section of Scripture, as we certainly see that men and women do not become androgynous when they become Christians. But, Paul is saying that the forgiveness we have through Christ unifies us all under him, so that when I look to my brother or my sister, I should see an image of Christ, a part of his body, not a black man or a white man, not an Asian woman or a Hispanic woman. As we continue to divide our churches based on racial and social lines, we continue to perpetuate the system that brought about such guilt, lasting until less than a generation ago.

Slavery may have been ended with the defeat of the South in 1865, (though it was not officially outlawed in all Northern states until a little later) but the Jim Crow laws that sprang up after the end of Slavery continued into the 1960s. The racial divisions of the South were not done away with until after both of my parents were teenagers or young adults. Even at that I can remember my grandmother using rather incorrect language in reference to people of different races, not because of any animosity she may have felt, but because that was simply the vocabulary with which she grew up. The harm done by the American system of slavery has been long lasting, and it will not be quickly forgotten. The fact that many people still make quite a living off of racial tensions should demonstrate to us that racial reconciliation still has some distance to go. Just because slavery came to an end does not mean that equality was its immediate successor.

However, now we are 40-50 years past the time of Jim Crow. I grew up going to integrated schools, and I have never known a time where I did not have a friend, or multiple friends, of different colors and racial backgrounds. I have seen how Christ has unified us, white, black, Asian, Hispanic, Indian (here I refer to Asian Indians) and many other races besides. The church does not have to be held by back guilt any more, thinking that because we have wronged those of another color that we cannot find reconciliation with them. Moreover we have the opportunity to be a church that reaches out and says that what was done in the past was wrong, and we are looking to help every Christian come to full maturity in Christ, whatever the color of his skin may be.

I know I'm not the first to have this idea. The fact is that many churches are already opening our doors, but we are doing it very slowly. Integrated churches are still few and far between. I can honestly say that I have only known a couple of churches of the Southern Baptist tradition that have had more than one or two non-white members out of a congregation of 100-200 or more. This should stand to our shame.

We have been forgiven in Christ. We do not need to be ashamed of the sins of our past. But, we need to acknowledge the sins of our past and begin to make reconciliation, reaching out to those who have been wronged and trying to make things right. We need to take responsibility for what has happened in the past, but we do not need to be enslaved by that history. The blood Christ is sufficient to forgive us of all our sins, we do not need to let anyone use those sins to shame us, but we need to be faithful in serving the one who bought us.

Job's Patience

2010-08-29T07:00:00.001-04:00

I'm not very good at suffering. Honestly, I whine when things don't go well. Whenever things start to get hard in my life, even when I have what I need, I find myself snickering and doubting Scripture. I remember, "But godliness with contentment is great gain," (1 Timothy 6:6) and I think, "Really? Like what?" Of course, I find my self being rebuked as quick as I say that, and I am forced to acknowledge that I do not know the whole plan of God.

I guess that is why I like the book of Job. It is a hard book to follow sometimes though. I mean, I can follow when who is speaking, the text is pretty good about telling us that, but sometimes I don't get the arguments being made. But, even though I'm certain I miss some of the details, the general concept seems pretty clear to me, most of the time. Job is suffering, and he doesn't know why, and his friends claim that it is because God has found some fault in Job and calling Job to repent of his wickedness.

By the end of the book the youngest character speaks, Elihu, and his rebuke to Job is another animal entirely. He does not rebuke Job for sinning in some unspecified way, but by sinning by not giving God the glory and putting his focus on God. Job's sin is not that he is proud, it isn't that he sinned in his words, but that he forgot that God is bigger than his suffering, God is more than just good times, God is God in all things, and he is always righteous. Job opened his mouth, and in his suffering he called to his friends, "look at me and weep! I'm in pain, I have lost all I had, and God persecutes me and will not leave me alone! If only I could die, then I would be happy, but God won't even give me the mercy of a quick death!" Job was in a sorry state, but more important than Job's suffering was God's glory.

When God confronts Job he makes this clear. He asks Job what he knows of earthly matters, and when Job cannot answer that God confronts Job with questions of his own weakness and finite nature. Job finally realizes that he has been a fool. He wanted to argue with God, but he forgot his own mortality, and that God is more than he could imagine. I imagine it will be the same on the day when I meet God and see his power with my own eyes.

There is great gain in godliness with contentment. I may not know what is happening now, but I will see how great it is on that day when I stand before the judgment of God, given mercy in Christ. Perhaps the greatest gain is not in the peace I can live with now, but it is the preparation of my soul for the glory that is to come. When I am content with godliness now, instead of seeking my contentment in worldly pleasures, I am encouraged to look forward to the fact that one day I will die, and I will be with my God who saved me. There is a new heaven and a new earth coming, and our godliness today is preparing us for the enjoyment of that new creation.

Hardships come, for some more often than others. Job knew that one day God would redeem him, and he continued to hope in God, despite all that happened to him. He said, "Even now, behold, my witness is in heaven, and he who testifies for me is on high." (Job 16:19) Also, "For Iknow that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon theearth." (Job 19:25) My prayer is that no matter what I suffer Job's hope might be mine. As we trust that one day our redeemer will stand on the earth, that Christ who intercedes for us now will one day stand triumphant upon the earth, it should give us endurance for every situation.

Godliness is not just how we act, it is what we believe and what we teach. That is why Paul says to Timothy, "If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing." (1 Timothy 6:3-4a) We need to be continually reminding ourselves to pay heed to the teaching we have received. We need our minds to be remade. We need the patience of Job in suffering so that we can say with Paul, "More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us." (Romans 5:3-5) And the only way we can have the patience of Job is if we have the faith of Job in the God of Job, for he is our God too.

How is your patience today? How is your doctrine today? Who is your God today?

