Christoculture
  • Home
  • About
    • Christoculture: Gospel, Church, and Culture
    • Terry Coy
    • Endorsements
    • Contact
  • Flight Plan for 21st C.
    • Conference for Pastors
    • Conference for Churches
  • Consulting Services
    • Consulting
    • Speaking and Teaching Schedule
  • Blog
  • Books

November 26th, 2017

11/26/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture

Christianity Today
Is it time for a new evangelical movement? A modest proposal

The nature and identity of the American Evangelical movement has always been the subject of discussion, debate, and academic exploration. The discussion has most recently intensified as Evangelicals have become more and more identified, in perception and reality, with particular political ideologies.

It is true that Evangelicalism has always been “political.” Carl F. H. Henry, one of the early “founders” of Evangelicalism, penned The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism way back in 1947 in part to call theological conservatives to engage culture, which is inevitably political (in the broadest sense of the term). This was, of course, a good thing. The gospel does have political implications for personal, family, and social life.

It could be argued that the current identity crisis in Evangelicalism began in earnest when its political conscience became more partisan and too ideologically driven. In the decades of the 70s, 80s, and 90s the Christian Right took the reins of the movement for arguably some good reasons, particularly the rise of abortion and the ongoing disintegration of the traditional nuclear family and Biblical sexuality. Good motivations, unfortunately, were too often married to particular electable politicians, only one political party, and an inordinate hope that the right political moves and elections would “restore the nation to God.” (In is interesting to note that most Christian Right leaders were theologically pre-millennial but practically and methodologically post-millennial).

In hindsight the Christian Right, a sub-movement within the Evangelical movement, was a mixed bag. On the one hand, it did help solidify pro-life concerns across Christian denominations. On the other hand, it ignored too many other significant social issues, relegating them to the “liberals.” Inevitably the movement found itself let down and disappointed by too many politicians, too caught up in hyper-partisan politics, and as such alienated too many younger Evangelicals who agreed with the movement doctrinally but were repelled by the assumed political ideology and machinations.

And here we are. Just say “Evangelical” and the average American thinks less of theology or lifestyle but rather thinks about a particular narrow political ideology. Now, even if that political ideology were largely correct, should Evangelicals necessarily be identified with it? Do I, as a self-identified Evangelical, want to be automatically identified with any political party, politician, ideology, or cultural worldview? Or, do I want one of my theological labels to be primarily identified with something else more Biblical, more transcendent, and, dare I say, more global? The answer, I hope, is obvious.

Back to the Future: A Modest Proposal

One of Henry’s issues with “modern Fundamentalism” was its attitude toward social engagement, which was essentially non-engagement other than preaching against sin and social evils (which is not altogether a bad thing!). I think one current problem with modern Evangelicalism is its engagement in social issues from a highly partisan and narrow ideological position, to the point that too many Evangelicals leaders have sidelined any discussion of a comprehensive Biblical ethic and a Kingdom agenda in a Faustian deal for political “access,” with only limited social and cultural concerns. Throw in the evidence that personal character and ethics no longer matter, and Evangelicalism continues to unravel. Again, the social and cultural concerns may not be altogether incorrect, but the agenda is grossly incomplete and often methodologically questionable (as when the ends justify the means).

Social engagement, therefore, is not to be given up. Neither is the doctrine of the gospel, for as Henry notes, “The evangelical task primarily is the preaching of the Gospel, in the interest of individual regeneration by the supernatural grace of God. . .” and “It is impossible to shut the Jesus of pity, healing, service, and human interest from a Biblical theology. The higher morality of redemption does not invalidate moral consistency.” Perhaps, therefore, a new evangelical movement would in part simply be re-capturing much of the old, original movement.

What could this “new Evangelical movement” look like? Quite briefly:

1. It would hold to the traditional Evangelical doctrinal distinctions, such as authority of Scripture (see the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy), orthodox doctrines related to the Trinity, the need for personal regeneration by grace through faith alone, the duty of each believer to participate in the Great Commission, and the belief in the personal, visible second coming of Christ.

2. It would return to an emphasis on the Kingdom of God, inaugurated but not yet consummated. Agreeing with Henry, the Kingdom is not to be identified with any culture, although we might argue that “Cultures with tend to be democratic rather than totalitarian may be preferential for many reasons.” This means that any global Christian can and should be a patriot and a lover of his or her own country, people, and culture. That love, however, should always be secondary to and subsumed to the love of God’s Kingdom and God’s global people. There is no room in the movement for racism, sexism, or any type of cultural or ethnic superiority.

3. It would insist that being salt and light through social engagement should not only continue but will be more necessary than ever due to growing secularism, an anti-Christian mood, and the continuing disappearance of Biblical morality. The challenge is to engage in overarching Kingdom politics and not narrow partisan or nationalistic politics, which is certainly far easier said than done. This requires judging every culture, every worldview, every political position, and even every suggested solution through the lens of a rigorous Biblical theology. It will mean that a pro-life (anti-abortion) stance will continue to be central to Evangelical social ethics, for it involves at the least the defense of the innocent and the defenseless.

It also means that related dignity of life issues, which have been a growing part of the agenda of younger Evangelicals, must also occupy much of our time and effort, including: poverty, racial justice and reconciliation, immigration, criminal justice, cultural violence, militarism and warfare, healthcare, ageing issues, and, yes, even reasonable gun control. These issues, and others, are where the greatest debate and disagreement will arise; however, can there be a new commitment to work hard at moving away from partisan solutions to Biblical solutions? Can we learn what it means in this post-Christianized society what it means to be a Kingdom citizen and for our churches to be Kingdom outposts? The reality is as R. Alan Street argues in Heaven on Earth, that “A Christianized government is not the solution. A kingdom-driven church is.”

These suggestions obviously need much fleshing out, in particular those in number 3, for that is where the greatest disagreements usually lie.

Finally, what to call this new movement? “Neo-Evangelicalism” is not an option, not the least because of the potential associations with both “neo-orthodoxy” and political “neo-conservatives.” “Progressive Evangelicalism” is also not an option, because “progressive” has become a euphemism for liberalism, particularly as it relates to sexual morality issues. “Younger Evangelicals” has already been used often, but it is insufficient y because younger Evangelicals do get older (me, for example) and many older ones are also fed up with the disintegrating status quo.

I have thought of “Missional Evangelicals.” The term “missional” is problematic because it has been used by so many to label so much that it almost means nothing. Still, it is a good term. It implies “being on mission,” “being subject to the mission of God (kingdom of God),” and “being salt and light” rather than a withdrawn believer in a Christian ghetto believer. It implies prioritizing the gospel of the Kingdom, with all its global implications, first, with everything else being a distant second.

So, I am throwing it out there. Is it time for something new? What could and should it look like?
0 Comments

October 20th, 2017

10/20/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
AZ Quotes
A Peacemaking Series: Reflections, Confessions, and Confrontations # 6 – “We the People”: Coming to terms with our common history and injustice 
“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” George Santayana

Let’s think a bit about some issues related to history:


The content of history: “Psychology keeps trying to vindicate human nature. History keeps undermining the effort.” Mason Cooley

History is messier than we remember, more complex than we wish, and harder to understand than we care to admit. That’s because it is about the words and actions of fallen human beings, fallen societies and cultures, and is written and later interpreted by fallen historians. From the beginning history has been about the good and the bad, with the bad taking up most of the ink. It is about the intrigues, the conspiracies, the plots, the battles and the wars, the betrayals, and the failures of humans that fascinate us so much. Sure, we celebrate and record the discoveries, the inventions, and the creativity of people; we write about the successes, we record the inspiring words, and we admire the overcomers. We do celebrate the positives of history, but we do so precisely because we know the world is broken, humans are violent, and injustice too often prevails. Those positives inspire because they arise out of our fallen human condition.

One aspect of our fallen human condition is the tendency to create an “us” versus “them” dichotomy. In some ways this is the only way a family, tribe, clan, people, or nation can survive when threatened. It is the only way wars can be fought in order to be won. It also means that history is full of examples of violence, injustice, and oppression of one group by another. Individuals, clans, peoples, races, religious groups, and nations have always looked for and easily found others they considered inferior, subservient, and blameworthy. The resultant exploitation, injustice, and oppression are then justified through the oppressing group’s philosophy, religion, and perceived cultural superiority, or by simple economic necessity, pragmatic considerations, and superior might and strength.

But then history happens: Cultural, philosophical, religious, and political tides change. People rise up in protest. The status quo is questioned and challenged. The structures of power are in new hands. Things begin to change. Hopefully, Biblical principles of peace and justice start to prevail. Perhaps there are fewer instances of racism, injustice, and oppression, but progress is still needed. Even as things change, there is always the challenge of how to deal with the real and perceived record of injustice.

Do we have in the United States a record of injustice? The answer is “yes.” (But see below!).


The interpretation of history:“The very ink with which history is written is merely fluid prejudice.” Mark Twain

Having stated “yes” to our record of injustice, I know some feel the need to object. Let me qualify my answer and make clear what saying “yes” means and doesn’t mean:

 It does not mean the entirety of our history is oppressive, unjust, and shameful or that all people actively participated in oppression and injustice. It means there are aspects of our history, and significant periods of our history, that were unjust. These injustices did affect cultural norms, societal structures, and common worldviews.

 It does not mean the ideals upon which this country was founded are wrong. The great majority of Americans value our founding ideals of freedom, of equality, of opportunity, and of fair representative government. It is just that it has taken us a couple of centuries to learn how to really practice these . . . and we are still learning. In fact, it is because we were founded on these ideals that we can and should confront our mixed history. It is worth it!

 Consequently, it does mean we have to be brutally and painfully honest about our failures. It means we often have to go back and revisit, restudy, and re-evaluate history. Does this involve some “revisionist” history? Certainly, and that is not always bad. Negatively, revisionist history can mean the negation or minimizing of facts and events (there’s one debate). Positively, revisionist history can mean the re-interpretation of facts and events in light of new information (and there is another debate), and we gain new insights and information all the time. The problem is that most of us don’t know enough history to be good interpreters. We hold tenaciously to our preferred version of history regardless of new information and appreciate revisionist history only when it confirms our presuppositions. We are all guilty of this to some degree, because interpretation of history is difficult and a never ending process.

 Therefore, saying “yes” also means we have to do the hard work at discovering when and how our history has been one of injustice. This, too, is difficult. It requires a lot of information, listening to others whose experience is quite different from ours, listening to those who have been left out of history, and allowing our preconceived notions about the way things have “always been” to be challenged. This process is controversial, full of disagreements, painful and hard to do without becoming defensive, offensive, and offended. However, once we have identified and agreed to the reality of past injustices, what should be done about it?


The debt of history:  “There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know.” Harry S Truman

One of the first issues to settle is whether there is a debt owed for past injustices. This is tricky, primarily because there are a couple of extremes to avoid. One extreme is to believe that history doesn’t matter. This view says, “What is past is past. What was done is not my personal responsibility. I didn’t do it, so I shouldn’t have to pay for it.” This viewpoint refuses to acknowledge any debt in history, or at least refuses to accept any responsibility for the debt of history. This attitude, however, contradicts both Biblical principles and common sense. There are ample examples in Scripture of subsequent generations suffering the consequences (both divine and otherwise) for the sinful actions and attitudes of their forefathers. There are also ample examples of those subsequent generations enjoying the benefits of the right actions of their fathers. This is also plain commonsense, otherwise why would we care about our decisions now? Why do we fret over the condition of our nation, our communities, and our marriages and families if we did not believe future generations would be affected positively or negatively? Bottom line, there are in fact those who are victims of our history and the actions (or non-action) of our forefathers.

The other extreme some take is that history is all that matters. This is a deterministic view which considers human beings as only or at least primarily the product of the past, whether it is personal or corporate history. This is the view Jesus contradicted in John 9:2 when he told the disciples that the blind man was not born that way because of his or his parents’ sins. Similarly, that the Corinthians were not prisoners of their past is what Paul was emphasizing in 1 Cor. 6:11 to those who had been freed from the chains of their history. Bottom line, there are those who are, to a significant degree, products of circumstances and history; they are in fact victims of the sins of others, but they do not have to ultimately despair and get trapped by the lie of hopeless victimization.

So how do we address the debt of unjust history? More specifically, how do I, who am for the most part one of the beneficiaries of American history (privileged?) be a peacemaker? How do I deal with the consequences of a mixed history? It would take multiple volumes to address all the particulars, but some principles to consider:

1. The first step in peacemaking is to listen and learn. This sounds trite and clichéd, but it is so true in peacemaking efforts. I must read history, including different viewpoints of history. I must listen to the personal history of others. To add to the clichés, I must “walk a mile” in their shoes, try get into their skin and see the world through their eyes. I must be willing to be challenged, be uncomfortable, and have all my presuppositions questioned. I must be comfortable with controversial history, because “history is debate, history is discussion, history is a conversation . . . ‘history that is not controversial is dead history’.

2. The second step in peacemaking is old fashioned confession and possible restitution, with the first being a whole lot easier than the second. Once more, some object to confessing to or apologizing for the deeds of our predecessors, but yet again, there are Biblical examples and commonsense reasons to do so. Let’s admit it, get it out in the open, and start the conversation. Moreover, let’s make sure we are talking about the same things! Too often we are talking to each other and not with each other. There has to be acknowledgement of sin, and it may be on many sides, if there is going to be progress toward justice and peacemaking. Restitution is much harder. How can and should restitution be made and how long should it go on? Is forty acres and a mule enough? Is affirmative action enough or not enough? Has it gone on too long or not long enough? How far can any legislation go in overturning centuries of special privilege, cultural advantages, and ingrained attitudes? More challenging is the fact that in our fallen world when one injustice is addressed and corrected it often results in another injustice for someone else.
Consequently, am I willing to suffer a minor injustice if it will help resolve a greater one? Am I willing to surrender some of my rights and privileges if it will contribute to peacemaking?

3. The third step in peacemaking involves us all. Forgiveness must be asked for and given. On one level this will be done vicariously: one group confessing and asking for forgiveness on behalf of their ancestors and another group granting forgiveness on behalf of theirs. Much harder is the asking for and granting forgiveness for current and ongoing/continuing injustice, prejudice, and unfairness. I have to ask the hard question, “How am I and the institutions, organizations, and groups I am part of contributing to the continuation of prejudice and injustice?” Those affected by my contribution to injustice have to lovingly and firmly confront me about it, allow me the opportunity to confess and ask forgiveness, and then grant forgiveness.

4. That leads to the final step in peacemaking – we need a whole lot of grace, patience, and servant actions. The consequences of centuries of racism, prejudice, bias, injustice, and oppression will not be erased in even a few decades. Actually, it is something we will be dealing with until the end of time! Understand, there are no innocent bystanders in history. Some have been the perpetrators of injustice. Some have been the victims of injustice. Some have stood by and seen it all happen. But all of us have the responsibility to respond with grace, patience, and servant actions for that is the way of peacemaking.

