Man Overboard!

Soteriology is the study of the Christian doctrine of salvation. I believe it is a enormously fundamental thing to properly understand. Having an informed and biblical worldview regarding the particulars of getting saved can make a massive difference in all aspects of ones life and faith.

In culture today, that is culture within western Christendom, we have reduced our soteriology into a bumper sticker that says "Jesus Saves." While I agree with that notion completely and I admire the impact that such basic truth conveys, I am concerned that most churches/ pastors don't go into any further depth on this matter. We are too content with knowing the "What" of salvation without investigating the " How and Why."

I want to use this blog to lay out a very basic illustration that describes the 4 basic understandings of salvation within the historical context of theology and debate. I look to Christ in the scriptures and I see him using stories, allegories, and metaphors to bring understanding on difficult issues. I like that approach and I try to use it as much as possible. However, I know that all illustrations are limited in some aspect and thus, I will also use this post to back up my understanding of salvation with some biblical proof. Finally, I want to provide a few resources towards the end that I believe can be of great assistance if you find yourself looking for additional (and more thorough) information on the topic.

Special thanks to John H. at my church for first introducing me to a form of this allegory. I have tweaked it abit as I decided to use it, but I need to confess it was not my original idea.
___________

Background
A man is lost at sea. He was a sailor who got too close to the edge of the deck as he tried to peer into the ocean. The Navy has realized that this sailor is "man overboard" and a rescue operation has begun...

Scenario 1
The sailor is a strong swimmer. He wasn't wearing a life jacket but it was ok because he didn't really need it. He has the ability to stay afloat by himself and he can even make forward progress with his breaststroke if he chooses. As he sees the rescue boat drawing near, the sailor swims hard to the boat, hauls himself up inside, says thanks for the blanket he receives and prepares to rejoin his ship.

Scenario 2
The sailor can just barely swim which is good because he didn't have a life jacket on when he fell in. As he treads along the surface of the water, the rescue boat draws near. Once they are within sight, the sailor yells out and decides to go ahead and haul himself in the boat as he desires to return to the ship. He grabs the side of the boat and pulls himself partially up, a rescuers hand comes down to assist in getting him all the way in. He is thankful that the boat was there so he could get in it, and he is appreciative that the rescue crew is so helpful in aiding him as he tried to get in.

Scenario 3
The sailor can't swim but he did have on a life jacket when he fell in. As he bobs along the surface of the water he realizes that the cold water has made his muscles go numb and he is now incapable of any real effort. Suddenly, he sees the rescue boat drawing near. Once they are within arms reach, the rescue boat asks the sailor if he would like them to go ahead and pull him out of the water. The sailor chooses to have his rescuers grab him and bring him up into the boat. He thanks them for coming out and giving him the chance to be pulled into the rescue boat. Wrapped in his blanket, the sailor ventures back to the ship.

Scenario 4
The sailor fell off the ship with no life jacket and no ability to swim. He hit the water and was dead from drowning within minutes. As the rescue boat arrives at his location, they prepare to send down a dive team to bring up the sailors lifeless body. Once they get him into the boat they perform CPR on him and soon he is brought to life. Incredibly thankful that his rescuers went to so much effort, the sailor is overwhelmed with joy on his way back to the waiting ship and the land of the living.
___________

The first scenario is Pelagianism. This is the view that original sin does not exist. We are essentially born as blank slates with the ability to choose God and work towards communion with him in complete independence. In this view, God is not necessary or active in the process of salvation, he is simply our end goal. Jesus is seen as a "good example" for us in contrast to Adam's "bad example." This was condemned as a heretical view in the early church.

The second scenario is semi-Pelagaianism. In this view we also see beliefs about the non-existence of original sin. It is looked at as man and God cooperating in salvation. It is man who makes the initial choice for God (without any grace at all) and based on that act of volition, God agrees to work in the man's life and complete the process. Here we see God as helper in salvation, but not author. This too was declared to be heretical by the church.

The third scenario is Arminianism. In this viewpoint, man is fallen through original sin - yet God gives just enough grace to allow us to do one thing; we can chose salvation (or not). If we make the choice to be saved, then God will swoop in and do all of the work for us, we must only open the door. Many evangelicals today hold to this belief about salvation. It is we who choose God and God knowing the choice we will make, chooses us.

The fourth scenario is Reformed theology. In this take on salvation, we are born into sin and we are completely unable to even make a decision of our will towards God. We rebel against him continuously and the only way for us to have relationship with him is if he acts as the initiator of our faith. Only when God moves us to be changed can we begin a relationship with him It is God who saves us before time and subsequently it is we who choose God.
____________

I am a strong advocate of the fourth view. Reformed soteriology or Calvinist salvation is based on the biblical teachings that tell us we made no effort towards God before he decided to change our very ontological nature. Only when the essence of our being was moved from loving the darkness to loving the light, did we begin to see God as holy and worthy of adoration. I think that scripture has a lot to say about this, including:

John 6:44:
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. " - Jesus speaking

Romans 9:6-16:
"But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad-in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls- she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."

John 15:16:
"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you."

Acts 13:48:
"And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed."

Ephesians 1:4-5:
"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 through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,"

Ephesians 1:11:
"In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,"

Philippians 1:29:
"For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake"

1 Thessalonians 1:4-5:
"For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake."

2 Thessalonians 2:13:
"But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the first fruits to be saved, through sanctification [by the Spirit] and belief in the truth."

2 Timothy 1:9:
"who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,"
_____________

There is certainly much more that could be discussed on this issue and those who disagree with me might be able to spend hours debating me on salvation. Ultimately, I see the Reformed interpretation of Scripture as the only view that can cohesively hold the entire redemptive plan of the Bible together. It is also the most God-centered (the least man-centered) take on the "how" of our salvation.

I know many of you reading this already agree with my understanding of Scripture, I hope that the illustration I provided will be of use to you as you encourage others to consider their convictions on the topic.

I know that some of those who agree with this point are far better equipped to discuss the nuisances associated with historical Reformed soteriological teaching. Adam - I look forward to learning more depth myself.

I imagine that some of you do not agree with Reformed views on salvation. I hope that I have sparked your interest to examine more closely the reasons behind your beliefs on the subject.

Above all, I want all people to understand that this is not a fruitless theological debate. Our actions and attitudes in life are directly influenced by the specifics of what we think on issues like this one. We don't always see the conscious link between the two, but it certainly exists. How one sees soteriology will have enormous impact on their relationship to God, their personal evangelism, and their submission to the Holy Spirit in the ongoing process of sanctification.

It wasn't until I embraced Reformed thinking that I became aware of the depth of my own rebellion and the subsequent enormity of Gods grace. Only after I trusted in God as the motivating agent in salvation did I fully comprehend the meaning of 1 Corinthians 3:5-9 as I spread the gospel. Lastly, as I realized what Christ did for me despite my ultimate unworthiness, I found joy in loving and obeying God instead of somber duty. These practical attitudes and applications in my daily life as a Christian were deeply influenced by my soteriology.

I challenge you to think about your own ideas about salvation, what the scriptures say, and how that view affects your own faith.
____________

And a few resources for further study into Reformed soteriology...

Monergism
http://www.monergism.com/

Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics
http://www.reformed.org/

Desiring God Ministries
http://www.desiringgod.org/

Westminster Confession of Faith
http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_preface.htm

More tales of the Archives

A recent email exchange at work with a member of another Federal Agency:
__________

I said:

I recently began to service your request when I discovered a
problem. You did not note which specific documents you needed scanned
from the file. Can you please inform me of which documents you want
OR
if you desire the entire folder to be scanned. Thanks."

Reply:

"Need entire folder mailed to the court.........thanks"

I then said:

"Mailed? You populated the "Shipping Method" field as "Scan and email"

If you want to have requests physically mailed (as opposed to scanned
and digitally sent) please be sure to mark that field as either USPS
(for FedEx Ground) or FedEx (for overnight service). I will change it
on this one if you tell me which one you need."

The reply to that:

"Mailed.................thank you"

Frustrated, I responded:

"You said:

'Mailed.................thank you'

In my previous email I explained that there were two options for having a file physically sent to you. It seems that I may have miscommunicated or you may have misunderstood.