Holiness? part 2

2010-08-28T07:00:00.004-04:00

Okay, yesterday I began laying out a method by which Christians are able to determine what we should do in any given situation. Because of the length of the post I decided to divide it into two parts. The part yesterday discussed how we take a story we find in Scripture and derive a principle from it for the sake of application to our own lives. I noted that the method I am using is called the analogy of faith, and that it is an old method that has been passed down for hundreds of years. However, I want to clarify a little bit on the use of that term.

The term, "analogy of faith" most properly understood means that Scripture interprets itself. What I mean by this is that Scripture does not ever contradict itself. Therefore, the analogy of faith, in its purest form means that when we read one passage of Scripture we interpret that passage in light of the rest of Scripture, so that there is no contradiction. So, if there is a passage, such as James, that says you are saved by works, but there is overwhelming evidence throughout the rest of Scripture that works do not save you (as is the case) we are either left with a contradiction, or we are misunderstanding the text. The normal resolution in the above example is that what James meant when he said you are saved is that your faith is proven true, that is that faith must necessarily lead to works, or it not a true saving faith. This means that James is using the term "saved" differently than Paul. Whether or not you find this convincing (and I think it is if you read James' argument in context) will be based on whether you hold that all of Scripture is inspired by God, and therefore cannot be contradictory.

However the term "analogy of faith" has a broader meaning also, meaning that which conforms to the teaching and doctrine of Scripture. In other words, when we rightly apply Scripture we must use an analogy of faith, so that our practice is not contradictory to the teaching of Scripture. Because Scripture, rightly understood, cannot contradict Scripture, our lives also ought not contradict what is in Scripture. This holds true because the same God that inspired Scripture has called us to live like Christ. Because Christ is the incarnation of the Word of God, the life of Christ conforms to the teaching of Scripture, therefore our lives ought to conform to the teaching of Scripture as well.

As I said initially, for a Christian "holiness" and "morality" are basically interchangeable ideas. Holiness means living lives set apart to the glory of God. If we are to be moral we must be holy, because God is the absolute measurement of all that is good. So, when we seek to be moral we must determine what best reflects the perfect goodness of God, and do that. Being moral alone may not necessarily lead to holiness, but seeking holiness will require us to live morally. Therefore, when we come across a principle in Scripture that shows us, "This is what God would have of his people" we need to apply that principle to our own lives and live in light of it.

Previously we discussed how to apply the analogy of faith to what we read in Scripture, specifically looking at a single narrative example, and even then looking at only one part of that narrative example. We could have asked additional questions of that narrative, like, for instance, if we recognize that adultery is wrong based on the story of David and Bathsheba, what should we do if we are already in an adulterous relationship? Well, in order to answer that question we could look at the end of the story and see that David repented, and so we should also repent. But, then we would need to determine what repentance means in our instance.

If we were to ask this question it would be like the second situation I mentioned yesterday, what if you were faced with the option of cheating on your taxes to avoid paying the government some money? I'm assuming you are in a position where you could get away with the cheating, that you are sure you won't get caught and therefore the question is a purely moral question. Am I allowed to do this based on Scripture? In order to answer these kinds of questions we need to have either some familiarity with the Bible, or we need to know how to do a bible search for relevant passages. After all, if we want to follow the analogy of faith we need to know what Scripture teaches in order to conform our behavior to Scripture.

In all reality, these are likely going to be the more nagging questions than "What does this section of Scripture teach?" If we come to a section of Scripture we don't understand we can always mark it and come back to it later, but when we are faced with a real moral choice we cannot always postpone the decision to come back to it later. Thus these questions will be more pressing, and more nagging because we may wonder for some time afterward if we made the right decision. So, let's address these questions.

First, we need to know what Scripture says. So, for the tax question, we can turn to Romans 13:6-7 and Matthew 22:15-22. We can use these two sections of Scripture because they both speak directly the issue of paying taxes. Paul says that we should pay taxes to whoever taxes are due. Jesus says we should render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Now, in the case of the second example we have to take a small step and move up from "Caesar" to "whatever government is in power." But, we can see the principle at work in Jesus words, and Paul basically distills that principle down for us, giving it to us directly in Romans 13. So, Scripture commands us to pay our taxes, therefore we can't cheat on them.

But, what if we are already in an adulterous relationship? Well, we see that David begs for God's forgiveness, but he doesn't divorce Bathsheba. Should I continue to sleep with a married woman, or sleep with a woman who isn't my wife as long as I recognize it is sin and ask for forgiveness? What does Paul say about sin, in general? If we look to Romans 6:1-2 we see that Paul tells us that if we have died to sin, that is if we are in Christ, then it is abominable that we should continue on in sin. Likewise James gives us a principle we can apply here in James 4:17, "So, whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin." What we are left with then is that if we know that adultery is a sin, and we know that we are called to stop sinning, it is not enough to simply know it is wrong and ask God to forgive me, I have to stop the relationship.

This principle, that a Christian should not continue on in Sin, but that we should do that which we know to be good is the foundation of our morality. John says it like so, "but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked." (1 John 2:5-6) We are called to walk like Christ, and that means we must conform our lives to Scripture. To this we may add Christ's words, "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." The Christian ethic conforms to the ideal of love.

Indeed this ideal of love is why we should read Scripture. For if God has written Scripture to instruct us in righteousness, and we are called to love God, shouldn't we desire to be righteous? Shouldn't we, therefore, make a point of studying Scripture, so we might know how to live in a way that is pleasing to God? We fulfill thus the law of love in not sinning against our neighbor, in not sinning against God, and in not continuing in any sin in ignorance. Reading Scripture is part of the way we fulfill our obligation to love God and our neighbor, doing to them what we would have them do to us.