​There is so much more that can be said about history, injustice, racism, culture, and the need for peacemaking. I have only scratched the surface in these six posts. I am sure I don’t have it all figured out, I don’t understand it all, and I certainly don’t have that many answers. What I am sure of is that I have to continually go back to Scripture to examine and evaluate my own heart, the events of history, and possible steps for moving forward. Some may accuse me of being an idealist, but I try to be a Biblical realist. That is, I am convinced that only the Bible presents reality as it truly is, reality as it will be, and the ultimate solutions to the fallen reality we live in. And since it is the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, I might as well borrow from Martin Luther and say, “hier stehe ich ich kann nicht anders.”
0 Comments

September 01st, 2017

9/1/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture

Conservapedia
​A PEACEMAKING SERIES: REFLECTIONS, CONFESSIONS, AND CONFRONTATIONS.  #2 -- THE OLD TESTAMENT FOUNDATIONS

What is the Bible all about? It is “about” a lot of things – history, law, wisdom, judgment, grace, forgiveness, church, family, morality, and so on. It could be argued, however, that all those things the Bible is “about” are all about the one thing the Bible is all about! And, as Christopher J. H. Wright argues in his impressive work The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative, the Bible is all about mission, namely God’s mission of redemption.

Wright points out that reading the Bible according to that missional map means we can see in Scripture:

 God’s purpose for his whole creation, including the redemption of humanity and the creation of the new heavens and new earth.
 God’s purpose for human life in general on the planet and God’s purposes for human culture, relationships, ethics, and behavior.
 The centrality of Jesus of Nazareth, his messianic identity and mission in relation to Israel and the nations, his cross and resurrection.
 God’s calling of the church to be the agent of God’s blessing to the nations in the name and for the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ.

There have been hundreds of volumes written on the theological implications of those four statements, but what do they tell us about peacemaking? Specifically, what does God’s mission of redemption have to do with peacemaking? Everything!

First, God’s mission of redemption means that, because of our sin, the human race is estranged from him. We need rescuing. We need to be saved from something and for something. We need to be brought “home” to him. We need to be reconciled to God; that is, as the Apostle Paul put it, because “we were God’s enemies” (Rom. 5:10) we need to have peace with him.

Second, it means that God himself has taken the initiative to solve our sinful estrangement (John 3:16; Rom. 5:8). He is the one who thought up the “peace initiative,” so to speak. Consequently, any possibility of peace with God does not arise out of human endeavor. He is the Peacemaker.

Third, it means that we have the ministry of reconciliation or peacemaking ourselves (2 Cor. 5:18-21). Certainly this verse is primarily talking about reconciliation of sinners with God, but there is plenty in Paul’s letters – and in all of Scripture – about reconciliation and living at peace with others both inside and outside the fellowship of believers.

A brief look at the Old Testament shows us this Great Peace Plan was centered on the promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that their descendants, the nation of Israel, would be the instrument of God’s redemptive plan in the world. Israel was given the Law and the land in order to be a blessing to the nations. They were to model what it meant to follow God in holiness, righteousness, and purity. They would demonstrate what it was like to love and worship God, what it meant to be reconciled and at peace with God, and what it meant to live righteously with others and in the land. Bottom line, God elected Israel as a kingdom of priests in order to make himself known through them to the nations and thus reconcile the nations to himself. This purpose is proclaimed throughout the Pentateuch (Ex. 19:5-6; Deut. 28:9-1), in the historical books (Josh. 4:23-24; 1 Sam. 17:46; 1 Kings 8:41-43, 60-61), in the Psalms (22:27-28; 47:9; 67:1-2), and preached by the prophets when Israel failed to live up to the task (Isa. 25:6-8; 45:22-23; Jer. 4:1-2; Zec.8:13).

Ultimately, as the prophets preached, because Israel failed to be the light to the nations the promised Messiah, the Prince of Peace, would fulfill in his person and work God’s mission of redemption. Furthermore, it would be the Messiah who would bring the final, ultimate and eschatological peace all humanity is yearns for. Isaiah 9:6-7 makes it clear that all future hope of ultimate peace rests on the shoulders of the person and work of Christ.

One of the most mind bending things to me, simultaneously perplexing and comforting, is that the redemptive mission of God as seen in the Old Testament, this mission of bringing peace and reconciliation between himself and sinners, took place among some of the most violent, divisive, rebellious, and sinful peoples, nations, and events in human history. Some of us read the Old Testament and struggle with the violence of Israel, with God’s commands to conquer the land and totally eliminate the Canaanites, and with the dramatic failures of God’s chosen people and leaders. We struggle with the descriptions, and often prescriptions, for violence and war. How could a God of peace allow such violence and much less give such warlike instructions?

The answer is to look at the big picture and understand that God was graciously working with and through a fallen human race which mostly and consistently rejected him. To accomplish his ultimate redemptive mission of making peace with humanity, he had to deal with humanity on our own terms, and sometimes quite violently. See, long-term peacemaking in a fallen and sinful world requires the making and enforcement of just laws, the punishment of law breakers, and sometimes the imposition of a strong arm. Think of the Allied goal in World War II of defeating the Nazis and bringing peace to Europe. In order to establish peace the Allies had to invade North Africa, Italy, and France and then fight Nazis across Europe. Similarly, when the United Nations sends peacekeepers to a war torn country, they send actual soldiers with real guns who will pull the trigger if need be to accomplish the long-term goal of peace. On a daily level, the police SWAT team may have to break down a door and shoot the violent hostage taker in order to rescue innocent victims and restore peace in a broken household. Once again, we are not talking about pacifism, but peacemaking. (By the way, when reading the Old Testament, be sure not to confuse ugly description and divine accommodation, such as what Jesus mentioned in Matt. 19:8-9, with godly prescription).

Therefore, that God worked in and through the people of Israel simply magnifies his amazing, eternal, and perfect grace, patience, and peaceful intentions. Instead of wiping out a distressingly sinful humanity and instead of disowning a radically rebellious Israel, he worked in and through them in spite of human sinfulness and because of his holy, loving, righteous, and gracious nature. When reading the Old Testament, do wrestle with the hard questions; however, rather than focus on what sinful people did try to discern what God was doing behind the scenes and in and through sinful people.

And what was God doing through the people of Israel? As already noted, he chose them to be a blessing to the nations, a model and example of holy living, the means of God’s redemptive, peacemaking mission. On a daily basis they were to do this through their singular worship of Yahweh, but also through their ethical behavior. For example, they were to:

 Make restitution when harm or an injustice was done to another (Ex. 21:12- 22:14)  Not take advantage of widows and orphans (Ex. 22:22-24)
 Not deny justice to the poor (Ex. 23:6-7)
 Leave enough of the harvest for the poor and the alien (Lev. 19:9-10)
 Not steal, lie, or defraud (Lev. 19:11-13)
 Not mistreat the alien or foreigner; i.e. that person of a different race or ethnicity (Ex. 22:21; Lev. 19:33)
 Avoid dissension by loving rather than hating (Prov. 10:12)
 Speak wisely, righteously, and fittingly (Prov. 10:20,21,31-32)
 Not oppress the poor and being kind to the needy (Prov. 14:31)
 Avoid dishonest business practices; avoid violence and deceit (Mic. 6:12-13)
 Avoid violence, injustice, strife, and the oppression of righteousness (Hab. 1:2-4)

And on and on. Hundreds of passages could be listed to argue for the Old Testament foundations of peacemaking. No, not all these passages specifically mention “peace,” but they all instruct in attitudes and behavior that would lead to reconciliation, redemption, restitution, justice, and peace between nations, within a nation, and most certainly between individual people. Peacemaking, therefore, implies and includes intentional efforts to establish conditions of justice, reconciliation, restitution, and redemption.

Inevitably, someone will question the application of these Old Testament laws to New Testament Christians. This is not the place to resolve the debate about the overall place and use of the law. I do like, however, the way Christopher Wright puts it in another one of his impressive works, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God: the law was “to mould and shape Israel” so that Israel could live as a “model, as a light to the nations.” That particularity of Israel and the law, however, does not keep the law from having a universal application. These Old Testament Scriptures, therefore, serve as a “paradigm, in one single culture and slice of history, of the kinds of social values God looks for in human life generally.” Consequently, from a generally ethical and specifically peacemaking perspective, although we may agree the Law has no salvific power, we should not throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. Through the Law God has graciously given us an ethical paradigm. Perhaps we should not obsess over what we don’t have to keep, but rather should do the hard work of figuring out what we can learn and still apply. This is not legalism. It is, believing in the whole counsel of God.

In conclusion, the Old Testament clearly lays out the foundation of and for peacemaking: God is a God of peace in that he is on mission to redeem creation, reconcile humanity to himself, and ultimately re-establish the peace we originally had with him. He chose Israel as his instrument in that mission and Israel was given the Law as guidance on how to live in right relationship with God, the land, and with each other. Israel’s failure and our continued human struggle do not reflect on the real peacemaking nature of God’s character and mission nor do they minimize the implications and imperatives for our own lives.

Next: The New Testament Imperative for Peacemaking
.
0 Comments

Why I am not voting for either Trump or Clinton (Trigger warning! If you have already committed to either major candidate this post will probably only irritate you. It is written for those who are considering “none of the above”).

10/19/2016

7 Comments

 
Picture
OverpassesForAmerica
​I have voted in every presidential election since 1976, often more against one candidate than for another. I have also, as best as I could, participated in voting for local officials and state questions on the ballot. This year, however, I cannot in good conscience support either of the two major presidential candidates. They and/or their platforms are flawed beyond what I can support. Let me be clear:

 I know voting is a civic duty and privilege. I AM going to vote, just not for one of the two major candidates. I may go with a third party or independent candidate, or I may write in someone.

 Some say if I don’t vote for a candidate with a legitimate chance of winning then I can’t complain. Oh, yes, I can. My track record of civic duty is not nullified by this one “major party” omission. I am not apathetic. It is a conscious, intentional, and, in some ways, gut-wrenching decision.

 Some say if I don’t vote for a candidate with a legitimate chance of winning then I am somehow personally responsible for the mess the other one will make. Well, no. The responsibility falls on those who voted for him/her in the primaries, for those who made the nomination, for the system that gave us these two, and, ultimately on all of us, for perhaps we are going to get what we deserve.

 I am NOT arguing for some unattainable perfectionism for any candidate. Good grief, I grew up under Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, three very flawed presidents. I have voted since 1976, so I know well how imperfect presidential candidates are. There is a point, however, somewhere, when I have to just say no.

 Certainly others may come to different conclusions. That’s fine. Here’s why I have decided not to for either of the two main party nominees:

1. The medium has become the message. This is true of BOTH presidential candidates; that is, the character of the messengers has overwhelmed the issues and become the message. We have always been concerned about experience, integrity, character, and honesty. It seems, however, that the outrageous flaws of both major candidates have become the story ad nauseam. Sure, the issues get their usual talking points, the platforms are important, but it has become all about the creepy amorality and narcissism of one and the blunt dishonesty and arrogance of the other. Speaking of platforms . . .

2. Platforms do matter, but point #1 just trumped them for this election (pardon the pun). Some insist I should get past the candidate and vote for the platform. They almost had me with this one. I cannot in good conscience support the Democratic platform (I am not opposed to all of it, just key parts), and I do support much of the Republican Platform (not all of it, just key parts). But see point #1. I am not sure that either candidate is worth the risk, short or long term. Do we really want to hand the car keys over to one that is reckless or to one who can’t be trusted? Furthermore . . .

3. At some point, Biblical convictions and Biblical morality do matter. Again, I am not looking for the perfect candidate. Sometimes we do have to compromise because of the big picture and “choose the lesser of two evils,” like almost every election! Well, this time I am going to choose the less of three evils: Not voting for either. At some point, the end can no longer justify the means. My prediction is that whoever wins will create mid-term election backlash in favor of the other party. Happens regularly. Guaranteed this time. Some say, “We are not voting for a pastor or a Sunday School teacher.” My point exactly. We are voting for the so called “leader of the free world” and both candidates have crossed just about every moral line conceivable. The entire debate has now been reduced to whether we are electing a sexual predator or the enabler of a sexual predator. And in many ways the supporters of both are worse than the candidates themselves. Perhaps we do get what we deserve. Therefore, it is also about . . .

4. Patterns of behavior. This applies to both Clinton and Trump. Everyone says and does something wrong every now and then. The problem is when the wrong behavior becomes a pattern, for that reflects one’s true character. In these candidates we have patterns of narcissism, arrogance, elitism, vulgarity, dishonesty, corruption, lying, untrustworthiness, and on and on. The big issue is not so much what they have done (although that is important), but will they continue to behave in the same way? What they have done disqualifies them from leading; what they could possible do is even more frightening. So, you say, pick the lesser of two evils. I can’t. They both represent a level of individual and social immorality that has crossed the line. Both are unqualified to serve as President. Speaking of morality and what most of my friends refer to as the “lesser of two evils” . . .

5. If I vote for either candidate I believe I will lose significant moral authority to speak again. That sounds pretty hard and determinative, but this is important to me personally. If I vote for either candidate, I can no longer hold any public official or even any public figure up to any sort of minimal moral standard. I will have no right to a prophetic voice. Please understand, I am talking about ME. I do not judge you for your vote. You don’t have to feel the same as I do about this. I just do not want to have to explain to my grandchildren why I voted for either Trump or Clinton. But, you may say, at least it will be something different! At least there will be change! Yes, I get it, but . . .

6. As a Christian I don’t want to move from being pragmatic to pragmatism. Oh, we do need change. We do need to throw most of the rascals out. I get it. Trump does have some good points about that, although the conspiracy mentality has gone over the edge. But, to overlook all the moral and ethical issues (even on the Democratic platform side) because it will “work,” or be “something different,” is to move from desiring a legitimate pragmatic (workable) outcome to outright pragmatism. Being pragmatic means you do the right things the right way and expect they will work. Pragmatism means you declare things right because they work. The first means you do the right things in the right way regardless of outcome. The second means you do whatever it takes, good or bad, because it works. That is, the end justifies the means. Pragmatism, and that is where so many Evangelicals leaders have landed, demands a lot of compromise, and too often a Faustian compromise. But there is also a political reason not to vote for either candidate . . .

7. Send a loud message by voting, but not for either Trump or Clinton. Is it patriotic if 85 % of Americans showed up at the ballot box but did NOT vote for either major candidate? It is if it sends a message. I have no illusions. I don’t think a third party candidate will win, and no matter who wins, he/she will continue to be delusional and claim a mandate. But a low percentage of votes will send a clear message: “You are a one term President. That’s it, so get it right this one term.” Both parties will be put on notice, “You have got to do better than this. Beware.” Then throw all the bums out during the mid-term elections.

These are only my personal convictions (none of which require the breaking of a friendship, by the way). Many will strongly disagree. That is fine. If you have been struggling whether or not to vote, I hope this helped some. If you are a strong supporter of one candidate or the other and are totally irritated, I told you not to read this!