When you want a file physically mailed to you, the options are:

1) Populate the ARCIS "Shipping Method" field with "USPS" - this tells
us to send the file to you via FedEx Ground. Typically this courier
service takes 3 business days. We will pay for the shipment up front
and then charge your agency on the backend.
OR
2) Populate the ARCIS "Shipping Method" field with "FedEx" - this
tells us to send the file to you via FedEx Overnight. In this instance,
we need you to provide us with a FedEx account number to charge for the
shipment. You will find a field in ARCIS directly below the "Shipping
Method" to place the account number in.

Please select one of the two options detailed above. I will be looking
for your response so that I may begin preparing this folder for
shipment."

This was the reply to that very unambiguous outline:

"Please mail the entire file to the court.......................thank you"
__________________

Does everyone now understand why I have the angst I mentioned in my recent post?
http://words100.blogspot.com/2009/06/national-archives.html

I had to call the court employee in order to sort this one out. During our phone conversation I continued to be assailed with a few incoherent statements and other nonsense. It finally was taken care of. I need LOTS of prayer to keep trucking along at this job. On top of everything, think about this fact: the current administration wants the government to take on the operations of nation-wide healthcare - that would go well.

Stand to Reason

This morning I was able to listen to a new podcast of Stand to Reason. The host of that show is Greg Koukl. Greg is a wonderful defender of reasonable Christianity. The mission statement of his organization is:

"Stand to Reason trains Christians to think more clearly about their faith and to make an even-handed, incisive, yet gracious defense for classical Christianity and classical Christian values in the public square."

I have been listening to Greg for some time. He was the first guy to plant Reformed thoughts in my head, Piper watered them, and praise God they are growing more each day. A weekly listen to Greg's show is always a treat.

The show I heard today featured an interview with Michael Horton of the White Horse Inn radio show. Dr. Horton is a professor at Westminster Seminary in CA. He is editor of Modern Reformation journal and he is the author of many books as well. I just got done reading one of his books on covenant theology.

The show today centered on his newest book, "Christless Christianity". I have not read that book, but after the interview today - I want to. It was a great discussion between Greg and Mike. I heartily commend it to everyone who reads this blog. Just go to the Stand to Reason webpage and you should find the audio pretty easily.

www.str.org

Also, be sure to get a copy of Greg's new book, "Tactics". I got a copy for my birthday in January and it was awesome. The synopsis goes like:

"Tired of finding yourself flat-footed and intimidated in conversations? Want to increase your confidence and skill in discussions with family, friends, and coworkers? Gregory Koukl offers practical strategies to help you stay in the driver’s seat as you maneuver comfortably and graciously in any conversation about your Christian convictions.'

Good stuff, both the Horton interview and the Koukl book. Check them out soon! You will be edified and inspired to go after life and faith with more zeal for the Glory of Christ thru these two recommendations!

The National Archives

According to a recent survey of Federal employees across all Federal agencies, conducted by the Office of Personnel Management, my job ranks second to last in terms of "the best place to work in government."

I feel some vindication in regards to my loathsome view of the National Archives. I guess it wasn't just me being negative after all. Now, I know that having a pessimistic attitude about my occupation is wrong. In fact, I have gotten much less cynical about the work I do since the economic crisis hit and as the Holy Spirit has worked on my heart. I used to bring my woes home each night and pour out my frustrations on my family. I have almost completely ceased doing that and I have felt much better because of the switch.

All of that said, I do spend most days battling in my heart an overwhelming feeling that my job sucks and I don't want to be here anymore. Perhaps it is the lack of air conditioning in the warehouse, or maybe its the mundane and simplistic work that each day brings, it is most probably the poor pay I receive for my time. A host of reasons come to mind on why I despise my job so much.

However, I want to take a moment to reflect on the benefits of my job in these last 4 years. I do believe that I have had some opportunities that few others get on their jobsite and I feel that I should share those...

- I was hired as a college student and they were extremely flexible in working with my school schedule.
- When I completed school they offered me full-time employment (they didn't have to).
- I have lost weight here in the summer, by virtue of manual labor in 95 degree heat.
- I get to listen to an iPod for 6 out of 8 hours each day (on average). That has allowed me to gain so much theological and practical knowledge about the faith, in the form of podcasts from Piper, MacArthur, Begg, Sproul, Driscoll, Kokul, and Zacharias.

Most of all, due to the lack of anything interesting to say about our actual jobs, the employees here are constantly engaging in discussions about politics and religion. This has opened the door for me to share Christ in ways that most jobs would not allow. Despite the fact that no one from my work has yet come to be justified by faith, I feel that I have been planting and watering seeds. I look to God for the growth of these deposits in his providential timing.

In reflection, there are positive aspects of this job and I don't want tio be overwhelmed by the negativity which I am so naturally inclined to exhibit. Yet, it is my prayer that I would either be promoted here or other ventures would open up soon - my family is expanding, my boys are growing up, I am getting older, and I have many worries about the ability we will have to sustain ourselves on so paltry an income.

Ultimately, I desire that God would place me in a more financially stable place with work that I enjoy, but his will and not mine should be done. If I am to endure here for awhile longer I ask for the grace to sustain my battle against despair.

Please pray for me to "not be anxious" as you examine your own occupational attitude. Thanks.

Matthew 6:25-34

Torture and Abortion

I don't think that having US military and intelligence personnel torture suspected terrorists is a good idea.

However, my line of reasoning may not be what you are thinking. In principle, I actually have no problem with a government that tortures people whom it has good reason to believe are plotting aganist its citizens. In fact, I would argue that it is the duty of government to engage in any and all practical and effective actions to keep its people safe, provided they are acting on good evidence. The government does not bear the sword in vain (Romans 13). I am not saying that it would be appropriate for Christians to be in the position of "torturer," but there are plenty of secular individuals who could fill the bill quite nicely. Obviously, I do not advocate a Christian theocracy.

My actual issue with Americans peforming torture on suspected terrorists is that it does not appear to work. Despite what we see on "24" and in Hollywood, the reports coming from the FBI and the CIA after 7 years of secret torture show that it is largely ineffective. In addition, now that our methods have been publicized, the "hearts and minds" of the global community and even some US citizens have turned aganist us. If the torture was working, I would say damn the general concensus. However, there is very little point in engaging in activities that hurt our reputation while gaining almost no actual intelligence.

It is odd to me how many people in society are burdened and concerned about the rights of men who have been known to engage in terrorist activities. The guys at Gitmo did not get there by racial profiling or vague associations. The few hundred men detained there were documented as engaging in acts dangerous to national security. Yet, there are whole "civil rights" movements that have sprung up to push for the "fair and just" treatment of those suspects.

At the same time, thousands of innocent little lives, humans in the earliest stages of development, are being snuffed out everyday. Abortion does completely disregard the rights of a human being, the natural rights endowed to every person at birth (as our Constitution and the Gettysburg Address remind us). Abortion does involve destroying the image of God (Genesis 1:27) for nothing more than selfish motives. Abortion, which is murder, is a far more egregious action than any civil rights violation I know of.

I feel that if people are of transcendent worth, we shouldn't torture or kill them without very good reason to believe that they are an uncorrectable danger to our society. On the other hand, many organizations and individuals seem to think that we should never treat any human being poorly or violently, even if they are a danger to our fellow man. One might ask, how could people like that stand by without even blinking their eye as countless babies are being slaughtered if we shouldn't hurt each other? The only answer could be that they don't see the "thing" inside of mom as a human.

There is the fundamental question...what is that "thing" inside mom. If it is human, then no amount of rationale could prove adequate to destroy it. If it not human then no justification is necessary to wipe it out of existence. This is the only real issue at hand. No amount of rhetoric about choice or God will answer the question. It is a scientific inquiry that can be logically answered. The "thing" inside mom has separate and unique DNA from Mom and it is growing and developing according to its own internal direction. According to the law of biogenesis, any organism can only reporduce an offspring of its same kind. Therefore, if Mom and Dad are human, the offspring is human. Regardless of the fact that it is in the earliest stages of development, the "thing" inside Mom is fully human.

Anyway, I was struck by the seeming contradiction of those who fight for "terrorist rights" and who simultenously lobby for the pro-choice movement during my drive this morning. I think that they are ignoring the blatant fact that inside Mom is a baby human, not a tumor to be removed because of inconvenience. I don't think many people who think that way will be persuaded by good sound reasoning about the subject, but they might. A good resource is:
www.prolifetraining.com

More likely, they will only come to see the humanity of innocent babes and the proper role of government if they are moved to have their hearts regenerated. The only resource fo that is:
Jesus

___________________

My son, if sinners entice you,
do not consent.