So then, in order to live a holy life, we must understand how to apply Scripture to our lives. That means we must know how to determine the principles that are in Scripture, and that we must know Scripture and search it out when we are confronted with moral questions. But, living a holy life also means that we need to be informed about modern issues. For instance, I have written on stem cell research, homosexual marriage, even politics (though I still have that one pending to post to the blog) and honoring mothers and fathers. But while most of those things may be discussed in Scripture, there is certainly nothing in the bible about stem cells, rocket fuel, cars, alternative energy, democratic government, or even computers and blogs, does that mean that we cannot make moral statements about any of those things? No, instead we must know what Scripture says, what principles are in Scripture, and we must understand the issues that face us in the modern day, that way we can know what principles from Scripture to apply to whatever issue we are facing.

For instance, I argued against embryonic stem cell research based on the fact that the only way to generate those cell lines we would use for experimentation come from destroyed embryos. Thus, I held that because we are destroying a human life (not a potential human life, but an actual human life) we are sinning to do so, and any research that is done must necessarily be tainted by the immorality of that action. But, my position is only correct if I'm right that embryos are human lives. Therefore I am making a biological claim based on the scientific information available to me: embryos are human lives because as soon as a sperm and an egg meet the resulting entity is a new human life. The only way I can make that claim is to first understand the science that is being discussed.

Our obligation to live lives of of holiness means we have to live those lives in the times and places we live. I cannot live in A.D. 300, because this is A.D. 2010. I have to live a life of holiness today, and that means I have to engage with my culture as it exists today. We are obligated to know Scripture, and our own current cultures as much as is reasonable, so that we can know the right thing to do in every situation with which we might be confronted. Christian morality is hard, because it requires us to be informed, it requires us to use logic, and it requires us to be willing to take positions that might be unpopular, if that is what we are called to by the Word of God.

But remember, James promises us that God will give us wisdom if we ask him, believing that he is good and gives good things to those who seek him. James also says that if we will humble ourselves God will give more grace. If we make a mistake we still have Christ as our savior. The love of God is not limited to saving only those who sin willfully. But, we need to always be seeking wisdom from God, and asking him to reveal our sin, that we might be holy, no longer continuing in sin, but walking in the light of Christ.

Holiness?

2010-08-27T07:00:00.002-04:00

I have, for the last several posts, attempted to be somewhat more conversational and less professorial, however, I want to talk about a subject today that is difficult to address in a purely conversational tone. I want to address the issue of morality. From a Christian perspective I think morality and holiness are somewhat interchangeable. While we certainly teach our children to be moral and holy without using obscure arguments or purely logical argumentation, it is hard to express an overall scheme of morality without the use of logical argumentation.

In defense of the use of logic, I want to note that I don't think logic has to be boring. In fact logic ought to be compelling and forceful. Unfortunately many of us do not have extensive exercise in logic. We have long since moved away from philosophical terms like syllogisms, ultimate causes, and things as means versus things as an end unto themselves. Moving away from purely academic terms isn't an entirely bad thing, the scholarly and antiseptic logic of a classroom can cause us to miss the moral reality of certain situations. An example is in the debate over abortion. If we ask, "Is it morally acceptable to treat a fetus as an entity of secondary importance, utilizing its immediate separation from the primary entity as a means to an end, if the end is the overall increase in general happiness of those primary entities existing at the current time?" then we denude this proposal of its real moral force. The real moral force of the question becomes evident when asked in this way: "Is it okay to forcibly extract a baby from its mothers womb, killing it and treating it as less than human, if in doing so we placate the desire of the mother?"

Logic, far from being boring, is in fact absolutely essential for a life of holiness, a life to which the Christian is called. In fact, logic is necessary for any life at all. You cannot long live if you completely ignore the normal rules of logic, unless you have a very devoted individual seeking to protect you from your own stupidity. A man who walks out into every street without looking, and walks in the midst of traffic because the road is easier to walk on than a broken sidewalk is an idiot. Such an individual ignores the basic use of logic: recklessly walking out in the middle of a road with fast moving vehicles without giving those vehicles any heed will likely get you killed.

So, because logic does not have to be boring, I invite you to join me for a quick examination on the use of logic in forming a Christian system of ethics. I don't intend to lay out a complete system here, but to illustrate the method of logical progression that we can use for any situation in order to determine what would be the best course of action in that situation. The goal is not so much to create a post where you can look and say, "okay, what did he say about this situation" as it is to show the method of thought that will lead to an answer, even when faced with a difficult problem. Of course this is not a system that I have developed myself, rather it is the analogy of faith that has been taught and handed down through Christendom for hundreds of years. It is also the method that pastors often use to examine a text and derive the principles from that text that apply to a congregation, so that every text teaches an applicable truth to which we ought to conform.

Okay, so I used the term, "analogy of faith" what on earth does that mean? Basically it means that using a "this is like that" comparison for any issue we read about in Scripture, we can derive a principle from Scripture that teaches us how we should live faithfully today. This can work in two different ways: I can read Scripture and find a situation, like David's adultery with Bathsheba, and attempt to determine what that situation would teach me about how I should live today, or, conversely, I could find myself in a situation today, such as being faced with the option of lying on my taxes, and want to know what Scripture teaches on that subject. In either case we are faced with one situation and we want to know what the moral thing to do would be, based on that situation. Which side we start on does not ultimately matter, though starting on the side of Scripture may be somewhat easier if we are unfamiliar with the bible.

So, I gave two examples, but I didn't explain how we might work those out, lets look at one. In the case of David committing adultery with Bathsheba we have to read the whole story in order to determine what it teaches us about morality and how we should live today. There is no real moral imperative given in the text, "Let the reader be aware! This is how you should act..." does not appear in this story. So what we have to do is look at the situation of David and what he did, and figure out how that situation might apply to us today. Let's take the time to do that.