​Look for my last post before the election, “Why it should not matter to Christians who wins the election.”
7 Comments

follow your heart. Better yet, don't.

9/20/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
Conventional wisdom and popular advice tells us to “follow your heart.” That is certainly a rather vague and ill-defined piece of advice, but I think what is implied is to “go with what you think is right or good deep in the recesses of your being.” Another way some say it is “Follow your passion.” Others define it even more bluntly by saying “if it feels right or good to you, do it.” Or, even more to the point, “Just do it.”

Is this good advice, bad advice, or a little of both? When faced with some decisions in life, the heart, one’s passion, emotions and feeling do matter. They must be taken into account. We get ourselves into trouble, however, when the heart is the primary factor or the trump card in decision making.

The heart, one’s particular passion, and feelings are not inherently bad. They are part and parcel of what it means to be human and created in the image of God. Our problem is that they are fallen, tainted, corrupted, and ultimately untrustworthy in and of themselves. A few biblical insights:

Jeremiah 17:9 – “The heart is more deceitful than anything else, and incurable – who can understand it?” The prophet is acknowledging the sinfulness of human beings, which penetrates to the depths of one’s being. The consequences of sin do not simply affect our outward behavior, but also affect mind, will, and emotions. Can the heart be trusted? No.

But what about the renewed heart? What about the born again Christian who is new in Christ and indwelt by the Holy Spirit? That does make the difference for us both positionally and experientially. We still struggle, however, with the consequences of indwelling sin, the flesh. Consider . . .

Romans 7:14-20 – “We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.”

The Apostle Paul’s experience is the same for all of us. As believers who are new in Christ we know what is right and we want to do it. At the same time, we often struggle with doing the right thing because there is the principle of sin still in us. At least we are aware of it. At least we have the Holy Spirit pointing it out to us. Based upon the experience Paul is describing, should we follow what is deep within us? Should we always follow the heart? Yes, it is renewed, but can I fully trust my feelings, my thoughts, and my lifelong belief systems? Not always and not ultimately.

To be fair, there is a minority of Biblical scholars who argue that this Romans passage is actually describing the pre-salvation experience of Paul, not his life as a Christian. Still, based on further Scriptures, I think my point will hold up. Consider:

Romans 12:2a – “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.”

Ephesians 4:22-24 – “You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.”

There are many other passages which point out that although we are new in Christ, we still have to intentionally and purposefully choose to think and do the right things, to be transformed, to put off certain attitudes and behaviors and put on others. And what are the right things? Not always those that are deep within our heart, but those that are based on something outside of us, namely “his good, pleasing and perfect will” (Rom. 12:2b).

Therefore, we need something outside of ourselves by which to measure and evaluate our heart: our thoughts, our feelings, our desires, and our passions. How about . . .

1. The wisdom of others. As believers we are in the family of God, the Body of Christ. A lot could be said here, but as imperfect as the church is, we need each other for advice, counsel, wisdom, and accountability.

2. The wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Yes, there is something within us we DO need to pay attention to. Yes, God does speak to us in our “hearts.” The challenge is to determine what is the Holy Spirit and what is coming from my own heart or “evil desire” (James 1:13-15). Therefore . . .

3. The wisdom of Scripture. We need to measure all of this – the wisdom of others, our heart and all its components, and even what we think may be spiritual impulses by the word of God. Yes, we may argue over interpretation and application, but the point is, will we acknowledge an authority outside of and greater than “follow your heart?”

​I have seen countless marriages, families, lives, and ministries wrecked because people were absolutely convinced they were doing the right thing. Although they may have stated it in different ways, the bottom line is they just knew it was right because they were following their “heart.” And it was deceitful beyond belief.

0 Comments

opinions and armpits

8/10/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
Image by www.mensfitness.com
Everyone has opinions. And, as the joke goes, they are like armpits: Everyone has a couple and no one thinks theirs stink.

Everyone is certainly entitled to his or her opinions, for we live in a free country. So, go ahead and fell free to express yours and be right . . . or wrong. But here’s the thing: having an opinion on an issue is not the same as having an informed opinion, and even having an informed opinion is not the same thing as being an authority on the topic. Furthermore, being an authority on the topic is not the same as being correct.

Unfortunately, too many of us get stuck on the first level – simply having an opinion. Without a doubt, social media, short attention spans, the “closing of the American mind” (look it up), and a culture that has absolutized relativism (think about that one) means that anyone can broadcast a thoughtless opinion on anything at any time and have it heard by someone. That is not, in of itself, a bad thing. The problem is when we all expect our meagre opinions to carry inordinate weight and are offended when someone disagrees (those haters!).

Some of us, however, try to offer informed opinions. That is, we are not simply spouting off what we simply “feel” or intuitively “think.” We take the time to learn something about the issue and examine our own assumptions, beliefs, and worldview. I realize most of us think we are already plenty informed. Well, not always. At least, not about everything. The easiest test for this is to ask someone, “Upon what do you base that opinion?” If the answer is “It’s my opinion and I have a right to have it,” well, yes, you do. However . . . never mind. And, yelling one’s opinion louder and angrier does not make it any more informed.

We can all work at having informed opinions on many topics. Few of us can really speak as authorities on very many topics or issues. I am not saying a person should be an authority before he or she speaks. We do need to learn to recognize when a person is offering a simple, intuitive opinion, an informed opinion, or when that person is an authority (and, yes, there may be some debate on the nature of “authority”). Culturally, we fail at this most miserably when we assume that a rich and famous person, particularly a celebrity, knows what they are talking about. We tend to grant them unearned authority simply because they are well known. Certainly, they are free to have opinions and sometimes those are interesting. Sometimes they actually are an authority. But just because someone is an athlete, a movie star, has a TV reality show, or is filthy rich, that does not make them an authority on foreign policy, education, theology, the military, you name it. And by the way, I am not an authority on everything I may have an opinion about, either!

When a person is an authority on a particular issue, then we ought to give them a bit more of our attention. If they have the training and the experience, then they have informed and even authoritative opinions. But, does that mean they are always right? Of course not. We must remember that even if a person is an authority on such and such topic, he or she is still driven by presuppositions, assumptions, prejudices, and a worldview. That individual may be correct or incorrect on certain facts. He may have interpreted the facts correctly or incorrectly. She may be letting a particular ideology or worldview color her interpretation. This is why so many authorities in science, education, economics, foreign and domestic policy, art, theology, etc, etc, come to differing conclusions and varying applications.

So, where does all of this leave us? Two major points to remember:

One, in a free country with free speech, we all have the right to opinions (even “intolerant” ones). We should, however, work a bit harder to be informed. And, we should not get so bent out of shape when others differ. That is OK! They are not necessarily “haters.”

Two, we have to remember worldview. Let me break that down a bit more: We all have a worldview; that is, we all have “lenses” through which we see and interpret the world. These are shaped and formed by family, culture, experience, and the choices we make as a result of family, culture, and experience. Worldviews are complex and profound, and we all have them. Furthermore, they are constantly being tweaked and adjusted based on new information and new experiences.

Having a worldview means that we all come to the opinion table loaded with presuppositions, assumptions, biases, and prejudices. We have experiences, belief systems, convictions, and ideologies which drive us. None of us are objective! We all see, interpret, and speak from particular perspectives.

Does this mean there is no objective or absolute truth and that we must succumb to the quicksand of relativistic opinions? Absolutely not! Let me reveal some of my worldview and its presuppositions:

 There is absolute and objective truth (which includes morality and ethics)

 For truth to be absolute and objective it must come from outside of the human experience; that is, it originates and is grounded in something greater than us.

 Although that truth is absolute and originates outside of humanity, it can still be apprehended accurately and correctly, although not completely or comprehensively.

 We cannot apprehend absolute truth comprehensively because we are fallen human beings and full of subjectivity.

 Because we are subjective, we are full of presuppositions, biases, and prejudices.

 That’s OK. The key is to recognize our condition, be open to examination, and measure ourselves against some standard.

 The best standard for measurement is that one which reveals absolute truth – the Bible.

 Therefore, in the Bible God reveals absolute truth (and we see it perfectly revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, whom we know through the Scriptures). We do read it subjectively and from a particular worldview but yet hold that same perspective up to the judgment of Scripture. We then arrive both humbly and confidently at conclusions about ultimate issues. We can hold these conclusions with conviction, yet we are open to correction because we believe in and accept absolute truth but we admit we cannot know it absolutely. Truth is absolute; I am not.

So what does this have to do with opinions and armpits? Simply this:

In a world where we play fast and loose with facts, where those seeking top political office will lie at the drop of a hat, where he who yells the loudest on TV or she who is the ugliest on social media wins, where the freedom to have an opinion is confused with protection from a contrary opinion, where a famous opinion is confused with authoritative opinion we would all do ourselves a favor if we recognized our own subjective perspectives, sought to be more informed, and humbly measured our thoughts, ideas, opinions, and actions against an absolute standard.

​And that’s my opinion.
0 Comments

pro-life > anti-abortion

7/14/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
image by www.patheos.com

​
There are few issues which inflame debate on the American cultural and political scene as those related to “life.” Come to think of it, pretty much all the issues relate to “life.” That is, I believe a Pro-life position should be – must be – more than just an anti-abortion position. It is necessarily anti-abortion but not exclusively so. This is a point I think both Conservatives and Liberals miss too often.

Conservative pro-lifers (not all and not always) who are rightly concerned about the protection of unborn life sometimes inconsistently overlook other pro-life issues such as poverty, justice, crime, racism, and societal violence. When they do address these, it is primarily, but not altogether wrongly, from the personal responsibility perspective. One inconsistency, and there are several, is arguing that the state should over-rule a woman’s right to abort a baby, but the state should also pretty much stay out of other social, moral, and ethical life issues. (Yes, I am generalizing here).

Liberal pro-choicers, on the other hand, have so absolutized individual rights and personal choice that they overlook (inconsistently, illogically, and certainly morally and ethically) the rights of the unborn person and the very essence of what it means to be human (that is, unless they are thoroughgoing philosophical materialists, and if they are, then a whole host of other ethical problems arise). Moreover, when they do address other life issues they, too, do so inconsistently, but not altogether wrongly, from a primarily structural and institutional perspective. An inconsistency, and there are several, is that a woman has the individual right and wherewithal to choose to abort a baby, but other people do not have the right and wherewithal to choose individually and responsibly in so many other areas of life, such as parenting. No, the state must do it for them.

Now, although I am starting to sound libertarian that is not where I want to go with this post. I will simply say that I mistrust both thoroughgoing libertarianism and thoroughgoing statism from a theological perspective. Why? Because neither takes fallen human nature seriously enough, whether individual sinfulness on the libertarian side or individual and corporate sinfulness on the statist side (the libertarian most certainly takes corporate sinfulness seriously). How to hold the tension between the extremes? Probably the best example in history is what our own Founding Fathers did with the checks and balances of our three branches of government. Sure, we are still working on getting it all right, but the principle of promoting freedom while acknowledging that human nature is not to be fully trusted is right there in our founding principles. But I digress.

I only want to insist that both liberal and conservative sides (and in my case, evangelical types that are mostly conservative) need to work harder at developing a consistent pro-life position. What would that entail? (I can only briefly sketch the main points. Each would take a book to unpack):

 Definitely the protection of unborn children. This is not merely a legal or even “rights” issue, but is replete with moral, ethical, and even logical implications. At bottom is the core theological issue of what it means to be human and be created in the image of God.

 End of life. Similarly, the core issue is what it means to be human and who is to be trusted through the often very painful process of dying.

 Medical ethics. From conception to grave, what science can do with, to, and for the human body is only going to increase in both medical and ethical complexity (see, for example, the July 4 Time Magazine cover story, "The Gene Machine." Scary stuff).  Once again, much of what is scientifically possible collides with the Biblical definition of human life and the value of human life. More than ever before biblical theology and ethics will intersect science, medicine, and pastoral care.

 Criminal justice issues, including violence, the rights of crime victims, and purposeful incarceration. Our prison system is overcrowded and broken. Justice, in the broadest sense, is not always carried out equitably and consistently, much less wisely. The state must incarcerate violent and habitual criminals. We must, however, figure out better ways to deal with non-violent criminals through better restitution (work to pay back damages) or treatment programs (for alcohol and drug users).

 Poverty, work, and opportunity. After all, this is the American Dream. Historically we have debated what are the individual’s, the government, and the church’s responsibility. We may have to struggle some more. A consistent pro-life position, however, will not take the liberal position of asking the government to do it all or the conservative position of wanting the government to do almost nothing. How do we do it better?

 War. We could go on forever here. A consistent pro-life position will wrestle mightily with going to war, how a war is fought, and the purposes of any particular war. It is the governing authorities’ right and responsibility to wage war at times in defense of its citizens. It is the Christian’s responsibility to prophetically question every step and every decision along the way.

 Creation. Yes, a biblical view of caring for God’s creation is called for. I do not want the pantheistic New Agers monopolizing the discussion!

Have you picked up on some of the common themes? How about the following:

*God has created all things and all people. He declared his creation good and gave it a purpose. There is an over-arching story of which we are part. If we move outside of that story or purpose, trouble will follow.

*Human beings have been created in the image and likeness of God. This is true of the person I love the most and of the person who is my greatest enemy. This truth does not over-rule government and justice, but it should affect my personal attitude toward all people.

*All have sinned; consequently, the image of God is marred in all human beings. Yes, some are “worse” than others when it comes to their actions in this world, but the problem is the same for all and the solution is the same for all: the cross of Christ. Similarly, sin has affected the creation. Because all have sinned and because the creation is also corrupt, humanity and all human institutions are far from perfect.

*Regardless of the fallen nature of humans and a corrupted creation, I must do all I can in all areas to choose life. Death is an enemy. Death, violence, disease, corruption, war, and oppression are all results of fallen human nature. I must work against these because Jesus did. I must work to overcome these because Jesus has. I must choose life first because He is life.

Working towards a consistent pro-life position does not mean we will agree on every issue, whether it is the description of the issue or the prescription for it. Shoot, I am still working on most of this myself. My point is that we need to be Pro-LIFE, and this is a Biblical issue. For some trying to address all these issues consistently may sound naïve and expecting too much this side of the second coming. I certainly don’t want to do that. To the contrary, I want to be a hard core Jesus-like realist. He knew exactly what kind of fallen world, what kind of sinful people, and what kind of deadly enemies he was dealing with. At the same time he has commanded us and empowered us to live as much as possible as kingdom citizens while we live and pray “. . . your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”

P.S. Is racism among pro-life issues? Absolutely! Watch for "The Faces of Racism" soon.

0 Comments

stuck at the symptoms

5/30/2016

1 Comment

 
Picture
www.withycombelodgesurgery.co.uk

​When we struggle with an illness it is sometimes difficult to separate the symptoms from the cause. Treating the symptoms is good, because it makes us feel better. Doctors know this. That is why they prescribe medications and therapies to relieve what may be ailing us. They are keenly aware, however, that unless the actual cause is identified and dealt with the symptoms will continue to appear and may even get worse. Failure to deal with the root cause of the illness will only lead to further complications and maybe even death.