If they say, “Come with us, let us lie in wait for blood;
let us ambush the innocent without reason...
throw in your lot among us..."

My son, do not walk in the way with them;
hold back your foot from their paths,
for their feet run to evil,
and they make haste to shed blood...
but these men lie in wait for their own blood;
they set an ambush for their own lives.

- Proverbs 1

New Book

Thanks to Adam, I will be embarking on a new book this week...



"A noted evangelical scholar presents a serious treatment of the doctrine of the love of God and an honest, biblically sound handling of its difficulties and problematic passages. He critiques sentimental ideas such as "God hates the sin, but loves the sinner" and provides interesting perspective on how God loves us. This discussion is blended with consideration of God's sovereignty and His wrath, both of which are important elements of His love, and does away with trivialities and cliches to get to the heart of the matter."

Marriage and Divorce

I have been thinking a lot about marriage recently. That is probably due to the fact that one year ago I was in the process of filing for divorce from my wife. We were having some rough times and we were both ready to bail. We had been separated for several months and it looked as if we would just be another statistic.

However, by the grace of God alone, we were reconciled. My wife was moved to approach me with the idea of patching things up and I was moved to accept. Now, a year later, we are doing incredibly well. With the help of a wonderful counselor, solid friends, and a new church family...we have become a beautiful example of mercy, reconciliation, and redemption (instead of a statistic).

In the midst of my personal reflection on the issue of marriage and divorce, I had a conversation with a friend at work. Both of us lamented the fact that the American evangelical church has neglected any strong condemnation of adultery, divorce, or remarriage while simultaneously holding up a megaphone on the issue of homosexuality. I believe that the current lazy attitude of Christians about divorce is just as harmful (probably more so) than any homosexual agenda in America.

With all of this in mind I felt compelled to briefly lay out my view on what the Bible says about marriage, divorce, and adultery. I speak to this with first-hand (painful) experience and I welcome any comments:

_________________

MY POSITION

The intent of God in making a man and a woman was for them to be bound together in covenant love (marriage) as an earthly example of the relationship between Christ and the church.
Genesis 2 and Ephesians 5

The covenant promise of marriage is unretractable unless one member dies.
1 Corinthians 7 and Romans 7

Any issuance or acceptance of divorce by human beings is a result of man's depravity and not God's eternal plan.
Mark 10 and Matthew 19

If a man and woman divorce thru earthly administration, they are still married in God's eyes and any remarriage while the spouse is living amounts to adultery.
Luke 16 and Mark 10

The words of Matthew 19:9 are not intended to be a loophole that creates the one way out of marriage...particularly in light of the absolute statements of Jesus mentioned in Luke and Mark. Instead the passage refers to the dissolution of a betrothal (engagement) when the bride to be OR groom to be is found to be engaging in fornication. In that ancient context, the commitment to be married was far more serious than we take it today and the prospective couple were expected to both be virgins. Jesus is explaining that it is legitimate to halt the proceedings towards marriage if one partner is found to be unpure before the consummation occurs. This is backed up by the use of the Greek word for general sexually immorality and not the word for adultery, in translating the phrase "except for sexual immorality."

If you have been divorced, your spouse is alive, and you have remarried - stay in the new marriage. Despite the fact that your remarriage is adultery, it is also another covenant relationship. If you took these points to mean that you had to jump ship on the new marriage, it would only amount to breaking your oath twice opposed to once.

_________________

Practically, I think it may be legitimate to undergo a civil decree of divorce if continued civil marriage would be physically, emotionally, mentally, or spiritually harmful to a spouse. However, it should only be done when reconciliation and separation will not work and only when it is done with an understanding that the marriage is still in effect by God's eyes...therefore, prohibiting remarriage.

I understand that these views are counter-cultural (even within the faith) and they can be hard to swallow in the realization of logistical hardship associated with the admonishment of no remarriage while the spouse lives. Nevertheless, if this interpretation of God's word is correct - the difficulties incurred do not overcome the truth of the matter.

I began holding this view a couple of years ago and when I was first vocal about it, I underwent a very practical test of my beliefs. I failed that test and I was ready to divorce my wife. God's mercy kept us together and I am thankful for that. I am hoping that God will move within his people to bring us into agreement about this issue so that we might make as strong of a stand on marriage, divorce, and adultery as we do on homosexuality for the sake of families everywhere.

As I researched background material for developing this view, I was sad to find few pastors and theologians willing to address the issue. It was a heartbreaking to find John MacArthur holding a different position, but heartwarming to find John Piper in agreement. See his detailed paper at:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1986/1488_Divorce_and_Remarriage_A_Position_Paper/

The lack of preachers speaking up on the tragedy of divorce, the correlation of adultery and remarriage, and the issues associated with fornication and co-habitation (within the church) may be explained by the fact that few congregations have any substantial group of homosexuals amongst them (so we can rally all we want aganist that sin) - yet, almost all churches have multitudes of people who have been engaged in the other situations. It takes courage to speak up against these things when the audience is directly affected. It might even mean that the attendance and tithe go down hill...

I hope that this post has sparked some thought, moreover I hope it might be beneficial in dissuading anyone who might be thinking of divorce. Even though I only experienced the tip of the iceberg with my separation and filing, it was the most painful experience of my life.

Current Books

I have alot of friends who blog and who are on a new kick of displaying the books they are currently reading. I decided to jump on the band wagon...

I am reading these now:



I just finished these:



I asked for this for Father's Day - we'll see:

Losing LOST!

This afternoon I listened to a sermon by a preacher named Paul Washer from San Antonio Texas. I don’t know hardly anything about this guy. I haven’t even “googled” him yet. I simply saw his podcast in the podcast directory next to some others whom I listen to and I had a sudden vague remembrance of someone at church saying something about him once. Curious, I downloaded his sermon.

I was somewhat offended when he advocated to keep our TVs off. I have heard this idea from Piper before, but this time it was more stringent. Washer went on to say that he has a TV that only plays DVDs, no cable. He said that TV was full of things that grieve the Holy Spirit. Then he said that no believer who wants to have strong fellowship with God can watch ABC, NBC, or FOX.

Uh…that means I can’t watch LOST. Not cool.

Maybe I am in gross sin by watching TV. I don’t know. I do limit my TV and we have a very basic cable package (main channels, church channels, and kid’s channels). Perhaps that is not enough. It might be that I need to stop watching the best TV ever – LOST. But, since the show only has one more season left (next year), I will probably abstain from judgment regarding the dissolution of all cable TV watching until 2011. Pray for me.

On a similar note…he did have a good point in his sermon. He said that too many believers (especially pastors) are nothing more than parrots who can quote the doctrinal principles of the faith and who can mimic other pastors. He talked about the whole nation of young men who are entering service to the Lord with little more than a notebook of quotes from Edwards and a tattered copy of Brainerds diary. All the while, Washer says, these young men are lacking in the time they spend tarrying before the Lord and delighting in his presence the way which their heroes did. We should seek to imitate the zeal of the Puritans, not just talk about them reverently is his point.

I was convicted by this part of the message. I have basic doctrine under my belt and sermons from Piper, MacArthur, and Driscoll filling my ears everyday – yet, I do not spend much time alone and on my knees before God. I don’t wrestle with the Lord in the way that Jacob did over the difficult issues of my life. I too often “talk the talk” without enough walking. I pray that the Lord will work in me thru his Spirit to bring me before him more regularly and more deeply.

“...You shall worship the Lord your God
and him only shall you serve.”
Matthew 4:10

Keep it Simple...

I was engaged today by two subjects which prompted me to once again admonish my fellow Christian brothers to keep the main thing, the main thing. The good news of the glorious grace of God in the death and resurrection of Jesus is the subject that we must plant our flag on. Too many secondary and tertiary issues are taken as primary points of debate by Christians when they talk with unbelievers. If the body of Christ gets bogged down in trying to convince unregenerate people about the age of the earth, specific eschatological views, or mode of baptism…the central message of the gospel will not be communicated. By giving the two examples below, I hope that we will be reminded to put aside the non-essentials of the faith and focus on the graciousness of a loving God as we interact with the lost people around us.