1) David did not go out to war with his men. 2) David saw Bathsheba bathing on a rooftop and desired her. 3) David called Bathsheba to himself. 4) David slept with Bathsheba. 5) When Bathsheba reported she was pregnant David sent for her husband. 6) David tried to get Uriah to sleep with Bathsheba, so he could make Uriah think he got Bathsheba pregnant, but failed. 7) David arranged for Uriah to be killed in battle so he could take Bathsheba to himself to hide the fact he got her pregnant. 8) David was confronted by Nathan and chastised, and told that because of his sin his son would die. 9) David repented and begged for God's forgiveness. 10) God forgave David, but his son still died as a result of his sinful behavior. 11) God loved Solomon, born to Bathsheba, and placed him next in the Davidic line.

Okay, so a lot happened. The basic issue though is what we can learn from the story as far as how we ought to behave currently. Potentially the following could be moral issues, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9. I'm excluding 5 because it is simply the report of a fact, we don't normally say reporting something is moral or immoral, it is simply someone telling someone else the truth. 8 is not a directly moral issue, though there is perhaps a secondary moral issue, and we can address that issue later. 10 and 11 are God's determinative actions for David and Solomon; while there may be something going on here, again the moral question would be secondary, at best.

So then, the primary moral flow of the story could go like this: David didn't go to war and lead his men like kings were supposed to in that time, this lead to him seeing Bathsheba bathing and lusting after her, after which he committed adultery with her and attempted to cover it up, leading the murder of Uriah and God punishing David. If we read on in 2 Samuel 12:26-28 it seems that David should have been at Rabbah with his men, particularly based on what Joab says to him. So David's first error was in not leading his army. We would have difficulty making a direct application of that concept to ourselves as few of us are supposed to lead an army. The whole situation derived from this one error though, so let us look at David's error and see if there is any principle we can derive from it to apply to ourselves.

Let's look at the number of steps we might proceed with to get a full understanding of the moral implications of this story: Direct application- we should not stay home if our job is the lead the army out to war, or we might accidentally see a woman bathing and commit adultery with her, leading to a host of other immoral actions. Derived application, step one- We should not avoid our responsibilities lest we are lead into temptation and eventually great sin. Derived application, step two- We should seek to be busy fulfilling our responsibilities, so we do not come into temptation or great sin. Derived application, step three- We should seek to be busy doing whatever good things we can so that give temptation as little opportunity to occur in our lives as possible, so that we are protected from sin.

Notice that the derived applications seek to determine the principle that is at work in the direct application. Also notice that the second derived application takes the negative principle at play in the first derived application and turns it into a positive command. Finally, note that the third derived application take the command of the second derived application and then broadens it, so that it becomes even more applicable to our every day lives. The derived applications are logical applications of the story to our own lives, but they are not directly stated in the story.

Now a quick comment on the derived applications: you do not have to go through all these steps in each situation. Sometimes you will already have a positive example, so there is no need to derive a positive command from a negative. Sometimes the negative will be more applicable to your specific situation. The goal is to find a principle that can apply to us where we are, so that we can see what Scripture would command us to do, and what it would command us not to do. In some situations it may be difficult to determine the principle at play in a given section of Scripture (such as the laws of Leviticus or the genealogical records of Nehemiah or Numbers). In those situations we can either seek out commentaries to help us understand the text, or we ask someone else to help us understand how that section of Scripture should inform us.

According to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 all of Scripture is useful to us. Sometimes we may have difficulty determining the specific principle for application in a given text, but that does not mean that Scripture does not have application. We must be familiar with as much of Scripture as we can, living by those areas that are most clear to us and seeking through additional reading and study that other sections would become clear to us over time. Peter said that some of Paul's writings were hard to understand, and he was an apostle who knew Paul personally! But, let us not think Scripture is too difficult for us to understand, the fact is that most of it is as simple as the example of David and Bathsheba above, and it contains all the principles we need to be thoroughly trained in righteousness.

This post is already quite long, so I will not go into the second example today, but I will go over that tomorrow.

My Stance on Embryonic Stem Cell Research

2010-08-26T07:00:00.002-04:00

I had a kind friend write to me to point out what he felt were some deficiencies in my position on embryonic stem cells. Because I entered into the last post without giving a thorough defense of my own position, I thought I would post this so that those who are interested might see what I think, and why I am against embryonic stem cell research as it done today. Because this is a response to an email sent to me you may have to read between the lines a little to see what my friend was stating, however, I think my response was thorough enough that you can understand his position and mine from this post.

As a disclaimer, I want to note that I asked his permission to post this comment. I always intend to respect those who wish to keep dialogue private, so you do not have to worry that I'm going to post a long response to anything you email me about, unless you just want it posted. The text of my response email follows:

Dear Sir,

Thank you so much for your comments. I was actually fully aware of everything you noted here (he wrote to me to mention that most of the stem cells used in embryonic stem cell research come from embryos generated by in vitro fertilization, and that the embryos used are donated for the purpose of science, and that they would otherwise be destroyed). None of this changes my position though. My position is: once an egg and a sperm have been joined such that there results a joining of DNA and naturally occurring cellular division and reproduction, that entity is now a new human life. Therefore, because embryonic stem cells are derived from the destruction of these embryos it is an unethical and immoral area of study, due to the fact that it necessarily requires the destruction of a human life in order for research to be conducted.

The issue for me is not where or how the egg is fertilized. My own personal position (and that of my wife) is that if we were unable to naturally conceive, we would adopt. We would not go the route of in vitro feritilization. However, I have no actual moral complaint against women who do go that route, so long as they have fully considered the reality of what they are doing and have weighed their options. I do believe that some couples have acted selfishly in conceiving in vitro, however, couples act selfishly in adopting and in natural pregnancy, so I can hardly raise that as a complaint. Certainly I wouldn't argue that because one person has abused the system the whole enterprise is immoral.

As far as the egg being incapable of surviving on its own, of course it cannot survive on its own. No egg once fertilized can survive on its own. The very nature of any human act of reproduction requires a womb for the baby to develop. The reality that the egg cannot survive outside of the womb does not negate its very real humanity though. This argument is akin to saying that a scientist could remove (in some fashion) an egg that has just implanted itself in a woman's womb, and then say, "I have not killed the child, it simply cannot survive outside of the womb, therefore I should use it to experiment." The issue is not whether it (the embryo) was implanted at any given time nor whether it could survive outside the womb at any given time, the issue is what "it" is.