The same is true for all other aspects of life where there may be a “dysfunction” or an “abnormality” or some kind of dynamic resulting in pain and suffering. The symptoms may be many, painful, convoluted, messy, complex, and crying out for immediate relief. Consequently, we sometimes don’t get past symptom relief to deal with the root problem.

Let’s talk about our human condition. We often preach, teach, write, and counsel about human brokenness and alienation, emotional suffering and relationship dysfunction. We struggle with fear, worry, and anxiety. We are insecure, unfulfilled, and dissatisfied. We yearn for a degree of self-actualization. We hurt ourselves, each other, and the creation.

Now understand what I am saying. These are real issues affecting real people causing real pain and in need of real attention. I suffer plenty from some of these issues myself. They are not to be minimized, dismissed, or ignored. They are part and parcel of our fallen human condition, need to be admitted and dealt with. They are part of the human “baggage” we all need help with.

And here is my point. As fallen human beings we are affected and infected with a plethora of symptoms brought about by our core issue . . . sin. Am I saying all these human foibles, dysfunctions, and struggles are caused by sin? Well, yes, either directly or indirectly.

Adam and Eve chose to sin against God. Because of their sin, every human being since (save one) has been born a sinner. That is, every human being is born with a sin nature and with the predisposition to inevitably sin (again, save one). We are sinners by nature and by choice; we are predisposed to sin in our nature, and disposed to sin in our actions. We are both sinful and sinners. This means that every aspect of the creation and of human life has been tainted by sin. No, we are not all individually as bad as we could be, but neither are we essentially good or even neutral. Every aspect of human life has been touched by sin.

Therefore, as sinful human beings, all the presenting issues listed above (and more) are the result of sin. Sometimes they manifest themselves as the result of our own sinful nature. Sometimes they are the direct result of our sinful actions. Sometimes they are the result of another person’s sin against us. Sometimes they are simply the result of trying to live in a fallen world governed by sinful systems and structures. It is not always easy delineating where one ends and where one begins. They overlap so much.

So, how to deal with those real life issues? Yes, we help each other, we go to counseling, and we sometimes take medication. We work through the human elements, the human dynamics, and the human relationships. We deal with the symptoms because they are real, they are painful, and they must be dealt with. But we can’t forget to deal with the root issue, which is our sin.

What do I mean? Three things:

One, the bottom line is what David says to the Lord in Psalm 51:5, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” We have to recognize and deal with our sin nature. The only solution is the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. By the grace of God Jesus paid the penalty for sin. Through faith we receive forgiveness for sins and are re-born with a new nature or identity in Christ. His righteousness becomes ours. His life becomes ours. We are in Christ and he is in us. The cross, therefore, brutally declares that we are both truly sinners and truly justified. Our sinful nature is dealt with and our sinful actions are forgiven. This act of grace, received by faith, is the absolute starting point for dealing with the human condition. It addresses the core sinful nature issue.

Two, David also notes in Psalm 51:4 his specific sinful actions: “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight.” David acknowledged that his sins of adultery and murder, as heinous as they were against specific people, were ultimately and most importantly sins against God. This is a reality we often overlook in human dynamics. We get so caught up in addressing the reality of sins against each other we forget that, in the end, they are sins against God. We certainly must confess one to another and forgive each other. We also confess them to God knowing our sins were dealt with at the cross and he promises that we are forgiven and will be cleansed (1 John 1:9). This addresses specific sinful actions.

Three, when we talk about and deal with of the many aspects of the human condition we cannot allow the descriptions of our condition to become mere euphemisms for sin. If we do, we run the real danger of only treating the symptoms and never addressing the core issue. I am not saying we have to be harsh, overbearing, judgmental, and full of “old fashioned hellfire and brimstone.” I am saying we need to speak truth to ourselves and others, always in love and grace, and always with an eye toward repentance and restoration.

Yes, let’s address brokenness, alienation, dysfunction, addictions, worries, fears, strained relationships, self-esteem, and so on. Yes, let’s name them, admit to them, and get to work on dealing with them. But, let’s not put an emotional or spiritual Band-aid on our deadly condition (sinful nature) or on our destructive actions (sinful actions), achieve a bit of relief, and then go our merry way till the next crisis. Until the core issue is addressed, the symptoms will only get worse.

​All the presenting issues and felt needs of life are important and should be addressed. We cannot, however, allow their incessant demand for attention mask the core issue of human existence – sin. Until and unless we deal with that core and life-determining condition, all else is just treating the symptoms.
1 Comment

be careful what you pray for!

4/9/2016

1 Comment

 
People pray for lots of reasons. We pray when fearful and anxious. We pray for healing, to discern God’s will, for difficult situations, and for other people. We pray in times of need and in times of want, often confusing the two. Too often we pray trying to get God to give us stuff or to come over to our way of seeing and doing things. We pray for lots of reasons, some much better than others!

I don’t want to discuss a full theology or practice of prayer in this post. I do want to talk about one of the things we should be praying for, namely, that we should be more like Jesus every day.

The scriptures are full of admonitions to be holy, to follow righteousness, and to obey God. Jesus calls us to deny ourselves and follow him. The Apostle Paul tells us over and over that the one who has been justified by Christ is a new creation, is in Christ and Christ is in him. Paul makes it clear that we no longer are our own and that we are to put off the “old man” and put on the “new man.” The bottom line: we are to be more like Jesus every moment of the day because our lives are no longer ours but his.

This life of faith and of obedience is variously described as being a follower of Jesus, as being transformed by the renewing of our minds, as living according to the Spirit, as being filled with the Spirit and producing the fruit of the Spirit. This discipleship involves our own decisions – our own will – but is also very much the work of God in us, a work of faith. To lean too heavily on our own will could lead to legalism and living in the flesh. To ignore our own will could lead to spiritual passivity and disobedience. We decide, we choose, we act, but always depending on and being led by the Spirit.

So, what has this to do with being careful in prayer? Well, if being like Jesus is so important, then it must be something we should pray about. That is, we don’t just pray for others and for our own needs (both of which are legitimate), we also pray along the lines of “Lord, work in me today to make me more like Jesus. Develop in me a Christlikeness that will honor you. Lead me to make decisions based on the fruit of the Spirit and which will also grow me in spiritual fruitfulness. Teach me to deny myself. Lead me in the renewing of my mind,” and so on.

A needed prayer and a sincere prayer. Problem is, at least for me, is that too often I want it easy! Oh, I mean it when I pray along those lines, but I tend to overlook passages such as Phil 3:10, where Paul says “I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death.” Ouch. Too often I think, “I want to be like Jesus – patient, compassionate, loving, full of grace, full of truth, kind, and gentle,” or “I want to be known for love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.” Then I simply assume (sometimes unconsciously), “Now, I’ll wake up tomorrow morning and be just like that!”

Wrong! Discipleship, the journey to Christlikeness, and the fruit of the Spirit most likely and most often involves difficult people, trying circumstances, temptations, times of fear, uncertainty, and stress. It may require choosing joy and peace and love and grace when none is deserved or humanly possible. In other words, it may require . . . suffering.

So, I hope we all pray for transformation, for the renewing of our minds, the narrow road of following Jesus, of being filled with the Spirit and his fruit. Maybe I shouldn’t say “be careful what you pray for” but “be aware of what you are praying for.” Be aware the answer to that prayer involves process, journey, and time, all of which can be painful and difficult. Ultimately, however, the journey is required, a joy, and well worth it.


1 Comment

a comprehensive pro-life position? Some thoughts

2/16/2016

0 Comments

 
I believe the Bible is the revealed word of God. I believe it is still applicable in its totality to the totality of life. Of course, it must be interpreted and applied wisely and correctly, a sometimes difficult task. But this is not an article about hermeneutics (the science and art of interpretation). What I want to detail are some of the implications, as I see them, of a comprehensive and a consistent Biblical pro-life position. Now, I won’t be able to cover every nuance, and I may be off on some of my points. But, if I read the entire Bible and work hard at coming up with a theology of life, here are some things I have to consider:

1. The Bible is clear that humans are made in the image of God. This sets us apart from the rest of creation. We are not just different in degree from animals and other created things, but we are a different kind. That image of God in us means we have the capacity and the privilege to have a relationship with our Creator. Although that image of God in us has been marred by sin and can ultimately only be restored through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, it’s presence means that . . .

2. We are to see all people as having both the image of God and the potential for redemption. No, the image in all people does not mean all with be saved. Furthermore, it does not mean that all human beings are “children of God.” All are creations of God, but only redeemed persons are children of God. It does mean that all human life is valuable and of inherent worth. Contrary to our human pragmatism, this value and worth applies most importantly to . . .

3. Those who are helpless, defenseless, and who perhaps cannot speak for themselves. This includes the unborn, the disabled, the mentally ill, and the infirm elderly. The issue is ontological personhood rather than a pragmatic definition of quality of life or a temporal legal defense of individual rights. Moreover, this value and worth applies to . . .

4. Those who are marginalized, disenfranchised, and often caught up in the fallen structures of human society. By “fallen structures” I simply mean the societal structures that may be good in and of themselves, but which are also affected by the fall of creation (government, economics, education, and so on). That the structures are fallen and even broken in no way removes personal responsibility. Personal responsibility (or irresponsibility), however, does not remove the image of God either. It does acknowledge that these structures are made up and run by fallen human beings, often have complex cause and effect dynamics, and that the “fallen-ness” of these structures affect real people. Let me break down the implications for four groups:

a. First, I am talking about the poor, the homeless, the powerless, and the marginalized. Whatever their condition and whatever the cause of their condition, self-imposed or victims of circumstances, the Bible has a whole lot to say about caring for them. They may need assistance or they may need admonition, but they are persons made in God’s image.

b. Second, I am talking about those incarcerated and guilty of crimes and about their victims. The first may need punished swiftly and severely. They certainly need a chance at rehabilitation. Their victims definitely need restitution, comfort, and justice. It all gets kind of messy, but both are in the image of God. By the way, I would argue that a society which genuinely values life has in place both swift and severe penalties for crimes against persons and aggressive rehabilitation efforts for the incarcerated. Not to have the former overlooks justice and the inherent value of their victims’ lives. Not to have the latter overlooks the inherent value and potential redemption of the perpetrators’ lives.

c. Third, and most relevantly, I am talking about those who are refugees and immigrants seeking a better life. Certainly, there are legal and safety issues to consider. That is the government’s responsibility (and it could do a better job). The starting point from a Biblical perspective, however, is that refugees and immigrants are bearers of the image of God, should be cared for, and are, in the overwhelming majority of cases, simply trying to make a better life (what could be more American than that?). At the same time that I ask my elected officials to secure the border, I also want them to come up with a compassionate and quick way to help anyone who qualifies to become a productive (and tax paying) American citizen. I don’t think it is that hard to come up with a solution. It is just that the issue has become one by which to demonize the political opponent, while image bearers of God suffer and American citizens on all sides grow more and more frustrated.

d. Finally, and at times the most difficult to shallow and apply, I am talking about the enemy. Yes, we have enemies. Even the Bible acknowledges that. My personal enemy is also made in the image of God. I am commanded to love him and do all I can to live at peace with him. Our corporate enemy is such that at times we go to war with him. Some would argue for absolute pacifism based on the command not to kill and the fact that all humans are made in the image of God. I can’t go that far, but would argue that the image of God in humans means we should always avoid war until all other options are exhausted, and do all we can to spare innocent lives. Oh, yes, the historical realities are sometimes overwhelming (to quote the Brad Pitt character in the movie Fury, “Ideals are peaceful; history is violent). Debates get quite intense and nuanced here, as they can for all points above.

There is so much more to be said about a comprehensive and consistent pro-life position; many books have been written on the subtleties and nuances of application in this messy world. The bottom line for me is this:

One, my starting point has to be the image of God in humans and a respect for all of life, including and especially the unborn and the powerless.

Two, having said that, I know our fallen world makes application of a comprehensive and consistent pro-life position a challenge. Crime, poverty, self-defense, war, evil, hardened and unrepentant criminals . . . well, as they say, it all looks good on paper. The devil is in the application details (that’s two clichés in a row).

Three, when it comes to evaluating politicians running for office, I have to weigh their positions on all of the above before I make a choice. All the points above are important to me, but some do carry more weight than others. When I agonize over the scorecard, I have to struggle with the only opinion that ultimately matters – What does a comprehensive and consistent study of the Bible tell me? You tell me: Am I being too naïve and unrealistic?
0 Comments

How to defeat Isis.

1/17/2016

0 Comments

 
Now that I have your attention, let me clarify what this article is not about. It is not about offering political/military solutions to defeat ISIS or Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group (and there will be more). How to do that is way above my abilities. I am pretty confident, however, that jingoistic rhetoric like “carpet bombing” and “glowing sand” is not the solution unless we are willing to engage in total war, something we haven’t done since World War II. Waging total war in today’s world is not politically or militarily feasible, not to even bring up the ethical and theological issues. The candidates making those kinds of statements need to recruit some serious and experienced military advisors.

But I said this was not about political solutions. It is rather, about the church’s role in defeating ISIS. It is about what each individual Christian can do to defeat terrorists and any other threat to life and liberty. Four simply things:

One, make it a matter of prayer. Yes, we do pray for our country, our leaders (all of them), and our military forces. But I mean more than that. I mean reminding ourselves who the real battle is against. It is ultimately not against “flesh and blood” but “against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Eph. 6:12). That is, behind ISIS and other evils in this world stands the demonic. We can argue whether actual demons are involved or whether it is merely sinful human beings perpetuating sinful structures, but either way there is real evil in the world and there are spiritual forces behind these. I do not want to reduce the world’s problems to a simplistic “the devil is doing it.” We live in a complicated fallen world where we also have to consider psychological, sociological, economic, and political factors. My point is, are we willing to ask that God act in His way to defeat ISIS, Al Qaeda, the drug cartels, the KKK, the pornography business, human trafficking, and any other evil in the world? Yes, he may do it (most likely will) through human means. It is, however, a matter of having the right spiritual perspective. I need to learn this.

Two, make it a matter of distinction. That is, work at distinguishing who the real enemy is. We need to work at not generalizing. Not all Muslims are terrorists; not all Muslims are supportive of ISIS. In fact, Muslims are fighting against ISIS right now (and, yes, more moderate Muslim nations need to take the lead in doing so). Now, I oppose Islam as a belief system from a Biblical/theological basis. I do the same for Hinduism, Buddhism, Mormonism, and other religions. I cannot, however, hate their adherents. Jesus doesn’t allow me to. I cannot forbid them from having the same religious liberty I enjoy. Neither Jesus nor the Constitution will allow it. Similarly, I cannot lump the adherents of any of these religions into their respective extremes. I certainly don’t want them to do that with Christians. For example, I don’t want to be thoughtlessly lumped and dumped into one of the three extremes of Christianity (right, left, and . . . something). That is:

• I don’t want to be lumped with the rigid straight-jacket theology of, for example, Westboro Baptist Church, of jingoistic nationalists, and of the KKK and white supremacists.