My first issue today was when I heard about the recent discovery of a fossil that is being hailed as the “missing link” on the evolutionary tree. You can read about this at National Geographic’s webpage HERE. I found out about this as I listened to a podcast from a Christian thinker that I regularly glean insight from. He is an old earther, yet he is not a theistic evolutionist. Therefore, he was working hard to discredit the data about this fossil which is being reported. His audience is primarily Christian and I felt that his discussion of the subject was in an appropriate “in-house” setting. However, it reminded me of the many ardent Christians out there who are young earth creationists and who believe that man walked with dinosaurs, too often they are willing to die for their specific views. In fact, I know a gentleman who once told me that if all of creation wasn’t made in (7) 24-hour periods then we might as well not believe anything in the Bible…???

It is exactly that kind of dogmatic position on these issues that I find so despairing. I have had many conversations with non-believers who will often bring this issue up to me. I am more than willing to concede that God may have orchestrated evolutionary means to bring about life over billions of years. I will explain that he could have personally interacted with his creation in order to develop hominoids and that these animals came to a point where God decided to infuse one with a soul (his breath) – thus birthing Adam, the first human. The point is…how Adam got to be is not important to comminicate the gospel, only that he DID get to be. If we will concede some non-essential points for the sake of discussion, then we can move beyond them to address the real hurt, the deep longing, and the honest questions that people experience about their lives. That is where we can bring in the message of mercy as played out through the passion of Jesus.

Secondly, I was talking with a non-believer today and he told me about his friend who came to visit him for the weekend. The friend brought his wife and the three of them planned to go to the movies. Apparently, there was some confusion and miscommunication in the situation because the friend’s wife thought the movie was Monday and my co-worker had already bought tickets for Sunday. When they tried to work it out, the wife told my co-worker that she couldn’t go to the movies on Sunday because of the Sabbath. She suggested that he go to church with her instead. My co-worker was gracious and he attended church with the couple (a local PCUSA church). Then, as my co-worker suggested that they go to the store and grab some groceries for lunch, the wife responded that she couldn’t shop on the Sabbath because it caused others to work…???

The bizarre beliefs of this woman had an obvious impact on my co-worker. He asked me if that was the regular understanding of the Sabbath. I explained the difference between the Jewish Sabbath and the Lords Day. I then explained her apparent confusion since she was a Christian strictly observing the Sabbath on the Lords Day. I asked him if they had any other religious discussion. He said that they had a short talk about women preachers (another contentious subject). Apparently, this woman never spoke to my co-worker about Jesus and our need for salvation. She was so busy with her legalistic mentalities that she missed an opportunity to have any impact (positive impact) on his view of faith. I hope that my conversation with him today will be the beginning of some more open dialogue about weighty matters.

To conclude, I was hit today with two examples of making minor things out to be major things and it troubled me. I am not suggesting that the details of doctrine are not important – they are. But, debating the secondary and tertiary issues should be reserved for discussion within the body. When talking to unbelievers, we would do best to address their physical, emotional, and spiritual needs through simple gospel proclamation in word and in deed.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes..."
Romans 1:16

The picture says it all...

I have no idea where this was or what was going on - but I like it. I wish I could be in on that conversation with John Piper.

"...I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings."
1 Corinthians 9:22-23

Impact

Proverbs 27:17
"As iron sharpens iron, one man sharpens another"

Today at work, I had a good conversation. I was doing a project with a co-worker that required us to spend about 4 hours together. In the time we had together we talked about lots of religious and bio-ethical topics. He is a recent convert from a somewhat shallow evangelical Christianity to the tradition rich faith of Roman Catholicism. After some discussion, I was able to discern that he seems to have a very strong grasp on the gospel of grace and a trusting relationship with Christ.

Despite his new allegiance to the Holy See, this gentleman was explaining his view on abortion and I realized that he was not in keeping with the official Catholic position. He said that he felt as if abortion was wrong BUT we shouldn't tell women what to do with their own body. I spent 20-30 minutes outlining my position that abortion does not only involve one actor. There are, in fact, two persons affected by the act of abortion. I argued that the "thing" inside a woman has different genetic DNA than she does, it is growing, and it feels pain. Amongst other things, these seem to lend evidence to the truth of that "thing" being a human being. Granted, a very small human being in the earliest stages of development - but human nevertheless.

He conceded that the baby in a stage of gestation was a human. Then, I talked about the role of society in setting up rules for what we can do to others - how murder, rape, and assault are all forbidden and penalized by law because they injure another human being aganist that persons will. If abortion is essentially the act of one human (mom) deciding to kill another human (baby) without the victims consent, it can't ever be ok.

Shortly after I finished my position, we went to lunch. When we came back he told me that he spent the lunch break musing over the issue and that he had decided that he needed to change his position into the one that I hold (the one I believe is biblical). I was so happy for this brother in Christ. I think he is a very caring person who was simply confused on the subject, probably by the lies fed to us thru media and news outlets. I will continue to pray for this young warrior of the faith. I hope he is used in a mighty way by God and that I may be an instrument of the Lord in shaping him.

Just some fun

This is nothing theological or philosophical - just dumb fun. Actually its dumb fun from several years ago. I just ran across these again and I always find them funny - maybe you do too. Feel free to insert your favorite hardcore person for Chuck Norris...

1. Chuck Norris’ tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.
2. Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.
3. Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.
4. The chief export of Chuck Norris is pain.
5. Chuck Norris can win a game of Monopoly without owning any property.
6. There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.
7. Chuck Norris is the reason why Waldo is hiding.
8. Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
9. Chuck Norris doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.
10. When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.
11. If at first you don't succeed, you're not Chuck Norris.
12. If you work in an office with Chuck Norris, don't ask him for his three-hole-punch.
13. Chuck Norris once won a game of Connect Four in 3 moves.

Seven Pounds (of crap)

Tiffany and I watched the movie "Seven Pounds" the other night. My parents were over and we went up to blockbuster and decided to rent something entertaining. We were misled.

Seven Pounds is a depressing and predictable drama starring the Fresh Prince himself, Will Smith. (BTW, what ever happened to the actor who played Carlton?) It is the story of a very wealthy CEO who owns an aeronautical engineering company. One night he is driving down the freeway with his wife and he is texting (a pet peeve of mine.) Not looking at the road he causes a major crash, it kills his wife and 6 other people.

Apparently, he is subsequently spending several years in a downward spiral of depression. FInally, he hatches a plan of self-made redemption. He will steal his brothers IRS agent ID, hack into the governments computers to find 7 worthy individuals, give these people his most valueable items, and then join his victims in the afterlife. His choices for "good" people are pretty mundane:

A blind meat home delivery telemarketer, an abused Hispanic women and her two kids, a young black boy in need of bone marrow, a hockey coach needing a kidney, and a young woman with congenital heart failure.

As the movie progresses, we see Will Smith moving into a hotel, ignoring his brother, and then we see the unfolding of a relationship between Will and the woman with heart failure (Rosario Dawson). She is really lonely for some reason AND she is always two seconds from sudden death - sad. Will befriends her, helps her in numerous ways, then sleeps with her. She is smitten with him and allows herself to dream of marriage and kids even. Will goes to her doctor and asks the chance of her survival - he is told 3-5%. That night, without a word to anyone, he kills himself in a bizarre self-induced jellyfish attack.

This movie stunk it up. It was plodding, easy to decipher, and incredibly melancholy. I believe that the producers were looking to create a moving story about a man making his own salvation by doing good things for good people, before dying himself. I saw Will Smiths actions are extremely selfish and pathetically cowardly. Suicide never proves beneficial for anyone. The person is dead, and while they may escape the pain of this world, they might not escape the torment of eternity without God - depends I guess. Also, tons of people are left behind with questions and grief.

In this movie, Will Smith romances this girl, has sex with her, sneaks out without a word, kills himself, gives her his heart. Not heroic. It would have been heroic to have given that girl love and peace and joy regardless of the time she had left or whether she got a donor or not. At the end of the movie we see Rosario Dawson acting all happy that she is alive with Wills heart. In reality, I think that most women would have been devastated by what Will did. It was a wierd movie.

In the end, I know a better story. Its a moving story about a God-man who freely gives away his salvation by doing the ultimate good thing (bearing our penalty unto death) and the gift that is given is given to wretched, horrific people, folks who do not deserve it. At the end of this story is real heart replacement and eternal joy, no pain and no grief. I wish more people would make movies about that story and the countless stories that have been inspiried by it.