As to the throwing away of embryos, I do find this to be a rather abhorrent situation. Most embryos are frozen for extended periods of time, and quite safely at that, so we can store embryos as a stop-gap for our current situation. I would fully agree that embryos ought not be destroyed. One possible solution that I think rightly answers the seriousness of the situation are embryo adoption groups who seek to stop the destruction of innocent children by finding those will adopt the embryos and raise them as their children. Hopefully, with the ability to safely preserve embryos, those willing to adopt unused embryos, and the advancement of in vitro fertilization, the number of embryos destroyed will decrease and eventually stopped altogether.

I am aware that most science requires years of study in order to advance to a particularly useful point. Stem cell research, in general, has advanced to the point where over 70 different treatments are being done using them. All of these have been derived from adult stem cells though. I have come across only one treatment that I know of where embryonic stem cells have been used to derive a treatment (for a form of blindness). I am sure that additional treatments will be developed in the coming years and decades, perhaps even additional treatments from embryonic stem cells, but no amount of time will change the morality of committing murder today for the sake of future benefit.

There are also those who make (perhaps valid) arguments that embryonic stem cell research, while not yielding cures, is helping us to better understand early biological developments and cellular development in general, in ways that adult stem cells do not. This research, it is argued, has multiple uses and much value, and is invaluable in itself because of how it deepens our understanding of biology. These arguments do not change my position any more than the arguments that we are deriving cells from embryos that would be destroyed. My argument is not against the research being done, nor even the question of whether there is valid research being done, such arguments, to me, are secondary. My argument is, and remains, solely with the means of deriving the materials necessary for the research being done.

Allow me to give you what I consider to be a valid example of my position: Imagine, if you will, that a scientist argued (reasonably) that, if he were allowed to kill 10 babies he could utilize the material from those babies to develop potentially life saving research. He would not steal babies, he would only use deformed babies who had been abandoned at hospitals and who would die within 3 months. However, he could not wait for those babies to die naturally, he had to, instead, actually kill the babies in order to conduct his research. He would kill the babies quickly, they would feel no pain, and he could not guarantee results, but he was confident that within 20 years he could have some results.

Would it be okay with you if he conducted the research? Would it be right to fund that research with public money? Would any amount of results make his research ethical? What if he could guarantee results within 5 years? What if he only needed to use 2 babies? My argument is that such research, regardless of its rewards, regardless of its potential, regardless of its potential "return on investment" would be immoral, because it relies upon the murder of innocent human lives. Because I believe that God is the creator of life, and that he creates a new life at the moment of conception, I believe that it is murder to destroy embryos for research, and thus any research conducted from that position is immoral.

We do not make life, we can only bring together physical components (egg and sperm) God actually creates the life that results. Therefore, for us to murder that life, at any stage, is an act of immorality. When we determine who has the right to live and die based on what value they may contribute to us as a society, or to science as an experimental specimen, we begin to play God. This is the temptation of Satan in the Garden, "You can become like God, knowing (determining) good and evil." This is the root of all human sin, our decision to place our ethics above God's clearly revealed will.

Those who would argue against my position must first convince themselves of one thing: what we are destroying, when we kill and embryo, is not a human life. Yes, it is undergoing cellular development, yes if placed within its most natural environment, (a womb) it has the potential to grow and develop all the way to the point of birth as a baby, yes it has human DNA and is rightly recognized as an independent living organism, but it is still not a human. My complaint with embryonic stem cell research thus rests upon the same foundation of my argument against abortion: we do not create life, and we do not get to determine when a human becomes a human. Because of the very serious moral complaint that God could raise against us, we are better to err on the side of caution, that we may seek the blessings of God in the rest of our lives. Let us not assume a wisdom beyond ourselves, but rather recognize that when confronted with a mystery, it is best that we act humbly and move cautiously, lest we overextend ourselves and stride proudly into sin.

Now, since I have laid out quite thoroughly why I am against embryonic stem cell research, I do want to say that I am not entirely against embryonic stem cell research. If there were a means of deriving embryonic stem cells not related to the destruction of embryos I would have no compunction against research done on those cells. Thus, if there were, for instance, some way that scientists could derive embryonic stem cells from umbilical cords, or if they were able to harvest some from embryonic fluid withdrawn during necessary in utero surgeries, or some other means, then I would not be against doing research based on those cell lines. (However, if scientists withdrew embryonic fluid solely for the purpose of attempting to harvest embryonic stem cells, and thus endangered a pregnancy, I would be against that.) The issue for me is entirely the means by which the cell lines are developed, and as long as even one embryo is destroyed, or one child needlessly endangered, I will continue to protest that this is an act of gross immorality.

Caiaphas said, "You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish." John made clear that Caiaphas was prophesying that Christ would die in order to bring all of God's children together, as one. But, for Caiaphas, what he intended was that it was better to kill Jesus than that Jesus should bring the wrath of Rome on Israel. (John 11:47-53) Even if it meant that Caiaphas had to bring false charges against Jesus and reject the Christ of God, he would kill one man in order to protect his nation. While we can understand his passion, we rightly reject his actions as immoral and worthy of condemnation. Are we somehow more innocent than him if we allow the murder of babies, the murder of innocent children, humans, regardless of how they came into being, for the sake of research? Do our "good" goals make right our wicked actions today?

Learning to Honor

2010-08-25T07:00:00.001-04:00

I used to fear my father. When I say that I do not mean to conjure up some image of a little boy cowering from his father's shadow. What I mean is that as a young child, up to my teenage years, I knew that if I got into trouble, regardless of what the punishment might be at school, it was my father's punishment I feared. I feared my father's punishment because he could actually take things from me that I wanted, he could actually use physical force in punishing me, and no matter what, I could not avoid him, because I had to go home at some point. In looking back I do not think that fear was a bad thing, because at times when I was not motivated by common sense and a good intent (children are sinful you know) there was another motivating factor to keep me in line. Fear is not always a bad thing, sometimes fear has perfectly good and practical purposes.