• I don’t want to be lumped with the gelatinous mushy theology of, for example, Rob Bell, Oprah Winfrey, Dominic Crossan, and Bart Erhman.

• I don’t want to be lumped with the manipulative materialistic theology of, for example, the prosperity teachers like Osteen, Copeland, Meyer, Hinn, and Dollar.

Worse than that, I don’t want the other world religions to look at Hollywood, the multi-billion dollar pornography industry, our ubiquitous casinos and say “that’s Christian America!” So, let’s do the hard work of distinguishing between most Muslims who do believe a false religion but are not terrorists and those who take their religion to horrible extremes. I need to work harder at this.


Three, make some friends. Bottom line, how hard have we worked at simply being friends with the Muslim down the street? If we really want to reach them for Christ, doesn’t that begin with a simple “hello.” Ouch! I need to really work harder at this.

Four, make it about first Jesus and his Kingdom. Government authorities have a responsibility to protect us and the military is charged to do just that. We may disagree and argue heatedly over the best way for them to do it (I just wish candidates would move past crowd-baiting sound bites to some real policy talk). We need more Christians involved in political and military life. We also, however, need to make sure that as believers and as His church we are seeking first and foremost the good of the Kingdom. We must be good American citizens, but we are Kingdom citizens first. Furthermore, because followers of Jesus are members of His Kingdom we cannot be ruled by fear. Yes, it’s a scary world, but we must work hard to think and be like Jesus and not be driven by the fear drenched rhetoric of politicians and media. Remember politicians are concerned about being elected and the media wants ratings at any cost. Even if what they say is mostly true, we still need to act as Kingdom citizens – praying, loving, and offering the life of Christ in attitude, word, and deed. I need work harder at this.

How wrong might I be about all this? I don’t know, but I do know I have a lot to work on.

​By the way, my book Return to the Margins is on sale on
Amazon for $2.30. Get them while you can!
0 Comments

Hurt by church? Angered by church? Simply fed up? Here’s what to do.

1/10/2016

1 Comment

 
Gossipy members. Cliques, judgmental attitudes, and legalism. Selective moralism. Constant bickering, criticism, and in-fighting. Being ignored, under-appreciated, or flat-out rejected. “Pastor killing” congregations. Dictatorial and abusive pastors. Controlling deacons. Does any of this sound like a church you’ve belonged to? Served as pastor or staff? Sadly left?

Have you been hurt by a church? Offended by some in the church? Angered by a church? Have you simply been so frustrated with a church because it acts like a social club, does not do effective ministry and missions, or just does not do what a church is “supposed to do”? Have you actually left or been tempted to leave church and never go back?

I am confident the majority of Christians have seen, heard about, or experienced some of the above at some point in their lives. In fact, some of us have even contributed to these unfortunate situations (I confess!).

In recent years I have known pastors who have been wrongly fired by dysfunctional and unrepentant congregations. I know staff members who have left ministry altogether after serving under an unhealthy and insecure pastor. I know quite a few long-time church members who have simply gotten fed up with the same old “stuff” and have either dropped out or are considering leaving the local church. What to do when the church (yes, I mean the people) act these ways? How should we respond?

To begin with, there are three responses to avoid: One, we should not ignore, excuse, or overlook sinful behavior. Issues must be prayed about and dealt with according to Matthew 18. Two, we should also not respond in like manner. Scripture is clear that returning evil for evil is not an acceptable response (Luke 6:35; 1 Peter 3:9). Three, we should not abandon church, leaving the fellowship because of all those unspiritual, mean hypocrites. Sure, there may be a bunch of them, but what does it say about me when I make myself out to be so spiritually superior that I just dump the church? Sounds a bit like the Pharisee and the tax collector in Luke 18:10-14. Ouch!

So what are some appropriate responses?

One, choose to forgive. Oh, sure you say, the Sunday School answer. Well, that’s right. As followers of Jesus we have no choice but to forgive those who have wronged us, wronged others, or who have done damage to the church. Now, forgiving them does not mean we have to agree with them, that we avoid Biblical confrontation, or that church discipline is not called for. It also doesn’t mean there are occasions when it is time to move on and leave that particular local church. Forgiving does mean choosing not to hold a grudge, not to speak evil about that person, and perhaps overlooking a ton of offenses. Even though some offenses have to be dealt with according to Matthew 18, it doesn’t mean every single little offense has to be. Sometimes we just need to overlook things said or done to us out of love. No, I didn’t say it was easy. I have struggled myself plenty with forgiveness.

Two, adjust our expectations. I think we pretty much know we can’t find the perfect church, but I am talking about more than that. Re-read 1 Corinthians. Guess what? That is more normal than not. This whole church, body of Christ, “one another” stuff is a whole lot harder than we often care to admit. It takes work – the work of love, forgiveness, and overlooking a ton of stuff.

Three, improve our perspective. Take it a bit further than adjustment of individual expectations. As a matter of fact, take it way beyond the individual. That is, this whole church thing is pretty much what the New Testament is about. Yes, it does begin with individual regeneration, but there really is not, as the cliché goes, such a thing as churchless Christianity. Now, I know some would agree with that statement but then point to the universal church. “I am,” they say, “a part of the church. I just don’t really have to go to a church.” But the New Testament is all about the local gathering of believers. They are the universal Body of Christ and a local church. They go to a church at some point and in some fashion. Certainly, there is plenty of room for debate on different expressions of church, but my point is there is no excuse for not gathering on a regular basis with a body of believers. Biblically speaking, there is no other option. The local church is the culturally appropriate expression of the Kingdom. Could be a house church, could be a megachurch. There is something to the idea that the world will know us by how we gather, love each other, treat each other, and then reach out to them. I just can’t do that all by myself.

Four, consider the family. One of the Biblical images for the church is as the family of God. That image has a couple of implications. On the one hand, if it is like a family, then it is as messy and difficult as most families can be. Being a family is joyful and a wonderful blessing . . . and also at times hard work, frustrating, and annoying. On the other hand, some biological families are so dysfunctional and abusive that members are estranged from each other. Consequently, the church can be and should be the family for them. In fact, our eternal family will not be our biological family. It will be the church! Certainly, it is wonderful if our biological family is also part of the church family. But, bottom line, if we are the church and the church is a family and we are spending eternity together, we are compelled by Scripture to build that relationship now, hard as it may be.

None of this is to deny the real pain, disappointment, humiliation, anger, or frustration that we all sometimes experience. I have myself often wanted to scream, fight, mercilessly criticize, or just blow it all off and leave. I do give in to a bit of that temptation at times. At other times, I try to bite my tongue, take a long look in the mirror, work on forgiving, and thank God that he hasn’t revoked my church membership for the foolish things I have said and done.
1 Comment

people leaving church? maybe it's not tough enough.

12/13/2015

1 Comment

 
There has been a lot written recently about people leaving church. The primary concern has been about millennials. However, my limited observation is that there is also a pretty significant exodus of life-long Boomer church members. I have no idea whether research would confirm that observation (I’ll leave that up to Ed Stetzer and George Barna to figure out), but I know plenty of people my age who have disengaged and even dropped out.

Why are people leaving? All kinds of reasons have been given. I think one of the most compelling reasons is that the ongoing marginalization of the church is “encouraging” cultural Christians to drop the pretense. That is, being part of a committed community of believers is just starting to be too tough.

The flip side of that statement is that many people may be also leaving church because it hasn’t been tough enough.

What do I mean? Sociologists and anthropologists have long studied why groups cohere. Social Bonding Theory tells us that group cohesion involves attachment, commitment, involvement, and beliefs. That makes sense. But, the question is, what is it that creates and reinforces those four elements? What happens in groups that actually causes bonding? What lead the way are rituals and shared experiences. Think about some of the more common group bonding experiences:

**Military and combat experience. These life and death situations create the proverbial “band of brothers.”

**Sports teams. Winning and losing together create lifetime memories that only get better and better.

**Fraternities, sororities, and social clubs. Life-long friendships are made, especially among the pledges who shared “heck” week.

**Young couples who become friends while having babies and learn to be parents together.

**Mission trips that involve travel, hard work, close living quarters, and a focused purpose.

There are many other examples and they all involve some type of ritual and experience which could be described as demanding, difficult, challenging, dramatic, and even traumatic. Would it be fair to say that tough times create community better than good times?

So, why are some people leaving the church? Because too many churches and too much of what most churches offer is low risk and low reward. A church that has bought into too much consumerism offers non-demanding rituals and experiences. Come, sit, soak, and be anonymous. We won’t expect much, demand anything, and will cater to all your felt needs. Worse, when you have a generation of millennials that may have been over-protected, sheltered, and coddled, then when the going gets tough . . . they leave. (And, no, it is not just millennials).

What I am saying? Perhaps some people are leaving church because they eventually find it too easy. The experience isn’t significant enough (not even in the sociological, social bonding sense), there is nothing expected or demanded from them, and it is all just rather bland. They use church for their own self-interest and self-satisfaction, expect and want convenience, and . . . we give it to them.

Now, some churches have recognized the lack of true community, of true koinonia. These churches talk, therefore, of “authentic community” and “doing life together.” I don’t know how effective they have all been, but they have the right idea. Authentic community – true koinonia – requires doing life together, especially and including the tough, demanding, and messy aspects of life. These experiences create the bonding required for community, for true relationships, and for sticking it out when times get tough.

​As the church is marginalized more and more, and as the difference between cultural and committed believers shakes out, it is the tough times – the significant rituals and the life-changing, demanding experiences – which will both create community and be the line of separation between cultural and committed Christians. So, you want authentic, life-together, koinonia? You want the “one anothers” of Scripture to be real? Then create, expect, demand, and hope for some tough times. Make it worth being in church. Make it mean something. Make it about a whole lot more than “me.” In fact, be thankful for marginalization and potential persecution. They will really create community.

1 Comment

just a few ways we make god into our own image

11/29/2015

0 Comments

 
“When you did these things and I kept silent, you thought I was exactly like you.” Psalm 50:21a

It is not news that we humans tend to make God into our image. In one sense it’s understandable. That is, we are limited in our knowledge, our intelligence, and our language, so we struggle to wrap our figurative arms around the literal truth of God. Even when we are accurate in our descriptions of God, we are never comprehensive. We can accurately say that God is “holy,” that God is “love,” or that God’s attributes include wrath, justice, omnipotence, and omniscience. We are then immediately limited by human language and human experience in defining those. Even when we use the inspired words of the Bible, we have to remember that a perfect God accommodated himself in revelation to a fallen humanity. We can certainly know him personally and can talk about him accurately and confidently. We just have to do so with care and humility, fully aware of our limitations.

It is still rather amazing how quickly and easily we make him into our image. Humans always have. Whether through ignorance or rebellion, we too often talk about him in the most careless fashion, reflecting not what he has revealed about himself in Scripture but what we wish he were or assume he is based on our own experiences and fallen emotions. I am not talking about using crude terminology like “the man upstairs,” but of theological descriptions and understandings that are driven by our desires or fears. For example:

1. “When all is said and done, God will give you what you deserve.” That is, he will weigh out the good and the evil and your eternal destiny – punishment or reward – will be based on what you have done. After all, isn’t that what we believe and want justice to look like here and now? There is some truth in this view of God. For one, God’s justice requires that sin be punished; sin and sinners should get what they deserve. That is the “justice” bad news. In God’s plan of grace, mercy, and love, however, Jesus voluntarily took that punishment on himself at the cross. Justice was done. Sin and sinners got what they deserved, but, unlike our human conceptions of justice, the guilty did not pay the price. The innocent One did in our place. That is the “justice” good news!

There is also an element of truth in the ides of “getting what you deserve” in the sense that the Bible suggests there are levels of eternal punishment and levels of eternal reward, based on one’s deeds done while in this life. However, the “balance” or the weight given to these deeds do not determine eternal destiny, rather the weight given is determined by one’s previously determined eternal destiny. In other words, trust in Christ alone will lead to or weigh out rewards based on good deeds in this life. On the other hand, rejection of Christ will lead to an appropriate level of punishment for evil deeds done in this life.

So, seeing God in the same way that we see Lady Justice down at the courthouse is putting him into our image – our image of justice. Will justice be done? Yes, it already has been at the cross. Will I get what I deserve? Not for my sins, because Jesus paid for those. Will I be rewarded for good deeds done in and by faith in this life? Yes, and I trust him for what that will be.

2. “God is pure love, so he can do no other than forgive all.” The implication is that God is not seriously concerned with holiness or justice (unless, perhaps, it is for the other guy). This is a popular concept. Many people conceive of God as a benign, loving, grandfather in the sky who will ultimately overlook their sins (for theirs are not as bad as the other guy’s), so that all will be saved. As once infamously stated, “God will forgive me. After all, that’s his job.” This view refuses to see (hopes not to see?) any holiness or justice in the character of God. Instead, a sentimental love is projected on him in hopes that he will overlook the little bitty evil in our lives. Of course, if Hitler or Stalin or Bin Laden or any number of serial killers or pedophiles are mentioned, then “there is a special place in hell for them.”

​In this inconsistent view of God, sin is defined only as the most horrible and despicable acts against humanity, which someone else always commits. As long as one doesn’t fall into any of those extreme sinful categories, a loving and forgiving God will overlook sins (which somehow are never against him!), not on the basis of the work of the cross, but because he can surely only be kind and gentle. Ultimately, unless you are Charles Manson, God doesn’t really care what you do or believe. Believe whatever you want and live however you want, because in the end it will all be OK.

3. “God is good, God is love, and spiritual laws he has set up obligate him to bless me!” Well, yes, he is good and he is love. And, there are spiritual principles found in Scripture which apply to me, such as “Ask and it will be given you,” or “Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly.” These principles, however, have to be interpreted and applied correctly, taking into account what the Bible says elsewhere, such as “Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness” and “When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives.” Furthermore, these spiritual principles are never to be seen as above God in the sense that he is obligated to them. Yes, God keeps his promises; however, he is not obligated or bound to anything or anyone.

Bottom line, God is not a sky bound vending machine, who is obligated to bless and prosper me just because I insist on it or try to put some kind of human powered faith into action. My faith should be in him, not to direct or control him. That approach is one the crassest of the ways we make God into our human image. We measure prosperity by visible stuff. So, we want stuff, we like stuff, he’s gotta give us stuff.

In these examples, we are building an image of God based on either personal experience or personal desires. Why do we do this? Well, we are fallen, we are sinful, we are selfish, we are . . . so many things. Rather than go to Scripture to understand the God of perfect love, grace, mercy, holiness, justice, and righteousness as presented there, we project our highly imperfect understandings, desires, hopes, and expectations on him. And usually it is a disaster.
0 Comments

Love in the particular: three suggestions

11/23/2015

1 Comment

 
“I love humanity but I hate people” Edna St. Vincent Millay.