Idol Worship

Today at work I was doing a lot of mindless scanning and I was able to listen to my iPod all day. This morning, I had the wonderful opportunity to download various sessions from The Gospel Coalition annual conference, held last month in Chicago) and so I spent my afternoon learning from Tim Keller of Redeemer PCA in New York City.

The talk by Keller was regarding the idols of the heart. He discussed the idols of the ancient world as recorded in Acts 19:21-41. He particularly talked about the city of Ephesus and the temple of Artemis there in Paul’s day. He spoke about the importance of recognizing the idols in a society/ person. Only by seeing what they are currently worshiping can we tear down the idol and replace it with the glorious gospel of God’s grace.

Keller defined an idol as “anything that has replaced God as the ultimate object of worship in one’s life.” He says that it was obvious in the ancient world what the idols were, because pagans made carven images representing them. Today it is harder. It is the good things in life that we make supreme which are most often our modern idols.

The 3 main categories that Keller describes are:

Personal
- money
- romance
- children

Religious
- truth
- gifts
- morality

Cultural
- reason
- family
- politics

Then, Keller says that it is a dangerous thing to take on the idols of the world. While the idols themselves are worthless things or non-material things, it is through the idols that the powers and principalities of darkness work. Yet, we see that it is Paul (relying on the victory of Christ at the cross) who dares to take on these idols. It is a task which will bring pain, suffering, and hardship – just as Paul found out.

Nevertheless, we are called to take up our cross and bear the difficulties we may endure as we point out and tear down idols. Not to do so would be denying Christ and acting ashamed of the gospel. We can find rest in the hope that this is a temporary dwelling place – our home awaits us in the future grace that has already been purchased by Jesus.

Also, I was struck by the similarities that Keller points out between the ancient world and today. He notes that the idol of Ephesus (which was the fertility and crop goddess Artemis) was a representation of the idol of business and financial prosperity. It was common for the people of that day to sacrifice children to this idol in exchange for more fortune and wealth by way of good harvest. Then Keller links this ancient practice to modern NYC (where he pastors) which isthe financial center of the world. New York is a climate where abortion and absentee parentism are rampant for the sake of getting ahead in career. “Choosing” to murder an unborn child or leaving ones child with a nanny 90% of the time is not much different than the blatant child sacrifices were in Ephesus.

Interestingly, this topic has been the focus of the past 3 Sundays at my home church as well. Given the apparent emphasis that God is putting on this issue before me, I was also touched by Keller to examine the idols of my own life. Maybe this blog has been a tool for you to examine yours also.

Responding to my Neighbor

I was reading the Henry Neighbor this morning as I ate Corn Flakes with one hand and helped my 6 month old eat baby food Bananas with the other. I ran across this article by Dick Yarbrough.
-------------------------------------------------
I warned you: Dr. Gil can ...Pray Up a Storm
My hair is wet. My socks are mildewed. My joints ache. There is a torrent of water running down the street, and more rain is on the way. Drought? What drought?

I hate to say I told you so, but well — I told you so. Remember when Gov. Sonny Perdue had a prayer session at the state capitol in November 2007, at the height of the drought? I said at that time that you had better get your umbrella ready because he had invited Dr. Gil Watson, the World’s Greatest Preacher, to pray for rain. If Gov. Perdue wasn’t serious about wanting rain, he should have invited one of those weird-dressing televangelists instead. They would have asked the crowd for money instead of asking God for rain.

At that time, the governor said his goal was “to very reverently and respectfully pray up a storm.” He may have been trying to be funny. Frankly, I doubt it. Gov. Perdue is a lot of things. Funny is not one of them. But he hit the jackpot when he turned the matter over to Dr. Gil, who has prayed up a bunch of storms. Now, look at us. I need a rowboat just to get to the grocery store.

Dr. David Stooksbury, Georgia’s head climatologist, isn’t ready to recommend we all run out and build an ark and start loading the giraffes and elephants. According to news reports, he says long-term rainfall deficits are still a concern and that soil moisture levels across south Georgia remain “abnormally dry.” Maybe so, but I read the other day that peanut farmers in south Georgia have had to delay planting next season’s crops because of rain totals that are reported to be 500 percent above normal. They got almost 18 inches from mid-March to April. Maybe the state’s climatologist, Dr. Stooksbury, needs to confer with God’s climatologist, Dr. Watson.

It is a theological fact that God likes Dr. Gil a lot. For one thing, neither God nor Dr. Gil has any hang-ups with women being preachers. Women can be governors, senators, secretaries of state, House speakers, CEOs, professional golfers, skydivers and Army generals, so why not preachers? Before you Bible-thumpers rail at me about what the Good Book says about women in the pulpit, be sure and read the part that talks about how women should dress in church and not speak out. Don’t go choosing the verses that suit your fancy and passing on the ones that don’t.

We aren’t talking about ordering cafeteria vegetables here.

And while I am on the subject, neither God nor Dr. Gil would refuse a child her first communion because she was allergic to wheat, and the church said she couldn’t have a rice wafer because it was against the rules. Anybody who wants to defend that piece of wrongheaded thinking needs first to read the part in the New Testament where Jesus said, “Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not.” He didn’t add, “unless they have a wheat allergy, and then they are just flat out of luck. Hey, rules are rules.”

God doesn’t care about all the rigmarole that we humans make up just so we can claim to be right and everybody else wrong. He wants us to obey the Ten Commandments and love each other. Dr. Gil does both of those better than anybody I know, with the possible exception of Billy Graham. That is why God likes Dr. Gil and why we are all wearing hip waders to work these days.

Now that he has the state as soggy as a tomato sandwich on white bread, I have this nagging feeling that Dr. Gil Watson, the World’s Greatest Preacher, is going to turn his attention to trying to save my sorry soul. God and I wish him all the best in that endeavor.

Making it rain in Attapulgus and Hahira and Varnell is one thing. Making me a kinder and gentler person is more along the scale of feeding the masses with five loaves of bread and a few fish.

That would be a miracle.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I decided to respond...

Mr. Yarbrough,

Thanks for your recent praise of the power or prayer in the "I warned you..." editorial. God often uses the prayers of his people to bring blessing upon us. Even when our prayers are not answered in the way we hope for, prayer is still vital as a link to relationship with God. Ultimately, he will be most glorified in whatever he wills to occur. I am thankful that he has sovereignty decided that Georgia should experience some relief from drought, even if it means more time behind my lawnmower than last summer.

However, after reading your article I was dismayed by your theological convictions and I felt compelled to respond in the case that you are misunderstanding the faith. You said "God doesn’t care about all the rigmarole that we humans make up just so we can claim to be right and everybody else wrong. He wants us to obey the Ten Commandments and love each other." I certainly agree that God is not concerned about man-made religion. Yet, your characterization of what does interest God is quite off the mark. In Matthew 22:36-40 we read the Pharisees asking Jesus "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

Clearly from Scripture we can glean that our greatest duty, in fact our greatest joy, is found in loving God with our whole being - not obeying the Ten Commandments. Confusing the relational aspect of Christianity with the legalistic aspect of religion is a common occurrence in society, one I am afraid you may have fallen into. We can read from the apostle Paul in Galatians 3 as he explains the difference between the two. He says that the purpose of the law is to lead us to Christ. In essence, to show us our inability to obtain perfection and our subsequent need for Jesus. It is only in a relationship of faith in Jesus as Savior that we might find salvation. Stemming from that relationship of faith is a relationship of obedience to Jesus as our Lord. Once he has become the chief treasure of our life we begin a process of being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, in which we may gradually become more law-abiding, kinder, gentler, etc... The observance of law without relationship is empty legalism; the observance of law within relationship is loving obedience. The key is that our salvation depends not on our efforts to follow rules or be nice to folks - but on God's mercy and grace through the work of Jesus on the cross, cleansing us from our sin - if we believe and trust.

Secondly, I imagine that your reflection on communion and wheat wafers may refer to Haley Waldman of New Jersey. I was likewise appalled by this incident. As a Reformed Protestant I might be opposed to the stance of Rome for different reasons than you, nevertheless I agree that this is a real shame. However, I don't think that we can object to the teachings about the sacrament by quoting a single Bible verse in response. I think we must object more generally about the nature of the Catholic view of the Lords Supper in contrast to what the Bible tells us. But, as that is more of an in-house (and detailed) matter, I will be satisfied to say that I agree with your condemnation of that situation.