Lest anyone misunderstand, mine was not a household where my mother simply held back and watched my father discipline my brothers and me. Remember, (if you've read my previous posts) my mother was a quadriplegic, so there was simply little she could do, in terms of force, to punish us. My father was the primary disciplinarian in my household just because that was the way things had to be. I have no idea how things would have been different had my mother been able to walk. Such a question is really basically irrelevant to me, because I live in the reality that is, not in the possibility of what might have been.

The reason I bring up the fear I had of my father though, is because it is that fear which taught me to honor those authorities over me. Because I was afraid of my father, I honored his wishes, I behaved (usually) as he wanted me to behave. And, because my father wanted me to represent him and my mother well, he wanted me to obey those teachers and other authorities that were placed over me, so long as the rules were just. As I learned to obey the authorities over me, I eventually learned to honor those authorities.

In honoring others I learned something else as well: how to honor myself. As I grew up and realized what it meant to honor others, I began to realize that the respect I gave those who had authority over me was the same kind of respect I wanted for myself. I did not want people to be polite to me because I wanted to exercise control over them, but because it meant that they were respecting me, they were showing me the due deference that I was showing them. If I was supposed to honor my bosses, doing what they wanted me to do and working as hard as I could to complete the orders given to me, then I wanted them to respect me as a person, not giving me orders just to make me work, but because the orders were sensible. Honoring myself did not mean thinking more highly of myself than I ought to, but realizing that I had value, I am a son of the living God.

It is this same sense of honor that I have tried to teach to children who use insulting language and refuse to exercise self control. The poor behavior of children like that shows that they do not honor their parents, because they do not care what people think of their children that they would act in such a way. This poor behavior shows that these children do not honor others, as they use vulgarity and profanity that may insult or offend others nearby, and their behaviors generally cause a commotion, disturbing the peace of those around them as well. This behavior also demonstrates that these children do not respect themselves. They do not know how to behave so as to demonstrate that they think they are worth anything more than the value of entertainment they are providing at any given moment.

It is interesting to me that those who make themselves the center of attention could be the ones with the least amount of personal honor. I do not mean simply that they may behave the worst, or commit crimes when no one is looking, but they also have no personal honor in that they do not think of themselves as having worth. Children who scream profanities, who insult adults, and who display no self control not only insult those around them, but they illustrate that they insult themselves as well. I realize this is not the case for all children, some of these children think the whole world revolves around them and they act the way they do because they think everyone ought to give them what they want because they are worth it (or deserve it). But, in either case, whether these children honor themselves too much or have no honor at all, they still do not rightly honor themselves, their parents, or anyone else.

I bring all this up because I wanted to point out the importance of the Fifth Commandment. I noted previously, as Scripture says, that this is the first command with a promise: "Honor your mother and your father that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you." In honoring our parents we learn how to honor society and the authorities of society. We learn how to honor God as we model our relationship with him on the relationship with have with our mother and father. We also learn how to honor ourselves, holding ourselves as being worth more than just a cheap bit of money, more than just a bit of food or someone's entertainment.

Honoring our parents brings with it a promise, but also an implied curse. If we honor our parents, then we will live long in the land, but if we do not, then we will not live long in the land. That curse is still applicable today. A man who grows up without honoring, having neither care for his parents, nor concern for others, is prone to make one of two equally disastrous errors. Either this man will have no respect for himself and will sell out at every opportunity, always seeking to find something to give him meaning, or, he will think of himself as the only one who really matters and he will become selfish, greedy, and contemptible.

Many of us were like this. We were those who had no honor, we did not give God the glory due him. We claimed to honor our parents, but in reality we only cared for ourselves. But, God has forgiven us, if we come to him through Christ, and now he has given us the honor of being called his sons. How then can we continue in dishonor, when we have a Father who is worth all the honor in creation?

I learned what it means to honor by starting with fear. Not everyone needs to start in this same way. For children there is perhaps some value to having a right level of fear of their parents, understanding that their disapproval could lead to significant consequences. But, for adults that does not need to be the case. We can learn how to honor others just from the command of Christ: "For whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12) Honoring others begins by doing what we ought, because it is right to do so to them, and because we love them as God has commanded us.

If we are wise we will learn to honor our mothers and our fathers. We will learn to honor them because in so doing we will honor God. In honoring God we will learn what it means to honor ourselves, what it is to see ourselves as more than merely animals, as though we were just some kind of evolved protozoa with a sense of morality. We will realize that he who made us out of dirt also breathed his spirit into us, so that we are more than the sum of our physical parts, because of his spiritual blessings. Let us honor our mothers and fathers in every aspect of our lives, when they are present and when they are not, because our Father, to whom we owe our very existence, is ever present with us, and is always worthy of our honor.

A Victory for Life and Science

2010-08-24T07:00:00.003-04:00

I never cared much for doing science fairs when I was a child. To be honest, I just wasn't that creative and didn't have ideas that I could realistically test that hadn't been done by others. What's the point in doing a volcano for the hundredth time, talking about the chemical reaction of whatever two components you chose to make it explode? But, I did like to play with shiny things and I would come up with all kinds of ideas that would allow me to see what burned what color or what worked as a better magnet, etc. A lot of what I did when I was young wasn't science, but that didn't stop me from submitting those ideas as science fair projects, just because I had to do something.