That quote attributed to the American poet/playwright has also been repeated in some fashion by Albert Einstein, Fyodor Dostoevsky (in The Brothers Karamazov), and by Linus of Peanuts fame. Most of us who read the quote are initially appalled by its crassness but then secretly admit we know exactly what she means. Why? Well, we humans are often a pretty difficult bunch to like, especially in the particular.

Oh, sure, we can easily speak of loving people in the abstract. We talk of loving each other, of loving the homeless, of loving the poor, of loving our neighbors, of all getting along in a great big group hug way. But then we have to deal with the guy down the street we can’t stand. We have to face the panhandler at the busy intersection every day as we drive to work. We have to work all day with people who get on our nerves.

Furthermore, those of us who are followers of Jesus speak of loving the church, loving sinners, loving the lost, and extending love, grace, and forgiveness to all. And then we have to deal with the particular sinner – me and you.

For many love in the abstract is easy while love in the particular is hard. Sure, some of you are just naturally the loving kind of people, but most of us love easily in the ideal world and then grit our teeth in reality. In fact, someone has observed that the more one idealistic one is in his/her love for humanity, the less they really like to be with people. Bottom line, it can really be hard for us to live together, much less love each other. So, what to do? Three suggestions:

One, although love involves feelings, it does not depend on them or usually start with them. Love starts with action. Choose to say and do the right things even to those you don’t particularly care about and even when you don’t feel like it. (Yes, I’m talking to me). Changed actions will eventually lead to changed feelings.

Two, understand that everyone has a story and many a person’s story is really tough. Stephen Covey in 7 Habits of Highly Effective People puts it this way: “Seek to understand before being understood.” Sure, sounds like something Grandma would say, but it’s true. Listen before you talk. There is a whole bunch in Proverbs about that.

Three, for those who are in, have been, or have avoided being involved in a local church: No, it is not any easier there. In fact, learning to be a community of Christ followers is hard, very hard. Just read some of the Apostle Paul’s letters in the New Testament. See, a born again believer is new in Christ – forgiven, redeemed, and saved. He or she, however, is still on a journey learning daily how to live and to do according to what he or she already is in Christ. And that can be very hard, especially if one’s story is a tough one. Remember that grace and forgiveness stuff? It works both ways. So, remember, it is a journey. We are all pilgrims in this together.

Unfortunately, too many on the outside of the church don’t get it and simply call us all hypocrites. Even more unfortunately, some on the inside of the church don’t get it and either place legalistic expectations on each other or just get frustrated and drop out. (I’m reminded that my friend Mike Lumpkin once told me he was running into so many pastors and church planters who loved the “idea” of church. They just didn’t love the church! Even leaders don’t always get it – you have to actually love people).

​This list of suggestions could certainly be much longer. In the end, however, we need to remember that love in the abstract – the ideal – is pretty easy. It is love in the particular that is hard, because the particular involves messy, irritating people, just like you and me.
1 Comment

our message is about . . . ? Part 2

11/15/2015

0 Comments

 
Continuing last week's post about the absolute necessity of the church's Christocentric message:

Our message must be all about Jesus Christ, and him crucified. Taking the previous point even further, the scandal of the cross cannot be avoided. In fact, not only should we not avoid the scandal of the cross, we should rejoice in it. It was a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks (1 Cor. 1:23), and it still is so for many today. To some world religions the cross still is foolishness. To others the cross is merely the unfortunate death of a good man. To us who believe, however, it is wisdom, power, salvation, love, and joy. Therefore, whatever our particular message may be to individuals and to American society, whatever particular aspect of life and culture we are addressing, whatever portion of Scripture we may be preaching and teaching, our message must at some point lead to the cross of Christ. Whether the cross is explicit or implicit in our message, whether it is our beginning point or our conclusion, or even when it may not be specifically mentioned, it must be the foundation, the core, and the driver of our message.

Our message must be about Jesus Christ and his Kingdom inaugurated. The crucified and resurrected Messiah is central to God’s Kingdom purposes. The work of Christ on the cross means that forgiven and justified sinners have been united to Christ, are members of the Kingdom, and are now, as saints, participating in God’s redemption and restoration of the creation. Because salvation and membership in the Kingdom includes all aspects of redemption – “spiritual, physical, bodily, social, relational, and political” – the church acts as the present, universal, and most importantly and effectively (albeit imperfectly) localized sign and agent of the Kingdom. As a community of the Spirit (and as local communities), the church lives, loves, and acts differently than the world, confronting not only personal sin, but also entrenched corporate and structural sin. This is because the loving and just God who dealt with the individual’s sin on the cross is the same loving and just God who deals with all sin in the fallen creation. He is the same God who is restoring the entire creation, partially now in the “already,” but ultimately, completely, and finally with the new heaven and the new earth. This means, once again, the story of the resurrected and living Lord Jesus Christ is the story, the overarching story, the metanarrative, that addresses personal sin, individual destiny, and the fallen-ness of the world. Whether poverty, war, economics, environmental stewardship, or any other societal ill, it matters in the Kingdom of Christ. 

Our message must be about Jesus Christ and his attitude. Having the right theology, the correct Christology, the conviction and passion about America as a mission field, an understanding of proper methodologies, and an unswerving confidence in the Bible and the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ is absolutely fundamental to the task. Yet, without the attitude of Jesus Christ, as expressed most profoundly in Phil. 2, we will have only sporadic and short-termed fruitfulness. Besides having a Biblical theology and Biblical methodologies, let me suggest that we ought also to practice certain Biblical attitudes:

a. Boldness tempered by humility. The American mission field needs to hear a consistent and constant word about the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and his saving work on the cross. We must be confident and bold in that assertion. At the same time, the message must be communicated with an attitude of humility. That is, we must have the attitude of Paul, who was “not ashamed” (2 Tim. 1:12) of the gospel of salvation for sinners, but who was also well aware that he was the “worst of them” (1 Tim. 1:15-16). Although the gospel of Jesus Christ is absolute and true regardless of our behavior and attitudes as believers, sinful behaviors and wrong attitudes are unnecessary obstacles to preaching, hearing, and responding to the message. Consider that Jesus saved his harshest words for the religious establishment and not for the lost. His rebukes were strongest toward his disciples, who should have known better. Yes, he confronted the world, but when people rejected him it was because of the truth and not because of an attitude.

b. Truth telling tempered by love. Similarly, the message must always be the truth about the Truth – Jesus Christ. Yet we should not use expressing the truth as an excuse to lambaste someone we don’t like, agree with, or approve of. There are times to confront, to speak boldly, to not back down. Is our driving motivation, however, to win an argument or to show the love of God for the sinner?

c. Passion tempered by acceptance. Our passion for the gospel, to see individual lives change, and to see the transformation of communities and society should not blind us to several realities we must accept: One, lost people are usually going to act like lost people, and Jesus promised the world will hate us. Why, then, are we surprised in America when that is the case? Two, not everyone will believe. Results will be mixed. There will be both wheat and tares. Three, even when we agree as evangelicals on the central premises of the gospel and are unified on the primary purpose of the church, we will still not agree on the details and the applications. We will continue to have “family fights” until Jesus returns. Therefore, we need passion, but we must also accept that we are still imperfect people who belong to an imperfect church ministering in a fallen world.

For American evangelical churches to impact our ever changing culture, the first question to be answered is: “What are we going to do about Jesus?” That is, who do we say that He is? What are we saying about Him in our preaching, our teaching, our lifestyles, our churches, and our attitudes? On the one hand we must confront the false and deficient Christologies found in world religions. On the other hand, there are times when the evangelical world has to examine the Jesus it proclaims. Have we misrepresented Him? Manipulated Him? Preached a deficient, incomplete, and wimpy Jesus? Have we allowed Him to be captive to our ideology, our culture, and our personal experiences? Who do we say that He is and what are we going to do about it?

​
0 Comments

Our message is about . . . ? Part 1

11/7/2015

2 Comments

 
Some cultural observers have noted that the twenty-first century is a lot like the first century in terms of spiritual interest, spiritual pluralism, and cultural change. The first century was one of great advances. The Pax Romana had forced an end to tribal and territorial wars, had established a relative peace and prosperity throughout the known world, and had put into place a common administrative system. This “peace,” along with the building of a road system, allowed for greater commerce, travel, and exchange between nations and peoples. Great cosmopolitan cities grew, ideas flourished and exchanged, and religions of all kinds moved beyond their territories of origin. The end result was a world in transition, of people movements, and of spiritual interest and awakening. Pagan religions, mystery religions, syncretistic practices, and a pluralism not seen in previous days prevailed. Perhaps the most distinguishing characteristic of the first century world, which was both its greatest challenge and greatest opportunity, was that the majority of the world was lost! The harvest was “abundant,” as Jesus said in Luke 10:2; the fields were “ready for harvest” (John 4:35).

This was the world in which the first Christians found themselves. They were alternately persecuted, received, scattered, listened to, praised, and ridiculed. Whatever the case, people came to faith in Christ, churches were planted, and the church as a whole grew. In a predominantly pagan and hostile society, with intermittent (and later consistent) persecution, this small minority “turned the world upside down” (Acts 17:6).

The twenty-first century is similar in many ways, one being that the harvest is great once again, especially in America. The growing secularization of society, disappointment in modernity and the move to post-modernity, the great movements of people, the new “road system” called the internet, growing acceptance of world religions, and the almost assumed values of tolerance and pluralism make twenty-first America much like the first century world.

This provides both a great opportunity and a great challenge for the evangelical church: On the one hand, many people may be spiritually interested and hungry; on the other hand, they too easily follow the latest amateur celebrity guru, or simply practice cafeteria religion, picking and choosing what they want to create their “religion for one.” On the one hand more people may want to know about Jesus and what the Bible says; on the other hand, they do not automatically accept the authority of the Bible (much less that of the church), and add Jesus to other well-known gurus. On the one hand, the church has the answer: Jesus Christ, the only, eternal, crucified, and living Son of God; on the other hand, we are not always very good at communicated that reality in the American culture. We bemoan the changes and the deterioration of the culture at large, but are too blind to our own cultural captivity. The only conclusion is that America is a mission field. So, what must our message be about?Simply . . .

Our message must be about Jesus Christ. The great temptation of the last two thousand years has been to make Jesus into our image by fitting him, his teachings, and his work into cultural, ideological, personal, or religious categories that do not fully reflect Scripture. This is a temptation for all of us, which we sometimes succumb to intentionally in order to support a presupposition, but which more often we are unaware of as we assume Jesus fits into a personal or cultural mold or pattern. The challenge for the evangelical church in America is to strive to faithfully present the Jesus of the Bible. One flip of the television channel or one visit to the popular Christian book store reveals that careless Christology creates confusion within the church and scorn in the world. With a multiplicity of deficient Christologies clamoring for attention, we must continually return to the Scriptures for the historical facts, for explanation, for correction, and for instruction. We have to get Jesus “right!”

Our message must be about the totality of Jesus Christ. Avoiding the temptation of presenting our own personal Jesus also means we must strive to present all of Jesus Christ. A holistic, balanced Christology requires presenting him as the incarnate and only begotten Son of God, fully divine and fully human, and yet sinless. It also means we must present all of what he said and did, and what the inspired writers of the New Testament confirmed and explained about him and his work. Certainly, there are hard sayings of Jesus; yes, there are challenging passages by Paul. We can and should move forward confidently driven by a Christology based on the entire New Testament and not on some personal “canon within the canon,” whether liberal or conservative.

​Our message must begin and end with Jesus Christ. By that I mean two things: One, Jesus Christ is the overarching, all-encompassing metanarrative. His "story" answers and covers all other stories. Therefore, our message cannot be compartmentalized to say that Jesus answers only spiritual needs, or only the needs of the individual, or only the Western person’s quest, and that there are other answers for other peoples or other aspects of life. Rather, all people and all of life are addressed by all of Jesus. Two, although there are specific personal, family, and social issues the church must address and respond to, these cannot be dealt with apart from the person and work of Jesus. Yes, poverty must be addressed, but the ultimate answer is Jesus Christ. Yes, the breakdown of the family must be addressed, but the ultimate answer is Jesus Christ. And so on. This is not to denigrate or minimize any particular passion, issue, or ministry, but to say that any passion, issue, or ministry devoid of a balanced and holistic Christology may be a good work, but ultimately spiritually unsatisfactory and eternally lacking.

​Next week: Our message is about . . . ? Part 2
2 Comments

The “Politics” of Jesus or the Political Rebel?

10/27/2015

0 Comments

 
In Matthew’s account of Jesus’ trial before Pilate, the governor gives the people a choice. Because it was the Passover Feast he had the custom of releasing a prisoner chosen by the crowd (27:15). He asked them whether they wanted to release a “notorious prisoner, called Barabbas” or “Jesus who is called the Christ” (v.17).

Barabbas was probably a “notorious” insurrectionist, arrested by the Romans, and condemned to die. His notoriety, however, was probably viewed as heroic to the people in the crowd. He had stood up to the Roman oppressors and could now be released. According to scholar Donald Carson, it is highly likely that Barabbas and the two “thieves” crucified with Jesus were co-rebels (the word used for “thief” or “robber” is inadequate; the fact they were condemned to die means their crime was far more serious). Therefore, notes Carson, the “fact that three crosses were prepared strongly suggests that Pilate had already ordered that preparations be made for the execution of the three rebels. If so, Jesus the Messiah actually took the place of the rebel Barabbas, because the people preferred the political rebel and nationalist hero to the Son of God.” Think on that a minute.

So, here is the situation:

-- Some people believed Jesus was the Messiah; however, they expected and wanted a political and military hero who would overthrow the Roman government and re-establish the kingdom right then and there in Jerusalem.

-- The fact that Jesus had been arrested and tried and apparently was headed to his death was a shock to these folks. Some, like the disciples, despaired and hid. Others were probably so disappointed they reacted in anger. “If this Jesus wasn’t going to help free us from the Romans,” they thought, “we might as well give Barabbas another chance.”

-- The chief priests and the elders simply took advantage of the confusing situation and “persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed” (v.20). For them Barabbas was not their problem. He was, rather, a political problem for the Romans. On the other hand, Jesus was a serious problem for them, because he challenged their authority and entire system of belief.

-- Pilate caved to the demands of the people, released Barabbas, and condemned Jesus.

I want to return to Carson’s point about the people’s choice; i.e. “the people preferred the political rebel and nationalist hero to the Son of God.” Now, Jesus’ life and death were political in the sense that he challenged the religious and political status quo, upended prevailing social, economic, and ethical norms, and focused on the outcast and marginalized of society (women, children, the sick, the demon possessed, Samaritans, Gentiles, and others). In that sense, Jesus was a political radical.