Lastly, I think that your view of women serving in the role of church leadership is not a biblical view. This may make me a "Bible-thumper" as you termed it, but I feel that it is an important subject. It is not a breaking point for me, I think it is a secondary matter (compared to my initial point regarding the glorious message of grace vs. the wage based system of law), yet it is worth speaking to. The logic that argues for women leaders in church because of the roles of women in society is faulty. The bible speaks less-clearly to the role of women outside the church while it does speak volumes about the role of women in God's designed order. It is clear in Scripture that women are created equal yet deferent (an allusion to the role of Jesus within the Trinity). The role of women as under the headship of men seems to stem from the sin of Eve in Eden. She was deceived and yet Adam was called to account. The plan of God was to give overarching responsibility in life, and especially in church, to the men. Within this structure we see that women are not to exercise authority over men in church, noted in 1st Timothy 2:12. I could go on about this matter, but others have done a far better job. Check out the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood for more details (http://www.cbmw.org/).

Ultimately, I was delighted to read your column giving God the credit for brining the rain, through the prayers of your favorite pastor and others. God always deserves our adoration and worship. I was just concerned about some of the other points you made in your piece and I hope you have found my reply to be challenging and thoughtful.

Best regards,
Jason
McDonough, GA

Conversation

(A conversation I had today with a co-worker. She is an anthropology major at a local university. She will soon be heading off to get a graduate degree in that field. She was raised in a fundamentalist church enviorment. I have tried to recapture the talk that we had as accurately as my feeble human memory will allow...)

Her: "I just get tired of people saying that I have to believe everything in the Bible to be a Christian."

Me: "Yeah, I understand that. I don't agree that to be a Christian one has to believe everything in the Bible. It seems that there are some foundational things you would have to put your trust in - but some of the secondary issues could be set aside and one could still be Christian."

Her: "What would you say those essential beliefs are?"

Me: "I would say that you most fundamentally need to believe in, and trust in, Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Of course, to do that a few supporting facts would need to be assented to. You need to believe in a transcendent personal triune God who created time and the material universe from nothing. He made man in his image and man willfully rebeled aganist him, condeming all people to eternal punishment. Yet, in his mercy he made a rescue plan and subsequently he prepared the way for rescue thru a particular nation and ultimately by a particular man - Jesus. Jesus was born of a virgin, fully God and fully man, and he led a sinless life that culminated in his death on a cross in our place - so that God might be justified in forgiving those who are saved. After his death Jesus rose from the grave and ascended to the hand of the Father, that we would have assurance of his mission and so that death would be forever destroyed - paving our way into the presence of God. Finally, he will come back to judge the world one day and to make all things new again.

Her: "OK, I believe all that. But, so many other things in the Bible have been distorted or misinterpreted. There is alot of allegory and metaphor in the book."

Me: "I am confused about how you can get over the first (and biggest) speed bump - that is, the idea of God - then, up and over the second bump - Jesus' ressurection - yet, you have difficulty with the other stuff. While I don't think you have to believe in the story of Jonah dwelling within a whale for three days to be Christian, I am puzzled about the reason you would reject that and accept the core beliefs."

Her: "Well, everyone has their own view of God."

Me: "Yes, we all do - yet, there is only one true objective God. Do you think that people can get to heaven outside of Jesus?"

Her: "Yeah sure, there are lots of people who never hear of Jesus - I can't see that God would condemn anyone who never even knew about him. If you have a general belief in God and you try to live your life in a moral way, you will make it to heaven."

(At this point I realized she was kidding herself about her professed religion.)

Me: "What if you looked at it as - people get condemned because they sin aganist God, not because they didn't get to hear about Jesus. And by their nature, people hate God and could never make it to heaven on their own works. Yet, in his mercy God has saved some people - turned their inner being into someone who loves him and seeks him - even though no one deserves that grace. Because of that heart change believers have the hope of working towards moral actions and holy ends. We will never realize our full potential until after death, but it will come. The idea here is that morality is a result of salvation not visca versa."

Her: "Then it seems as if we have no free will."

Me: "We do have free will - yet, our will is always going to act as a servant of our inner nature. If you like vanilla ice cream and you hate chocolate ice cream, given the choice, you will always choose vanilla. God dosn't remove our will - he simply directs our inner being so that our will can choose him over evil."

Her: "That sounds like a God I don't want any part of. If he is the one making all the decisions, why dosn't he save everyone from hell?"

Me: "I don't know the answer to that. Two things - one, we have no right (as clay) to question our potter. Two, he may save some and allow some to perish in order that both his holy wrath and his merciful grace can be displayed. By showing both he is more glorified than if only one was demonstrated. Its a hard questions that really boils down to faith. Does all of that sound foolish to you?"

Her: "Yeah, that is crazy. God is about love and he won't reject people if they try hard and believe in him. What an arrogant way to see God."

Me: "Please understand that I am not trying to be a jerk when I say this. I don't think you understand classical Chrisitianity. Too often these days the word is bandied about without any substance. The point of the message is grace - not law. God is love, but he is very clear on how to get on the road to be with him. You said you believed in Jesus and that you felt that belief in him was unnecessary to get to heaven right?"

Her: "Yup"

Me: "What about when Jesus himself says - I am the way, the truth, and the life - no man comes to the Father except by me. That is pretty unambiguous"

Her: "I imagine that is a translation issue. The Hebrew was probably translated by some scholar incorrectly. Furthermore, the writer who penned that had his own agenda and he was writing 60 years after Jesus death."

Me: "The New Testament was written in Greek not Hebrew and there is no reason to believe that there are any major translation issues that affect doctrine in any part of Scripture. Also, the writer certainly wasn't writing 60 years after Jesus death. No Gospel was written after 69 AD, because none of them mention the destruction of the Temple in 70 by the Romans. If we take Acts, it was probably written in the early 60's because it ends without a chapter on Paul's death. Luke wrote his Gospel before he wrote Acts, so we can date that Gospel in the late 50's or early 60's. We know that Mark was the first Gospel to be written - that puts Mark in the mid to late 50's. That is only 20-25 years after Christ's death. That is not very long to wait for a biography, much less four of them."

Her: "OK, but even if it was written that close, the writers all had different views on Jesus according to their agendas. You have to remember that as you read and not trust everything they say about him, like the "I am the Way" comment."

Me: "How do the Gospel writers have views which inherently cause us to question their reliability?"

Her: "Well, look at John - he sees Jesus as divine son of God. Meanwhile, Luke focuses on his miracles and Matthew shows him as the suffering one, which alludes to the sufferage of the Jews under Rome."

Me: "I don't see how this makes the writings unreliable. Just because four different people wrote four seperate biographies about a man and they all focused on different facets of his personality - that doesn't necessarily mean that they are fabricated or false. You need better evidence to sweep away the statements about Jesus that you don't like. It is intellectual dishonest to cut and paste out of the Bible. If you hold to the orthodox Christian faith then you would be hard pressed to simultaneously disregard those passages you disagree with. The faith is built upon that book and what it says, with supporting evidence in history. How do you reconcile your claim to be Christian and your incredibly secular and skeptic analysis of the Bible and biblical history?"

Her: "I don't know. I believe in God and I guess I worship him as Jesus because that is how I was raised. I try to live a good life and I think its incredibly arrogant when people walk around acting as if they know who is going to heaven or they have all the truth."

Me: "I think you hit the nail on the head. It is your upbringing that gave you a belief about Jesus and I think that it has been your secular anthropological education which has challenged those inherited views. In my opinion you are actually a Deist or Theist of sorts and you will probably realize that in the near future, at which point you will drop the Christian moniker completely. I would challenge you to do some serious study of Gods Word and of theology. There is a truth out there. Its a love story of undeserved grace, not our own efforts. If you can gain an unobstructed view of the reality we live in, portrayed by the Bible, your doubts and misgivings about some of these things will fade. I must tell you my sad history. I grew up with a mental assent to the divinity of Jesus, but that is not enough. The book of James tells us that even demons believe. Christianity is about a relationship with God, an intimate connection with the sovereign of the universe. That is a far better thing to study and experience than all of the anthropological journals out there. Give it a shot."

Her: "I think that the real problem is narrow-minded people who set aside good science to spend their days in theology schools discounting the truth we can find with our own hands. And I resent being called a Deist, although it might fit."