I wonder sometimes if that same idea is what is behind much science today. How much do researchers attempt to get the government, or private companies, to finance ideas that they know are not effective, but they have wed themselves to ideologically or economically? I have a feeling that the answer might be more than many of us realize. That isn't to fault researchers, it isn't to say that they don't believe that somehow, someday, they might be able to do some good with their ideas, but they realize that any such good is really a long, long way off. Likewise, even if they are blinded by their own commitments, that only demonstrates that they are human, because all of us have our ideological blind spots, usually areas that we will passionately defend, even if someone points out that our positions don't make much sense.

I wonder if that is why some scientists continue to insist on the potential of embryonic stem cells. The fact is that there is not much promise in embryonic stem cells. The very few successful uses of embryonic stem cells have been limited to animal models, and even then there have been increased cysts and tumors. Yes, the discovery of these types of stem cells only dates back 12 years, but the fact is that there hasn't been a successful treatment on humans yet. In the only current FDA permitted trial in the United States they are working with cells that are derived from embryonic stem cells, despite the fact that cysts were more prevalent on the spines of the mice that received the treatment. (The FDA did not comment on why they removed the hold they had placed on the research, however the company doing the research claimed that the cysts had no adverse reactions, and that they changed their treatment to result in fewer cysts.)

Don't misunderstand me, I'm really big on the idea of stem cell research. I mean I think that the possibility that we could use naturally occurring cells in the human body to cure major diseases which we have no effective means of currently treating is absolutely wonderful. Adult stem cells have shown promise in this area. Because adult stem cells are able to be developed from a person's own body they generally do not suffer from the issue of rejection like embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells have also been used successfully in human trials. (Each of the words in the previous sentence links to a different site discussing the success of adult stem cells. I chose the sites I did based on the fact that each of them contains at least one different story, so that while there may be overlapping examples the sites also each contain unique examples, or if two sites had two of the same stories, they are thus represented properly as two different situations. The whole points being that you could spend all day finding new examples of the success of adult stem cells. Some of the stories mentioned above include recovery from decades of blindness, walking after nearly two decades of paralysis, and many other amazing events of that nature, all due to adult stem cell research.)

It is because I am a big supporter of adult stem cells that I am excited that a court has halted a recent decision from the Obama administration to allow for additional federal funding on embryonic stem cells (pending the results of a lawsuit). Please, let me be clear: I am not against stem cell research, I am against the murder of babies, (primarily) and the waste of limited resources in less efficient areas of research when there are already existing promising opportunities presenting real cures for existing diseases. Yes, I intended to say "murder of babies" above. Embryonic stem cells are generally obtained from destroying a fetus, thus terminating a life that has already begun. You can argue that this is not killing a person if you want (I find that argument logically tortuous and laughable, but that's up to you) but you cannot say that you are not killing an actual human being as an embryo is a living independent organism, with human DNA. (Again, I know there are methods of getting embryonic stem cells that do not involve the destruction of embryos, but lets be honest, the reality is that most lines of embryonic stem cells are developed from killing an embryo.)

This really is a victory both for science and for life. Scientifically speaking there is less value in embryonic stem cell research than there is adult stem cell research, even if based on nothing but potential for results. From the perspective of a culture of life, this is a great victory because there will be no federal funding of the murder of the innocent. The federal judge did not rule that embryos are humans and should, therefore, have the full protection of the authorities against being wrongfully murdered. The judgment does not at all address the reality that we are killing our children for the vain hope that we might derive some form of medical benefit in the long term. But, I'll take what victories we can get, even if they do not address the root problems that we are facing.

If you think my language is brash in arguing against embryonic stem cell research, then I beg you to reconsider. I have already laid out my position: a baby is a baby from the time of conception to the time of birth. While many things may happen to naturally terminate a pregnancy before the birth of a child, that does not make it less a murder when we do so intentionally. That is why I take this so seriously. God is the giver of life, for us to arbitrarily take the life of another human being is a horrible thing.

A Mother's Love

2010-08-23T07:00:00.002-04:00

I wrote last time of my father, now I would like to write of my mother. My father taught me how to read Scripture, he taught me the importance of understanding what has been given to us, and he taught me how to be a man of faith. My mother taught me how to suffer. My mother showed me that no matter what, God is still God, and his ways are good, even when I cannot understand them. My mother shows me still what patience looks like, and what it means to love even when you cannot act.

My mother is a quadriplegic. She has been paralyzed since I was four years old. She is what I have been taught is considered and "incomplete quad." That means that she is able to move her upper arms, basically she has control of her biceps. But, that's where he muscular control ends, a line across her body basically at breast level.

What that means is that my mother is incapable of any deep coughing to dislodge material from her lungs or deeper in her throat. She is limited in what she can hold because she cannot grasp with her hands. She cannot hold her self up as well because she does not have control over her abdominal and back muscles that most people have. But, she is, with special equipment, able to drive, able to maneuver her wheel chair around, and able to feed herself and do other similar functions. What limitations my mother has do not prevent her from enjoying life, they just mean she has to do things a little differently from others.

I bring all this up just so you can understand why my mother has had such an impact on me. You see, despite all that she has gone through, I have never seen my mother depressed. I have never seen her angry with the lot life has given her. My mother has embraced all that God has given her, and has counted his plans as better than her own. God has used my mother to impact me and others whom she has come in contact with so that we should recognize that it is possible to glorify God in the hard times as well as the good.

My mother loves to tell stories. Maybe that's where I get my love of stories from. She has told my brothers and I multiple times of what she went through in the hospital. She tells of how after the surgery where the doctors determined how bad the damage that was done to her spine by the car wreck was, the doctors were amazed by what movement she had. She has told us of how she prayed after the wreck, placing her life in the hands of God and acknowledging his sovereignty over all things. I do not recount her stories here because my writing could not rightly capture the manner of them.

I mention my mother's stories because they were always focused not on what was going on in her life, but with how she was trusting God to handle and to care for her needs. In all of my mother's stories she is not the hero. God is the hero, and that is his rightful place. My mother's stories are the epitome of what a Christian's testimony ought to be: a story from or about our lives that reveals the goodness and beauty of God to those who listen. My mother tells stories of faith, because the God of the Scriptures is not dead, but is living and active within her, and her faith in the expression of how God has impacted her life.

I do not remember much of my mother from before she was paralyzed. I guess as a little child you just take things like seeing your mother walk for granted, so those memories do not stick in your mind. Even from the time around the accident I do not have many memories. I don't remember going to the hospital to visit her. I don't remember first seeing her in a wheel chair or learning about the idea that my mother would never walk again. I just grew up knowing those things.

I also grew up knowing that my mother trusted that God has a plan, and that he is fulfilling that plan in her and in all things. This was the faith I was brought up under. My mother still puts up with pain, she still has many limitations and is beginning to experience additional complications from being paralyzed for many years. But, she also remains cheerful, knowing that her God is good, and will do great things on her behalf. I pray that should I ever go through an event half so traumatic as hers that I would be blessed with that faith, because I have come to realize that it is a gift from God. The Lord may take something away from us, a job, a career, our legs, even our families. But, if we put our faith in him, he is all we need, and he will provide for us, so that he might receive the glory.

I closed last time with asking men to be fathers, so this time I ask women to be mothers like my own. Share your faith with your children (cf. Acts 16:1 and 2 Timothy 3:15). Take those children who do not have godly mothers under your wings and bring them into your lives that they may see the grace of God through you. Suffer with grace, as all Christians should, that those who look to you might see that your hope is not in this world, but in the new heavens and new earth, when God will right every wrong, and wipe every tear from your eyes (Romans 8:18, 2 Corinthians 1:5, Philippians 1:29, 2 Thessalonians 1:5). Live your faith, dear women, impress all with your godliness, and tell the wonderful story of the grace of God in your lives (1 Timothy 2:9-10).

Of Good Fathers

2010-08-22T07:00:00.004-04:00

I have learned more about the Christian faith from my father than probably anyone else. My father taught me how to read the Scriptures, taught me the importance of the original languages, and taught me what it means to be a man of faith. While I know that God can use whatever means he wants to in order to teach a man, in my case, much of what I learned came from my father, at least in seed form. Even today, when I have questions or I want to double check my interpretation of a passage I'll call my father and talk with him, because I still want to learn from his wisdom, and I know that he has more experience and has studied Scripture longer than I have been alive. The first command with a promise is to honor your mother and your father that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving to you, and my God has made it easy for me to be able to honor my father.

My father is the one who taught me how to see the themes of Scripture and how to read the bible with a focus on the development of the thematic elements within the text. He taught me to how to realize that God is consistent, and is consistently revealing himself in a progressive manner from Genesis to Revelation. As I developed in reading Scripture and began to see the importance of Christ in both the Old and New Testaments, the inspiration my father gave me helped me to go from simply reading words on a page, to really understanding the depth and value of Scripture. There was a time that I thought learning the bible would be as simple as memorizing words and concepts, but then I began to see the intricacies of God's word, that each part plays into the other in a complex web and pattern, and I realized that I would never glean all that is in Scripture. All of this because my father taught me that what I see in Genesis carries through to what I learn from Revelation.

I would be lying if I said my father taught me Greek or Hebrew. The fact is my father rarely mentioned the Greek alphabet and may have used a handful of Hebrew words in my life. But, my father taught me the value of knowing Greek and Hebrew from the way he turned to those languages when I had a question.

When I wanted to know whether Isaiah really meant for us to understand Immanuel as "God with us" my father pulled out a Hebrew concordance (I still love that book) and showed me the word "el" in the Hebrew, told me it was the word Isaiah used there, and then showed me where that concordance listed every single instance of that word in Isaiah. I then went through the whole book of Isaiah, read every verse and section that mentioned God, and realized that Isaiah only ever uses the word "el" to denote divinity. While my father did not teach me Hebrew, he did teach me the value of knowing the language. That's why I spent five semesters in Hebrew and Greek study in seminary, because of my father's influence on me in seeing the value of knowing the languages of Scripture.

More than knowing languages, and more than simply knowing how to read Scripture, my father taught me what it means to have faith in Scripture. I cannot think of a time when my father ever expressed a doubt in the awesome care and love of God to me and my brothers. Even through times of difficulty, my father has always been steady in his care of his family and his belief in Christ. I'm sure my father has had struggles to which I was not a party, just as I have had struggles which no one will ever know about but God himself, but his words and his manner have always been strong despite those difficulties.

I have written this not just to honor my father, though I have sought to do so. I have written this to encourage young men who have not had strong father figures, that they might know what an impact they could have on their sons and daughters if they will be the men they wish their fathers could have been. I have written this to remind each of us of the importance of fathers and father figures, and to remind those in the church that there is a need of fathers in this world. In America today far too many children do not have fathers, and if the men in the church are not willing to be their fathers, Satan certainly has enough of his own lined up who are ready to do the job.

I could cite statistics and new reports about how children who grow up without fathers do worse in school, are more prone to crime, and more likely to get involved in gangs and other violent activities. I could go on and on about how single mothers are forced to leave their children unattended for long periods of time in order to work and bring home food, thus leading to even more strife in the home. I could discuss the poverty that many children without fathers live in. But, the reality is God made us to come from a father and a mother, and he intended for that relationship that led to our creation to also continue on in our upbringing. It is sufficient that this is the plan of God, the horror stories are simply proof of the goodness of God's plan.

Fathers are essential to a healthy home. God has declared himself to be a loving father. How will we learn about God when we do not understand the idea of what it means to be a loving father? Dear Christian men, let us honor our father in heaven, and be fathers to the fatherless in whatever way we can. You men who have sons and daughters, care for them as best you can, and if already you have a child with a woman who is not your wife, then plead with God that you might still be a father to that child, because he will need you. I write this as a man who had a good father, and as a man who has seen the heartbreak of many friends who did not.