He was not, however, the kind of political rebel and nationalist that Barabbas was. He never resorted to or encouraged violence and was clear that his kingdom was quite unlike those of this world. He did go first to his own, the people of Israel, but his message was for the Gentiles, too. He was not a nationalist, but a global thinker (to use a modern term). Jesus’ “politics” were far superior in content and lasting impact than those of Barabbas. But, yet, the people preferred Barabbas, one who represented a short-term and human-centered solution.

What about today’s contentious political environment? What about the options we have? We must listen to candidates and we must eventually make a choice for one. In our selection, will we shove Jesus’ eternal, kingdom, peaceful, and comprehensive “politics” to the background and chose instead the temporal, violent, and self-centered politics of the rebel, the nationalist, the ideologue, the reactionary, the establishment hack, the one with the slickest ads, the most money, the legion of celebrity endorsements, and the golden tongue?

​Of course, we do live in the here and now and must participate in our temporal and imperfect system. So, I’ll pick one of those to vote for (maybe while I hold my nose), but Lord, please help me to not overlook Jesus and his kingdom while I do.
0 Comments

Why this evangelical doesn’t need any more pandering from presidential candidates. 

10/19/2015

1 Comment

 
Although pandering by politicians to get the “evangelical voting bloc” is not nearly as big a deal as it has been in the last couple of decades, it still takes place. Most politicians (Republicans all) believe their chances of election are enhanced, if not guaranteed, if they can prove their “values” line up with those of evangelicals. Well, perhaps they do, and perhaps it helps. I do think we are only a couple of rounds of elections away before all that goes away. Here’s why I think the “bloc” will go away and why I am ready for them to leave me alone:

One, the “evangelical bloc” is not what it used to be. Until recently the bloc (as politicians saw it) was mostly white, middle-aged, and infused with a syncretistic American civil religion. Yes, they were pro-life (a good thing), pro-family (also good), and for religious liberty (another good thing) but too often equated Americanism with Christianity and militarism with biblical conviction. The evangelical today is still pro-life and pro-traditional family. She recognizes, however, that “seeking first the kingdom of God” does not mean living the American Way of Life, much less necessitate vitriolic nationalism. She does not immediately buy into popular versions of American exceptionalism (as exceptional as we truly may be).

The newer (younger?) evangelical also has a more balanced (and biblical) concern for the environment, for economic inequalities and opportunities, for immigrants seeking to be part of the American dream, for speaking to pro-life and pro-family issues with both conviction and kindness, and so on. They are less concerned about “holding on” to some idealized golden past than they are with being part of God’s mission in the world in spite of temporal partisan politics. They appreciate the past, but realize that biblical Christianity is forward looking. Politicians will continue to speak to the old bloc, still large and important, but diminishing in size and influence.

Two, the pandering has all too often become fake, cynical, and transparent (can you spell Trump?). Politicians, don’t tell us what you think you want us to hear, just tell us the truth about all your beliefs, your stands, your values, your convictions, and what you will do. Yes, some do, and all should, regardless of whether or not they are speaking to evangelicals (but that may be too much to ask). Having said all that, this is exactly why political outsiders lead in the polls. They are speaking more truthfully (I didn’t say absolutely truthfully) more often than politicians usually do. Not that I agree with all they say, but their popularity is understandable. The other establishment guys should learn something from this; but apparently they aren’t.

Three, evangelicals have been burned too many times. The Religious Right married the Republican Party. Certainly, the Republicans lined up more with evangelicals than Democrats did, but that marriage meant we lost too much of our prophetic voice. We need to regain it. We especially need to regain it because the Republican presidential candidate of 2024 will be pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. If not, he/she will not be elected. Think about it. If the demographic changes of the last five years stay the course . . . just think about it.

Four, and most importantly, evangelicals are more and more setting partisan politics and nationalistic tendencies aside and asking “what is the comprehensive biblical view as it relates to all these issues?” That is, not just “what does the Bible say about abortion and gay marriage, but what does it say (and how can we apply it) about poverty, war, immigration, gun violence, crime, and all other kinds of social issues?” That is, many of us need to move beyond simple favorite verses to doing the hard work of biblical theology. Of course these are not new questions and going to Scripture is not a new tactic! There is, however, a new desire on the part of evangelicals to take into account the whole counsel of Scripture and apply it to all social, political, and economic issues, not just to the most egregious moral ones. Yes, it is hard work! (Warning: shameless plug. See my growing feeble efforts here www.christoculture.com/flight-plan-for-21st-c.html).

Now, I am just an old, white, middle-class evangelical myself. I have voted against more candidates than for any over the last couple of decades. I still struggle with how to be politically aware, concerned, and involved (as I believe we should be) without being sucked into partisan ideologies and politicking. Besides, I may have completely misread all this! I do know, however, that I am tired of overly simplistic answers from pandering politicians to serious and complicated issues.

I want – really want – to think and act biblically and theologically in my politics. I am more interested than ever in having a kingdom vision of reality and not simply an American vision. Am I patriotic? Yes. Do I want to see America “great again”? Of course. I think the big issue is how we define “great.” Hasn’t that been part of our political struggles for over two hundred years?
1 Comment

What I learned from three homeless men.

9/7/2015

1 Comment

 
A few years back I was in Corpus Christi, TX with Brent Burden, videographer for the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention. We were there taping some interviews and city shots for a state missions offering promotional video. While walking along Shoreline Drive Brent ran into three homeless men sitting on the lower steps of the seawall enjoying the sun and a cold beer. After a few minutes, they agreed to be interviewed in exchange for us buying them dinner.

We spent nearly three hours in fascinating conversation. These three guys were thoroughly engaging, totally honest, and had a great sense of humor. I walked away wondering how many homeless had similar stories. I know that many homeless people suffer from mental illnesses, not to mention drug and alcohol addictions. In fact, many of us probably assume this is the case for most of the homeless. All three of these battled with alcohol to some degree. One was a former New York stockbroker who drank himself into homelessness. Another was a former truck driver who had run out of work, made some bad decisions, and lost it all. He admitted he had “conquered my addiction to drugs but just can’t get past alcohol.” Both, however, were intelligent, articulate, and fully aware of the problems they had brought on themselves. The third gentleman was the only one who gave hints of a mental health struggle. Apparently he was a Marine veteran of the first Gulf War who never fully readjusted to civilian life. During most of the conversation he was quite coherent, but occasionally exhibited some fractured thinking.

I have never forgotten the hours with those men. Although I had previously talked with beggars and even bought meals for them, had at times encountered the obviously mentally ill street person, and had served meals to the homeless in shelters, this was the first time I had engaged the homeless on a personal level for an extended period. Some learnings and observations (certainly not scientific; simply based on these guys):

  1. Yes, drugs and alcohol abuse were a significant part of their spiral into homelessness. It was obvious and these men readily admitted as much.

     

  2. Homeless people stick together and see themselves as family. They have to.

     

  3. These guys were careful not to litter. When we were done talking and started to walk over to the restaurant to buy them gift cards, one of them picked up the trash around them and joked: “Hey, we don’t litter. This is where we live.”

     

  4. Even good “church people” can fall into homelessness. After lengthy conversation with these men about spiritual matters I discovered that two of the guys knew a lot of Bible. I am also convinced the former truck driver was a believer. He was simply one who had fallen into addiction and its ugly consequences.

     

  5. These guys had a great sense of humor. They were funny, self-deprecating, and more than willing to banter back and forth with us. One of the funniest exchanges was over the gift cards we were going to get them. Brent and I wanted to get cards from a nearby restaurant. The former stockbroker really wanted us to get them from Stripes, a convenience store chain. I laughed and told him I wasn’t as stupid as I looked, because I knew they sold beer at that store. He went on and on about me needing to “be a friend” and get him a Stripes card. We went back and forth, quite humorously, with me refusing and he laughingly insisting it was the right thing and easiest thing to do.

     

  6. Humor helped them deal with the ironic injustices in their lives. The truck driver had spent the previous night in jail for using a construction site portable toilet without permission. He said there was a sign prohibiting the use by outsiders, but he didn’t want to “go” on the sidewalk.  He laughingly commented, “I spent the night in jail for trying to do the right thing!”

     

  7. They easily discerned which Christians and which churches had a genuine interest in them as people and who was just trying to score a quick spiritual good deed. They were quite complimentary of Bay Area Fellowship for their consistent, compassionate, and authentic ministry on the streets of Corpus Christi. Ironically, while we were talking two men came up and did the quick tract and “come to church” hand-off and moved on.

     

  8. They were keenly aware that most people are afraid of the homeless. They were both amused and saddened by this, because “most of us are nice people. We don’t want to hurt anyone.”

     

  9. Finally, they appreciate it when they are treated as people and not projects, boogie men, or objects of pity. They thanked Brent and me over and over for taking the time to talk to them and to do so as real people. They didn’t want to be treated with pity, fear, anger, or do-gooder condescension. Just people to people.  

I don’t know have all the answers to homelessness or any other social ills. I do know the causes can be, like most of life’s problems, paradoxically both simple and complex. I also know that Jesus treated every person he encountered with respect, dignity, and as a bearer of the image of God (flawed though it may be). Yes, he felt compassion and demonstrated pity and mercy. With the self-righteous he expressed impatience and anger. He never was, however, condescending, demeaning, or superior in his attitude toward them. If the Lord of lords and King of kings can be that way, how can I not at least try?

1 Comment

Top Five Misused Bible Passages

8/27/2015

1 Comment

 
OK, so we all do it every now and then. It is actually quite easy to do. We hear Scripture passages quoted, they are the result of poor exegesis and tagged on to sermons (not I, of course!), they become overly familiar, and we sometimes just assume we know that they mean.  In some cases, these passages are obviously ripped out of context and misinterpreted. In other cases, the original intent of the passage is simply ignored and a contemporary application is made that may or may not fit.  And, there are probably hundreds of examples which could be given.  Here are just five of the ones I see most often (and of which I have been guilty a time of two):

  1. “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” John 8:32. This verse is often used in reference to “truth” in general as opposed to falsehood in general. As important as “truth” is in any situation, the full passage states “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Knowing the truth is tied to the Truth, the person of Jesus Christ; that is, obeying his teaching and thus giving evidence of being his followers.  That’s the condition for knowing the truth that sets one free. It is not just generic truthfulness, as important as that may be. It is Him.

     

  2. “Do not judge.” Matthew 7:1. This passage is often used to ward off criticism or an unappreciated attempt at accountability. It is also used by one person to shame another who may be judging the character or behavior of a third party. The passage, however, does not forbid any and all judgment or discernment. New Testament scholar Donald Carson points out the preceding Sermon on the Mount requires “that decisive judgments be made.” The point, rather, is not to judge thoughtlessly, non-reflectively, and with condemnation in mind. That is, make sure you are first taking care of your own stuff! Yes, sometimes we must make judgments, but we also must be sure that we are willing to be judged by the same standard. The command, therefore, is to avoid hypocritical condemnation. The Bible often calls on us (especially as a church body) to discern, evaluate, and even judge the character and behavior of others. It is to be done, however, carefully, humbly, graciously, with love, and for the purpose of restoration (see Galatians 6: 1-5), not rejection or condemnation.

     

  3.  “And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.” Philippians 4:19. Well, yes, he will. However, this passage is too often appropriated by those who confuse needs with wants. It is often taken to be a promise that God will give us anything and everything we want, however and whenever we want it. The context of the passage is Paul’s explanation that he has learned to be content with whatever he has, as little as it may be. He has also learned that God will supply for the needs of the Philippians because they have sacrificed in their gift of support for Paul. This is needs meeting in the context of sacrificial giving.

      

  4. “I can do everything through him who gives me strength.” Philippians 4:13. In the same section is the verse infamously appropriated by some when scoring touchdowns, landing a coveted job, qualifying for the American Idol contest, and pretty much getting whatever is dreamed of. Again, yes, God is interested in all aspects of our life. But Paul is saying here that he has found that he can live and minister in whatever situation he finds himself, whether in plenty or in want. The appropriate application is along the lines of “I can live, work, and minister in whatever circumstances I find myself.”

     

  5. “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.” Proverbs 22:6. This verse if often interpreted as a promise that if parents raise their children the correct way, it is guaranteed children will always do the right thing. Besides the fact that scholars differ on the exact meaning of the verse, experienced parents know that they can do all the right things in the right way, but children, as they get older, will often reject godly teaching and simply choose go to the wrong way. Without a doubt, training kids up in the right way certainly stacks the odds in favor of a godly life, but proverbs are not promises, they are, well, proverbs.  That is, they are meant to be wise sayings and instructions for practical living. They state general truths rather than specific commands or promises. They are based on godly experience and are true in that they can be trusted when understood and applied wisely. They are not, however, guarantees or promises. In fact, in some cases they must be applied differently in different situations. See, for example, the complementary sayings in Pr. 26:4 and 5.

Now, I am not judging anyone for misusing these verses, but I do believe if they know the truth about them they will be set free so that they can go on to do anything they desire through Christ who gives them strength.

What are some of your “favorites”?

1 Comment

What Will Be Your Authority?

8/10/2015

1 Comment

 
Part 2: The Church at an Authority Crossroads

 We are living in an age that rejects the certainty and absolutism of the rationalist and empiricist. No metanarrative (overarching story), whether of religion, reason, or science is accepted. Truth is local, which implies that ethics are relative and open to change. Religious revelation and experience are accepted, but they, too, are constructs of personal experience and the community, and only “semi-authoritative.” That is, they are true, but only true for you.

As Evangelical Christians face these historical and philosophical realities and their implications for church, ethics, and culture, we return to the question “What authority will we cling to?”


The Bottom Line


Evangelical Christians agree that the Bible is inspired, authoritative, dependable, and trustworthy, with all that is needed for faith and life. We may define and debate the exact meaning and mode of inspiration, for example, but we agree that God’s word is our final authority for guidance, direction, and decision making in life. We may disagree on our hermeneutical approach, the specific exegesis to a passage, and the application of a particular teaching to our lives, but we agree that the starting point is the written word of God. 

This bottom line should engender both confidence and humility. We are confident that God has spoken and spoken to us, and that we can know accurately, if not exhaustively, what the truth is. We are humble because we are aware of textual difficulties, translation differences, different hermeneutical methods, and especially of our own sinfulness and limitations. The evangelical Christian, therefore, appeals to the authority of Scripture based on Pre-modern, Modern, and Post-modern understandings of authority.

With the Pre-modern we agree that the Bible is the revealed word of God. That word was revealed in many ways: prophets “spoke from God” (2 Pet. 1:21), Jesus spoke the words God gave him (John 17:8), Paul wrote letters recognized as Scripture (2 Pet.3:16), John experienced a direct vision of the risen Jesus (Rev. 1:1, 12-13). In every case it is an authoritative word, applicable to the first hearers/readers and applicable to us today. We may struggle with understanding the original meaning and its current application, but we must cling to the Bible as the ultimate authority that judges all other claims to authority.