(At this point I was called away on another work project. This employee will be leaving us soon to move on. I will pray for her. I feel that I mishandled that conversation on so many points. Yet, I am resting in the truth that it is God who makes the seed grow.)

Joel Osteen and the Glory Story

This article by Michael S. Horton, PhD is located on the web at: http://www.wscal.edu/resources/MichaelHorton_GloryStory.php
Its a good read...

"Name it, claim it"; the "health-and-wealth" or "prosperity gospel" : these are nicknames
for a heresy that in many respects is only an extreme version of perhaps the most typical focus of American Christianity today more generally. Basically, God is there for you and
your happiness. He has some rules and principles for getting what you want out of life and if you follow them, you can have what you want. Just "declare it" and prosperity will come to you. (1) God as Personal Shopper.

Although explicit proponents of the so-called "prosperity gospel" may be fewer than their influence suggests, its big names and best-selling authors (T. D. Jakes, Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, and Joyce Meyer) are purveyors of a pagan worldview with a peculiarly American flavor. It's basically what the sixteenth century German monk turned church reformer Martin Luther called the "theology of glory": How can I climb the ladder and attain the glory here and now that God has actually promised for us after a life of suffering? The contrast is the "theology of the cross": the story of God's merciful descent to us, at great personal cost, a message that the Apostle Paul acknowledged was offensive and "foolish to Greeks."

Joel Osteen: Another Verse of a Really Long Song
The attraction of Americans to this version of the "glory story" is evident in the astonishing success of Joel Osteen's runaway best-seller, Your Best Life Now: Seven Steps to Living at Your Full Potential. Beyond his charming personality and folksy style, Osteen's phenomenal attraction is no doubt related to his simple and soothing sampler of the American gospel: a blend of Christian and cultural elements that he picked up not through any formal training, but as the son of a Baptist-turned-prosperity evangelist who was a favorite on the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN). However, gone are the eccentric caricatures of "prosperity" televangelism, with its flamboyant style and over-the-top rhetoric.

In the Wal-Mart era of religion and spirituality, every particular creed and any denominational distinctives get watered down. We don't hear (at least explicitly) about our being "little gods," "part and parcel of God," or the blood of Christ as a talisman for healing and prosperity. The strange teachings of his father's generation, still regularly heard on TBN, are not explored in any depth. In fact, nothing is explored in any depth. Osteen still uses the telltale lingo of the health-and-wealth evangelists: "Declare it," "speak it," "claim it," and so forth, but there are no dramatic, made-for-TV healing lines. The pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston, TX, which now owns the Compaq Center, does not come across as a flashy evangelist with jets and yachts, but as a charming next-door-neighbor who always has something nice to say.

Although remarkably gifted at the social psychology of television, Joel Osteen is hardly unique. In fact, his explicit drumbeat of prosperity (word-faith) teaching is communicated in the terms and the ambiance that might be difficult to distinguish from most megachurches. Joel Osteen is the next generation of the health-and-wealth gospel. This time, it's mainstream.

As community philosopher Karl Marx said of a consumer-driven culture, "All that is solid melts into the air." Religion, too, becomes a commodity—a product or therapy that we can buy and use for our personal well-being. Exemplifying the moralistic and therapeutic approach to religion, Osteen's message is also a good example of the inability of Boomers to mourn in the face of God's judgment or dance under the liberating news of God's saving mercy. In other words, all gravity is lost—both the gravity of our problem and of God's amazing grace. According to this message, we are not helpless sinners—the ungodly—who need a one-sided divine rescue. (Americans, but especially we Boomers, don't take bad news well.) Rather, we are good people who just need a little instruction and motivation.

"Law-Lite": Salvation From Unhappiness By Doing Your Best
There is no condemnation in Osteen's message for failing to fulfill God's righteous law. On the other hand, there is no justification. Instead of either message, there is an upbeat moralism that is somewhere in the middle: Do your best, follow the instructions I give you, and God will make your life successful. "Don't sit back passively," he warns, but with a gentle pleading suggests that the only reason we need to follow his advice is because it's useful for getting what we want. God is a buddy or partner who exists primarily to make sure we are happy. "You do your part, and God will do his part." (2) "Sure we have our faults," he says, but "the good news is, God loves us anyway." (3) Instead of accepting God's just verdict on our own righteousness and fleeing to Christ for justification, Osteen counsels readers simply to reject guilt and condemnation.(4) Yet it is hard to do that successfully when God's favor and blessing on my life depend entirely on how well I can put his commands to work. "If you will simply obey his commands, He will change things in your favor."(5) That's all: "…simply obey his commands."

Everything depends on us, but it's easy. One wonders if he has ever had a crisis of doubt or moral failure that stripped him naked in God's presence. Osteen seems to think that we are basically good people and God has a very easy way for us to save ourselves—not from his judgment, but from our lack of success in life—with his help. "God is keeping a record of every good deed you've ever done," he says—as if this is good news. "In your time of need, because of your generosity, God will move heaven and earth to make sure you are taken care of." (6)

It may be "Law Lite," but make no mistake about it: behind a smiling Boomer Evangelicalism that eschews any talk of God's wrath, there is a determination to assimilate the gospel to law, an announcement of victory to a call to be victorious, indicatives to imperatives, good news to good advice. The bad news may not be as bad as it used to be, but the good news is just a softer version of the bad news: Do more. But this time, it's easy! And if you fail, don't worry. God just wants you to do your best. He'll take care of the rest.

So who needs Christ? At least, who needs Christ as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (Jn 1:29)? The sting of the law may be taken out of the message, but that only means that the gospel has become a less demanding, more encouraging law whose exhortations are only meant to make us happy, not to measure us against God's holiness.

So while many supporters offer testimonials to his kinder, gentler version of Christianity than the legalistic scolding of their youth, the only real difference is that God's rules or principles are easier and it's all about happiness here and now, not being reconciled to a holy God who saves us from ourselves. In its therapeutic milieu, sin is failing to live up to our potential, not falling short of God's glory. We need to believe in ourselves and the wages of such "sins" is missing out on our best life now. But it's still a constant stream of exhortation, demands, and burdens: follow my steps and I guarantee your life will be blessed.

A TIME story in 2006 observed that Osteen's success has reached even more traditional Protestant circles, citing the example of a Lutheran church that followed Your Best Life Now during Lent, of all times, "when," as the writer notes, "Jesus was having his worst life then." Even churches formally steeped in a theology of the cross succumb to theologies of glory in the environment of popular American spirituality. We are swimming in a sea of narcissistic moralism: an "easy-listening" version of salvation by self-help.

This is what we might call the false gospel of "God-Loves-You-Anyway." There's no need for Christ as our mediator, since God is never quite as holy and we are never quite as morally perverse as to require nothing short of Christ's death in our place. God is our buddy. He just wants us to be happy, and the Bible gives us the roadmap.

I have no reason to doubt the sincere motivation to reach non-Christians with a relevant message. My concern, however, is that the way this message comes out actually trivializes the faith at its best and contradicts it at its worst. In a way, it sounds like atheism: Imagine there is no heaven above us or hell below us, no necessary expectation that Christ "will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead" and establish perfect peace in the world. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find anything in this message that would be offensive to a Unitarian, Buddhist, or cultural Christians who are used to a diet of gospel-as-American-Dream. Disney's Jiminy Cricket expresses this sentiment: "If you wish upon a star, all your dreams will come true."

To be clear, I'm not saying that it is atheism, but that it sounds oddly like it in this sense: that it is so bound to a this-worldly focus that we really do not hear anything about God himself—his character and works in creation, redemption, or the resurrection of the body and the age to come. Nothing in the past (namely, Christ's work) nor in the future (namely, Christ's return in judgment, raising our bodies in everlasting life) really matters. Maybe I haven't heard enough of his talks on TV, but I have never heard anything that approached a proclamation of any article mentioned in the Apostles' Creed. Despite the cut-aways of an enthralled audience with Bibles opened, I have yet to hear a single biblical passage actually preached. Is it possible to have evangelism without the evangel? Christian outreach without a Christian message?

If God matters, it is for the most trivial concerns—or at least those quite secondary to the real crisis that the gospel addresses. One could easily come away from this type of message concluding that we are not saved by Christ's objective work for us, but by our subjective "personal relationship with Jesus" through a series of works that we perform to secure his favor and blessing. God has set up all of these laws and now it's up to us to follow them so that we can be blessed. I can think of no better illustration of what sociologist Christian Smith has identified as "moralistic, therapeutic deism": the gospel of American Religion.

As the New Testament repeatedly affirms, those who want to be saved by their own obedience need to know that God doesn't grade on a curve. His record-keeping is bad news, not good news, unless Christ's obedient record has been credited to us through faith alone. God's law says, "If you want to be saved by your own effort, here are the terms: Do all these things and you'll go to heaven; fail to do them and you'll go to hell." The revivalists of yesteryear came up with their own list, but it was basically the same threat: "Do or die." The kinder, gentler version is, "Try harder and you'll be happier; fail to do them and you'll lose out on God's best for your life here and now." No heaven, no hell; no condemnation or salvation; no perfect obedience of Christ credited to us: Just do your best. Remember, God is keeping score! Christ becomes totally unnecessary in this message.

Osteen reflects the broader assumption among evangelicals that we are saved by making a decision to have a personal relationship with God. If one's greatest problem is loneliness, the good news is that Jesus is a reliable friend. If the big problem is anxiety, Jesus will calm us down. Jesus is the glue that holds our marriages and families together, gives us purpose for us to strive toward, wisdom for daily life. And there are half-truths in all of these pleas, but they never really bring hearers face to face with their real problem: that they stand naked and ashamed before a holy God and can only be acceptably clothed in his presence by being clothed, head to toe, in Christ's righteousness.

This gospel of "submission," "commitment," "decision," and "having a personal relationship with God" fails to realize, first of all, that everyone has a personal relationship with God already: either as a condemned criminal standing before a righteous judge or as a justified co-heir with Christ and adopted child of the Father. "How can I be right with God?" is no longer a question when my happiness rather than God's holiness is the main issue. My concern is that Joel Osteen is simply the latest in a long line of self-help evangelists who appeal to the native American obsession with pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps. Salvation is not a matter of divine rescue from the judgment that is coming on the world, but a matter of self-improvement in order to have your best life now.

Footnotes

1 This position is extensively documented in Michael Horton, ed., The Agony of Deceit (Chicago: Moody Press, 1990) [back to text]

2 Joel Osteen, Your Best Life Now: Seven Steps to Living at Your Full Potential (NY: Warner Books, 2004),41-42 [back to text]

3 Ibid., 57 [back to text]

4 Ibid., 66 [back to text]

5 Ibid., 119 [back to text]

6 Ibid., 262 [back to text]

Zombies among us!

Since the 1950s there has been an American fascination with zombies. Beginning with the Night of the Living Dead movie, continuing up to the Thriller music video, and captivating a new generation with the Resident Evil video games - the zombie is a popular icon in this nation. With its grotesque image of rotting flesh, bulging eyes, a lumbering gait, and an appetite for brain, the zombie is a miserable creature. Dead yet walking around in our world.

What a lot of people don't realize is that there are many zombies living amongst us today. Sure, the rotting flesh is invisible, the hunger for brain is replaced with french fries, yet the real zombies of this world are nevertheless active among us. They can be our next door neighbors, our co-workers, even our fellow church parishioner.

Ephesians 2 says that those living for the passions of the flesh and the desires of the body are children of wrath, that they are dead in their trespasses as children of disobedience. In fact we were conceived in sin and subsequently born dead according to Psalm 51. Having been born of the flesh we are bound to be nothing more than flesh (rotting flesh in fact) if we are left to ourselves.

Dead in sin, walking around for 80 years or so in a futile attempt to satisfy ourselves...what is the hope for the zombies of Earth?

Back to Ephesians 2...

"But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ-by grace you have been saved- and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 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. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

The good news is that God has mercifully decided to send his son that we might become alive. Not because we were worth his time, but because he was gracious and eager to reveal his glory. Through the sacrifice of Christ, in the work of the Spirit, according to the sovereign choice of God, we are given new life - born again. I grew up hearing the term "born again" in my mothers vocabulary and yet I had no idea of where it was from in Scripture.

Read the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus in John 3. It is a powerful passage. Understanding the need I had for divine CPR to be performed on my stillborn soul (and that it was the mysterious will of the Spirit blowing where it wanted that made my life possible, not anything in me) was a moment that changed my thinking in a radical way. I hope it might have the same effect on you. If you don't have a saving faith in Christ, realize that you can. Keep your eyes on the cross and ask God for regeneration with the deepest longing of your soul. If you sincerely desire an eternal relationship with him, you will be gifted to believe. If you are already a Christian, viewing the process of salvation in this way might help you understand the magnificent role that is played in the act by God's grace.

So next time you watch a zombie movie remember that there really are zombies, they walk among us. If you have been saved from continuing as one by our merciful Father, then labor to complete you role in his plan by spreading the good word of new life to the zombies - don't run from them.

Edwards on the Glory of God

God is glorified within Himself these two ways:

1. By appearing in His own perfect idea [of Himself], or
in His Son, who is the brightness of His glory.

2. By enjoying and delighting in Himself, by flowing forth
in infinite love and delight towards Himself, or in his Holy Spirit....

So God glorifies Himself toward the creatures also in two ways:

1. By appearing to . . . their understanding.

2. In communicating Himself to their hearts, and in their rejoicing and delighting in, and enjoying, the manifestations which He makes of Himself. . . .

God is glorified not only by His glory being seen, but by its being rejoiced in. When those that see it delight in it, God is more glorified than if they only see it. His glory is then received by the whole soul, both by the understanding and by the heart.

God made the world that He might communicate, and the creature receive, His glory; and that it might [be] received both by the mind and heart. He that testifies his
idea of God’s glory [doesn’t] glorify God so much as he that glory that testifies also his approbation of it and his delight in it.

Jonathan Edwards, The Miscellanies [vol 13], p 495

Jon and Kate (plus God)

So it has apparently been confirmed that Jon of "Jon and Kate plus 8" has been having an adulterous relationship with a 3rd grade teacher over the past few months.

This is sad.

Its sad on a number of levels:...because of the offense to God (Psalm 51), because of the damage caused to his family, because of the relentless media onslaught that has begun about this very personal issue, and because of the ammunition that this will provide for some who wish to make a mockery of our faith.

Not long ago this couple wrote a book about their life with 8 children. Because they had been so vocal about faith on their TLC reality show, the Christian published Zondervan picked up their story for print. The news of this Christian super-family experiencing such dreadful sin will certainly flame the anti-Christian engines of many in the media.

For me the situation brings a few points to mind:

- Adultery is wrong. See Exodus 20, the Ten Commandments.
- Fantasizing about Adultery is wrong. See Matthew 7 and Jesus remarks about lust.

- The devil is a being with limited resources. He is not omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent.
- Like any good General who is working with limited resources, the devil must choose where to direct his minions in their work of temptation, lies, and deceit.
- People who are very vocal AND/OR public about their faith are good targets for the evil one. If he can get them to fall, they will take out many on their way down. There is no point for him to worry about convincing non-believers or lukewarm believers to sin, they are usually already engaged on some level. It is the folks who wage war on their sin nature and who desire to make God known - they are the devil's targets. (see the Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis)

- Jon and Kate were people in the media who seemed to be unafraid to vocalize their belief. (So were King David, Peter, and Ted Haggard)
- Those who desire to stand up for Christ should be prepared for the pending spiritual attacks. Prayer, studying the Word, a strong support community in the local church, etc... (I think this includes me since I write this blog, talk to co-workers about Jesus, and try to obey his will)

- Even in the wake of adultery, the desire of God is for reconciliation. Divorce is not legitimate, even though it was permitted. (Last time I made this statement I came under pretty harsh attack and subsequent testing personally - praise God he is gracious and rescued me from the lies of the evil one). See Matthew 19 and Jesus response to the Pharisee.
- If Jon and Kate ask for God's forgiveness of this sin and subsequently repent of it, exhibit the same divine mercy towards each other, get good biblical counseling, and make a formal apology to the many who have been distressed by this news...then the glory of the Lord may yet shine in the midst of the darkness we just found out about. Because ultimately, the gospel is about unmerited grace.

Jon and Kate have a chance to show the world a portrait of God's beautiful grace, the power of forgiveness, and the hope of reconciliation in their response to this sad situation. We should pray for them.