With the Modern we agree that reason and experience are real and are to be used as tools. God gave us the ability to think and analyze (Lk. 14:28-32), to design, plan, and build (see the tabernacle, the temple, Solomon’s projects, and the walls of Jerusalem), and to observe and measure the world (1 Kings 4:33-34). Unlike the Modern, however, we do not cling to reason and experience as ultimately authoritative. They are to be understood and practiced as derivative from God and within his sovereign rule. They are gifts from him and not inherent in us nor inherently good. With the preacher of Ecclesiastes we know that all reason and experience is vain and “wearies the body” (Ecc.12:12) if not grounded in the fear and obedience of God (12:13).

This “moderated” Modernity thus rejects the blind authoritarianism of the Pre-modern, which was often grounded in the politics, intrigues, and power of church leaders rather than in Scripture. It does not mean an acceptance of the Modern autonomous individual. Faith and the discovery of truth are individual; however, in the Bible the individual is always understood to exist in community, whether family, clan, tribe, nation, or as a member of the Body of Christ. Faith and truth are best discovered and practiced in community.

We also agree with the Modern that there is absolute, objective, and certain truth. There is a metanarrative – a story – which encompasses all reality and answers all ultimate questions about life. That is God’s story as revealed in his written word and manifested historically, particularly, and perfectly in the life of Jesus Christ. This is the authority we cling to.

With the Post-Modern, however, we agree that we are all, to some degree, constructs of our environment and our community, whether family, race, culture, or nation. Although there is an objective and absolute truth we strive to comprehend and practice, we are not objective. As fallen human beings we must humbly acknowledge our limitations, our biases, and our perspectives. Therefore,

  1. Absolute truth is a reality. It is found in the revelation of our Trinitarian God. God acted in the history of Israel, the incarnation of the Son perfectly revealed the Father, and the Holy Spirit inspired the writing and subsequent recognition of the sixty-six books of the canon.

     

  2. Absolute truth is not just information about God. Absolute truth is found in the person and work of Jesus Christ. This means we can hold to the exclusivity of Jesus Christ and argue that his story is the story or metanarrative that answers all stories.

     

  3. We can know truth sufficiently, correctly, and with certainty. We cannot know truth exhaustively or perfectly, because our sinfulness, our culture, and our experience get in the way. This is not reason for despair, but reason for faith and humility.

     

  4. We cling to the authority of the Bible with confidence. We acknowledge textual, translation, and interpretation difficulties, but we can trust the Bible in our hands.

     

  5. Although we hold to the priesthood of all believers and the freedom for each believer to read and interpret the Scriptures, we believe that the best reading, interpreting, and application is done in community. We need each other. On the one hand, we must avoid incorrect hyper-individualism. On the other hand, we want to avoid group-think. Trusting in and listening to the Holy Spirit, respecting and listening to others, and letting the plain sense of Scripture judge all of our perceptions, perspectives, and interpretations, we move closer to the true understanding and the best application.



Conclusion

 As we are moved closer and closer to the margins of society and culture, we will have to make a decision about ultimate authority. Will it be something in humanity, whether reason or experience? Will it be culture itself – the prevailing mood, the preference of the majority, or the path of least resistance? Or, will it be what the marginalized church has always clung to: the living, authoritative, trustworthy word of God. We must cling to it and its authority, always willing ourselves to be judged, rebuked, and corrected by its teachings. We learn from other sources of authority. We listen and consider the claims of other authorities. But in the end, when push will come to shove, we cling to the authority of the Bible, no matter the cost.

1 Comment

Jesus was not really that nice

6/1/2015

7 Comments

 
There is this conception in popular religiosity that Jesus was first and foremost a really nice guy. His teachings may have been tough, he certainly stood up to those vile religious leaders, but bottom line, he was super nice. The fact that he was killed, some think, proves the point. A really good man was killed by those who simply did not like him or understand him.

Well, he was a really good man and he was killed by those who didn't like him or understand him. There were also many instances when he was really nice. But niceness does not begin to describe Jesus.

Webster's Dictionary defines nice, among other interesting things (look it up) as "pleasing,"  "agreeable,"  "respectable," and "socially acceptable." When most people say someone is a nice person, they imply that she is easy to get along with, never demanding, and always pleasant to be around.

Now, Jesus was and demonstrated perfect love, mercy, and compassion, to a degree that our fallen human nature cannot begin to fully comprehend. That is true. But always agreeable, easy to get along with, pleasing, and socially acceptable? I don't think so.

He certainly took on the ruling religious leaders a bunch, challenging both their words and their actions. He criticized them to their faces and behind their backs. They hated him for it.

But what about every one else? He graphically challenged his hearers to deal immediately and radically with sin (Mark 9:43-48). He criticized his disciples for having little faith (Matt.8:26). He pronounced serious judgment on entire cities (Matt. 11:20-24). He appeared to reject his mother and family, a definite cultural faux pas (Matt.12:46-49). He severely rebuked Peter (Matt. 16:23). He referred to some of his disciples as an "unbelieving and perverse generation" (Matt. 17:17). He turned away the Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7:24-30). He criticized the lack of faith of all Israel (Luke 7:9). He actually states that he will bring division to families (Luke 12:49-53). He even dares to say that a lack of repentance will lead to perishing! (Luke 13:5).

Perhaps most famously, Jesus made a whip and drove the sellers out of the temple (John 2:12-16. He violated all kinds of social norms by talking to the Samaritan woman and even called her on the carpet for her immorality (John 4:16). He didn't seem to care that his hard teachings would drive people away (John 6:53-66). And on and on.

Here is my point: Jesus was perfect and sinless, fully God and fully human. Consequently, he was perfectly loving, merciful, and compassionate. That does not, however, equal to the popular conceptions some have of Jesus being "nice" or of Christianity supposedly being a "nice" religion. As Christ followers we are to be like him and demonstrate love, mercy, and compassion.  That does not mean that sin should not be confronted (especially in our own lives and in the church), that truth should not be stated (yes, in love), and that sometimes the most loving, compassionate, and merciful thing to do is to confront someone. Love often means correction, admonition, and accountability. Those who read and follow the whole counsel of God know this. Those who are on the periphery of Christianity or who are outside looking it too often confuse being a follower of Jesus with being milquetoast nice. Not the same thing.

Now, having said that, believing in accountability and proclaiming the truth is no excuse for being a jerk!  See Galatians 6:1-5. But, that is a different article for another time.

7 Comments

Father, forgive us our mistakes?

5/3/2015

0 Comments

 
In 1973 the renowned psychiatrist Karl Menninger penned a book titled What became of sin? His premise was that our society had chosen to minimize, redefine, rename, and even ignore sin. In one sense doing so is nothing new to the fallen condition. There is, however, the ever increasing notion (and much greater since 1973), that people are only guilty of the occasional mistake.  The worst we do is make mistakes and the only somewhat unforgiveable act is not to admit to them. To refer to our condition or our behaviors as sin is too harsh, negative, judgmental, and condemning.

For example, when a prominent figure is caught in an indiscretion – adultery, tax evasion, bribery, abuse of power, whatever – he does usually apologize, but for mistakes, never for doing wrong and much less for sinning.  Worse still, the statement is often along the lines of “mistakes were made.” There is not even the willingness to say I or we made mistakes; somehow they were made in a vacuum where no one is held accountable.

Unfortunately, this has also become more prominent in our popular religious language. We hear sermons that say God overlooks your mistakes, forgives your mistakes, and gives you a second change from all your mistakes. Well, he does, but the situation is more serious than that.

See, according to Merriam-Webster, a mistake is “to blunder in the choice of” (like turning right instead of left), “to misunderstand the meaning or intention of” (as in “I thought you said to meet you at 9 AM, not PM”); to “make the wrong judgment of the character or ability of” (as in the Cowboys should have drafted Bill instead of Bob); and “to identify wrongly” (as in “Sorry, I thought you were someone else”). As a noun mistake means “a wrong action or statement proceeding from faulty judgment, inadequate knowledge, or inattention.” From this definition a mistake is accidental, often morally or ethically neutral (but not always in consequences), and usually due to our limited human abilities.  A mistake may arise out of sin or lead to sin, but does not come close to addressing the behaviors often masqueraded as sin.

How do these scriptures sound? Psalm 51:4 – “Against you, you only, have I made a mistake.” John 8:11b – “Go now and leave your life of mistakes.” Romans 3:23 – “For all have made mistakes and fallen short of the glory of God.” 2 Cor. 5:21 – “God made him who made no mistakes to be a mistake for us.” Just doesn’t quite work, does it?

Some will object and say I am being pretty harsh, negative, and too focused on what is wrong with people and that I should not focus so much on sin but on God’s grace and forgiveness.  But that is just the point. Until and unless we understand the depths of our depravity and the seriousness of sin and its consequences against God and against each other, we can never fully appreciate the grace of God. If the worst I ever do is “make mistakes” then God’s grace is really not necessary.  I am not a guilty sinner who needs forgiveness, saving, cleansing, and healing, but just a bumbling human being who needs a pat on the back, a simple word of encouragement, and a “go give it another try.” If the worst we ever do is make mistakes in our relationships with each other, then the hurt, the pain, and the destructive consequences of our actions are really no big deal.  Hey, get over it. I just made a mistake, OK?

No. Sin is serious. It is against God, against our fellow human beings, against His creation, and against ourselves. Yes, sin involves elements of misjudgment, misinformation, and misunderstanding, but it is so much more. Adultery is not simply a mistake. The pedophile did does not need to go to prison because he made mistakes. 9/11was not caused by a series of mistakes. Corruption, abuse of power, and oppression of a fellow human being are not simply the results of a mistake ridden life. Mistakes did not lead to slavery, the rise of Nazism, the killing fields of Cambodia, and Charles Manson. Mistakes are not the cause of corporate greed, rampant abortion, and oppressive poverty.  There is something much deeper and far more serious at work. Sin, perhaps?

Admitting to the reality and seriousness of sin, individually and corporately, means it can and must be addressed by the cross of Christ. Specifically naming the sin in confession and repentance means that its causes, dynamics, and consequences can be identified, addressed, and graciously forgiven.  I don’t need to tell my wife, “Sorry, I made a mistake.” I need to tell her, “Please forgive me, what I did was wrong. I spoke harshly and unfairly.” I should not tell my friend, “Sorry, mistakes were made.” I should say, “I lied and betrayed you. That was wrong. Please forgive me.” The politician should not say, “Mistakes were made. We will try to correct them.” He should say, “We did wrong. We misused public funds” (no, he probably won’t use the word sin, but at least he is admitting wrongdoing). There is nothing more liberating than naming the sin, acknowledging the harm done, and receiving God’s (or others’) grace and forgiveness.  That is what David really did in Psalm 51. This is true “name and claim it” theology. Name your sin and claim God’s infinite and amazing grace. See, that grace is amazing precisely because it is contrasted with and deals with our awful sin.

0 Comments

The BIble and politics

3/12/2015

2 Comments

 
Politics. It’s a word some people love and many hate. Like it or not, it is part and parcel of our existence. On the one hand, we know the human race cannot survive without some semblance of political organization. On the other hand, we spit the word out in disgust when things around us get too “political.”  At the same time, we can’t really help ourselves most of the time and quickly get sucked into a political debate, often wondering, even out loud, how the other person can be such an idiot. Yes, politics. Love it or hate it, politics, when defined as “the art or science of government” (Merriam-Webster online) makes the world go round.

We also use the term, however, in a broader sense. One of Merriam-Webster’s definitions of politics is “the total complex of relations between people living in society.” That is, if you have more than two people in some kind of societal arrangement, then you have politics. It has to do with levels of authority, decision making, having respect for each other and for property, due process for grievances and issues of justice, economics, and many other issues of human relationships.

So, does the Bible talk about politics? Is the Bible political?

The Bible is thoroughly political. If we use the second definition of the word, the Bible is thoroughly political because much of it deals with the “total complex of relations between people.” Much of the Law, prophetic outrage, Proverbs, the Sermon on the Mount, and a lot of Paul’s admonition to churches had to do with the level of politics as real life human relationships.

The Bible is also thoroughly political in the sense of the first definition. If politics is about “the art and science of government,” the Bible has much to say about leadership wisdom and integrity, about the responsibilities of leaders, about issues of poverty, justice, war and peace, and relationships with foreign governments. Jesus spoke about paying taxes. He spoke to Roman soldiers about not abusing their power. Both Paul and Peter spoke about submission to authorities and how to live under oppressive situations. Yes, the Bible is thoroughly political.

The Bible does not endorse a political ideology. The Bible may address politics, but it does not put forth nor endorse a political ideology. We need to be careful to read back into the Bible our contemporary political and economic ideologies. Well intentioned believers throughout history and around the world have attempted to Biblically justify capitalism, socialism, democracy, and monarchy. The problem is that each one of those ideologies does have some Biblical justification! It all depends on which passages we pull from and how we apply them and to which context we apply them. It is not my purpose here, nor do I have the space, to give examples of how each has some Biblical justification. What we can identify are the “political” issues and then ask how can these be addressed Biblically in our context.  For example, the Bible is clear about taking care of widows and orphans. It is clear that the poor should not be taken advantage of. It is clear that criminals should be brought to justice. The challenge for us is to work out the implications and applications of those issues in contemporary society whatever the dominant and prevailing ideology happens to be.

The Bible judges all politics and political ideologies. Consequently, all political and economic ideologies are to be evaluated and judged by Scripture. Certainly, there are ideologies that are closer to the Bible than others (think Hitler’s National Socialism and Stalin’s Communism as some obvious examples), but all are fallen and imperfect. This also means we need to be very careful to hijack the gospel and manipulate Jesus to fit our politics. We love to ask the question, “What would Jesus do?” The problem is, we might be surprised more often than not!

The church’s hope is not in a political ideology. Taken a step further, not only does the Bible judge all politics and political ideologies, our hope does not rest in politics or a political ideology. Whether or not we live in a free country or are persecuted, or whether we dominate the culture or are marginalized, our hope is not in legislation, more Christian elected officials, boycotts, or political action. All these may are important, needed, and rights we should exercise, but we cannot legislate more followers of Jesus. We cannot outlaw anyone into belief. At best, we can restrain evil for a time and insist that justice be done for all according to the laws of the land. But, the hope of the church, and the hope of America, lies in the gospel of Jesus Christ and his politics.

Have a political ideology, but hold to it tentatively. Therefore, have a well thought out political ideology and hold it with conviction . . . with tentative conviction. I am not pleading for being wishy-washy. I am pleading for political and ideological conviction that is open to growth, maturity, and constant Biblical evaluation and judgment. Ultimately, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. It is then that the Kingdom’s perfect politics will be in place.

Next article --America: A Christian Nation? Part 1

 

 

2 Comments
<<Previous

    Author

    Terry Coy -- husband, father, grandfather. Trying to figure it out while on the journey with Jesus.

    Archives

    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    January 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015

    Categories

    All
    Bible
    Culture
    Discipleship
    Missions
    Personal
    Theology

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly