Understanding our world through the lens of Scripture.
Purpose
My former systematic theology professor, Dr. Thomas Cragoe, would regularly say "think with me theologically." We students would chuckle because the class was Systematic Theology, but he taught us to think critically from a biblical worldview. This site seeks to emulate that, calling all of us to think theologically.
Today I was at a funeral of a woman who was a fully dedicated follower of Christ in the Cork area. The sermon given by the pastor of Lee Valley Bible Church in Ballincollig had an insight I thought was very good and wanted to share it here.
The pastor (I cannot remember his name) spoke on Psalm 23. Some of his insights I’ll repeat below.
Psalm 23 talks about going through the valley of the shadow of death. The pastor focused on the fact that the word used is “shadow.” Why shadow?
What is a shadow? It is imaginary, a projection and not something substantial. It is the result of two other things; substance and light. So when referring to the shadow of death, the substance is death and its shadow is caused by light – the light of the world. So why is the psalmist only going through the shadow? The answer is to focus on what happened to its substance. The substance, death, is discussed in the previous psalm; 22. This psalm is a clear, prophetic description of Christ’s death on the cross, which Christ fulfills just by exclaiming the first line as he hung there. Jesus experienced the full substance of death. But we do not. We only go through the shadow.
This is a beautiful picture. Jesus, who calls himself the light of the world, experienced the full weight and measure of death so we would not. He took our place. We only face a shadow.
This is emphasized in the Psalm even more by stating not that Christ sent us on ahead, but that he is with us. He went through death – its substance, so that as we now go through death, we only go through its shadow.
It is a parable we say quite often, and not without backing. Over and over we see it happening in our lives – someone experiences something great, glorifies himself for it, then is soon after found eating their share of humble pie.
I have been reading through the book of 2 Chronicles for my personal studies lately, and noticed something absolutely fascinating about what happened to at least two kings of Judah. The first that caught my attention was Uzziah in 2 Chronicles 26. This young man was brought into power at just the age of 16! Amazing to think that when we are just getting excited about getting our driver’s licenses, this man is inheriting the throne over Judah! He also held this power for one of the longer periods for the kings – 52 years. Then comes the description of him in verses 4 and 5. He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord. Notice particularly what verse 5 says:
He set himself to seek God in the days of Zechariah, who instructed him in the fear of God, and as long as he sought the LORD, God made him prosper.
First, he had a good teacher. Zechariah the prophet had a proper focus on God and was able to convey that to Uzziah. It seems Zechariah was wise enough to point out to this young king that the king’s prosperity was dependant on on his seeking the Lord.
Uzziah seemed to listen, for even again in verse 8 he is noted as growing very strong, in verse 10 he is described as being very wealthy, and his army was continually growing and becoming more and more fortified. Then comes a bad omen in verse 15;
And his fame spread far, for he was marvelously helped, till he was strong.
Something is wrong. The focus is off. Rather than focus on the strength of his God, the camera is zeroed in on Uzziah. Verse 16 then describes his downfall;
But when he was strong, he grew proud, to his destruction. For he was unfaithful to the LORD his God and entered the temple of the LORD to burn incense on the altar of incense.
Pride got in the way. He thought he could do anything, even to the point of disregarding the prescriptions in the Law for how sacrifices were to be offered and by whom they were given.
I have to wonder what happened. He did what was right in God’s eyes, until his own pride got the best of him. How can we avoid that? Too often we become proud in our accomplishments, wanting to focus on the many things that we have done. It seems to me Uzziah like other kings did not do something that Scripture repeatedly encourages us to do: remember. In our Bible studies and in our preaching, we want to find the next greatest thing, we want to make new discoveries, plumbing the depths of Scripture. But in doing this we too easily forget the fundamentals. We forget.
So even in this Christmas season, maybe it is important that we take time to remember. Remember the message of the Gospel. Remember the baby born in Bethlehem, that he was born to die. Remember, as Paul states, who we once were and still are.
Remember.
Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands-- remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. (Eph. 2:11-13)
First I would like to apologize for my hiatus from this blog over the last number of weeks. I have been in Ireland performing a culture study as well as a missions internship for the last month. To read more on this trip go here.
We now come to a very difficult question. It is in answering this question that we teeter on the brink of reentering a legalistic sort of faith. A friend of mine, Jonathan Erdman, with whom I sometimes agree and sometimes disagree, raises a very interesting and valuable point in regards to this issue. He in fact plans to write a book about it! At one point in his leak blog post he writes;
Protestant Christianity of all stripes carries [reciprocity] into their idea of grace, albeit in a way that I consider to be somewhat disingenuous: God gives you the "free" gift of salvation.....therefore....you should should be grateful and do __________. Where many Christians differ is in the way they fill in the blank. But there always seems to be a blank. The result of this is that most Christians carry forward some brand of guilt--guilt for not being good enough or making enough "spiritual progress," moral failings, etc.
It is true that in nearly all, if not every, form of religion carries into its theology this idea of reciprocity, or as Erdman refers to it, an “economy of reciprocity.” Yet, even as we discussed before, salvation does come by grace. So what is the catch? Is there a catch? It would seem based on our previous discussions about the gospel, there is a catch; a call to holiness and the way of suffering.
Think carefully. Holiness is what was required of the people under the Law and they failed miserably. Christ comes after some time of living under the Law and does perfectly what man could not – fulfill the whole Law perfectly. The Law served as a teacher, showing man he could not do it (Galatians 3:24 – the Greek word translated guardian is the term for pedagogue). So salvation must come to us as a gift, and thus the term grace, because we cannot earn it.
Yet then we are called to live a certain way in light of that freely given, unmerited gracious gift. Has grace become something other than gracious? No. We talked before about the work of the Spirit in a person’s life which results in a radical change of view regarding sin and thus a change in how people live and respond to sin. We live and strive to be holy because he is holy, not because it is commanded only, but also because our love for him automatically results in our desire to obtain that holiness. This is why John is able to say in I John 3:3 “everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.” It is the natural reaction of the one who has been redeemed.
So back to Erdman’s statement. Many churches do say we “should be grateful and do __________.” But indeed this is the wrong emphasis and salvation is no longer truly received by grace through faith alone. Forcing holiness and creating this expectation on people can create a false sense of duty in the Christian life. We should be able to expect to see a life change in people’s lives, but if we have to ask for it or even worse, demand it, then we have indeed lost sight of the grace that brings salvation. It is a difficult position to maintain, but nevertheless does seem to be what Scripture teaches.
If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.
When is the last time we truly meditated on these words? We look at the cross, the suffering associated with it, the end result of it, and are humbled that Christ would go through such a great task for us. But then to think that Jesus turns it around and says we are to follow him – even to the cross!!! Are we prepared for such a task?
It seems that even Christ’s followers, when confronted with the reality of what he was saying in his calling, found themselves second-guessing their allegiance. At one point all but his closest disciples left him (John 6:66). Then when the going got really tough, even they would only follow… from a distance (Matthew 27:56-58). Indeed, the cost of following Christ is high. Consider these words;
Christ had no interest in gathering vast crowds of professed adherents who would melt away as soon as they found out what following Him actually demanded of them. In our own presentation of Christ’s gospel, therefore, we need to lay a similar stress on the cost of following Christ and make sinners face it soberly before we urge them to respond to the message of free forgiveness. In common honesty, we must not conceal the fact that free forgiveness in one sense will cost everything.– (J. I. Packer)
It will cost everything. Remember Paul? It was warned after his conversion that he would have to suffer greatly for the sake of Christ. Yet what does Paul say about his sufferings?
For it is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God. So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison,… (2 Cor 4:15-17)
Did you catch that? He calls the sufferings he endured light, momentary affliction. Light as if to say they were easy, simple, like the man who brags about a minor scratch. But Paul says it was worth it, because following Christ, following him in to the cross brings an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison. So yes, we are called to suffer, to suffer greatly. But we are not called to suffer for worthless reasons.
How do we do it? consider the remaining words of Paul from the passage quoted above;
as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal. (2 Cor 4:18)
We endure suffering by looking not at the suffering, but at something much greater. We look unto Jesus, our hope and our joy, just as Jesus looked unto the hope and joy that was set before him as he endured the cross (Heb 12:2).
Curious isn’t it that the New Testament which is so focused on grace and not living under the law would include commands that are often more difficult to obey than the ones given in the Old Testament Law? This is important to realize when understanding the balance the Gospel creates between man’s and God’s responsibility. God is the one who saves as we stated before, but it does not leave man to do as he wishes. Man also has a responsibility.
Christ demanded obedience. Extreme obedience. On the one hand we must believe and it is God who grants us the faith to believe, so it is God’s responsibility to save man. But man is also expected to obey the calling of Christ. To follow him. To emulate him. To serve as his ambassadors. This is a high calling. Consider this; Peter writes in his letter to the churches; “Be holy in all manner of conversation.” Think deeply on this command. Is it even possible to be holy in every interaction we have with other people; Christian and non-Christian alike? No. Not on our own. But with Christ, because of the Gospel being lived out daily in our lives it is possible.
Another famed passage is Romans 12:1-2:
I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
This passage is a command colored with the language of “appeal.” The word carries the idea of a strong urging, begging, imploring someone to do the action stated afterward. Paul urges them, but then states that this action is not just a nice thing to do, but IS our worship. thus this is a command given in the language of an appeal.
Afterward is another command, first given negatively and then positively. First we are to not conform. Paul typically uses the term “world” to refer to the evil aspects of the world, the idea of conforming to a sinful condition. Instead, we are to “be transformed.” True, this is in the passive tense, which many think takes the emphasis off of what we must do. Thus, we can focus on not conforming, then let go and let God do the transforming. I think this is a faulty interpretation. Given all the other commands scattered frequently throughout the New Testament, we are not passive receptors of transformation, but active participants in the process. We transform ourselves and God transforms us. It is a dual relationship.
A reading through Paul’s letters will note the regularity which Paul attaches his commands to the Gospel. That is the beauty of the transformation. We participate with God in transforming ourselves. We work together with God. God does not do it all nor do we do it all. We do it together with him who gives us the power. But the point is we must still work towards being holy. We must still participate in the transformation process. We must obey.
Part 6 of this series will bring out another aspect of this Gospel calling: the way of suffering. Part 7 will answer the obedience question: What does God require of us to live out the Gospel?
As I've been thinking about the true Gospel message and what it entails, various thoughts on its connection to missions have arisen. I will discuss this further in a latter post, but for now I wanted to share this video by HistoryMakers and set to music by Lecrae. I'll post the lyrics after the video.
Lyrics to Send Me : Send me I'll go, send me I'll go, send me I'll go, lemme go lemme go! (repeat x4)
i seen it with my own two, there's no way i can show you a perfectly poverty stricken people with no view. And i bet you can't believe this, they never heard of jesus. Heard young butler, lil wayne, and young jeezy.
No one's signing up to go on missions this summa. Rather sit at home and watch exibit pimp in a humma while a nine year old is shot down. No one's screaming 'stop now!' no bridge illustrations for criminals who on lock down.
People deep in africa looking for an answer bra'. In china man, they're dieing man, until they know who died for sins. So look what grace did. Not for us to stay here inside our comfort zones at home in mama's basement.
Get out on the grind y'all. Ain't no better time doll. I know y'all read the great commission. Let me just remind y'all: make disciples of the nations. Teach'm to obey the lord. Have to lead someone to christ before i face the lord.
Send me I'll go, send me I'll go, send me I'll go, lemme go lemme go! (repeat x4)
hey! After, 1,000 years in the west and the churches get'n bigger daily without understand'n worship. (say what?) Some regenerate but a lot ain't saved. You walk outside and be surprised cuz the block ain't changed. And the numbers they be get'n me. Something just ain't hit'n them. America ain't christian they practice'n the ritual. That's why we should be mission though. Hey, what you think i'm spit'n for? The united states is die'n and in the east is looking pitiful.
Some places if they catch you they'll arrest you. They'll serve you, but they still need the word too. The gospel should be heard too. We claim we ain't ashamed, but we ain't hit the block up. Were in our christian bubble, while our brotha's get'n locked up. Lord i wanna stock up, pack a bag and walk up in a country where my faith may get me shot up anywhere i go, whether my city or far abroad, i just wanna show' christ the risen holy god.
Send me I'll go, send me I'll go, send me I'll go, lemme go lemme go! (repeat x4)
i know they're die'n in the streets over in the middle east. Some kids sink in piece others hold'n up a piece. If the violence doesn't cease, then at least the deceased might know jesus as their savior as their bodies hit the streets. And i know this is a graphic view. And i pray that it's attack'n you. Track'n you to act and do what you see in the back illusion. Mathew twenty-four and fourteen. We should read it twice before we think that life is just a battle see we free in christ! Look dawg! Life is more than church work and football! What if you were dead and seen that christians overlooked y'all! This is why we leave the couch and leave the comforts of our house to show a die'n world a god they'll probably never read about.
The great commission says make disciples of all nations. Have we even made them in our own nation? Come on christians! Missions exist because worship doesn't. People don't worship the god who made them. We're ambassadors. Let's go!
Send me I'll go, send me I'll go, send me I'll go, lemme go lemme go! (repeat x4)
It is ironic in my quest to move away from legalism and fundamentalism, that I am returning to a call for obedience embedded in the Gospel message. Usually there are two sides to this question. One is the legalist who while in their words will say salvation comes by faith in Christ’s atoning work alone will then expect people to live by a certain moral standard reminiscent of Pharisaical law. On the other side are those who question all forms of “duty” or commands expecting obedience in the Gospel and the Christian life, saying we are called to live holy but completely divorce it from the initial salvation experience as if regeneration and sanctification are two completely separate issues. These people have no problem agreeing with the legalists regarding regeneration, but take issue with them on issues surrounding sanctification—emphasizing grace. So which is it?
The answer is both are right and both are wrong. Salvation is by grace through faith alone. But embedded in the call of the Gospel is a call to obedient faithful living. Jesus tells his people to deny themselves, take up their crosses, and follow him (Matt 16:24). Consider also what Paul says;
Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. (Col 2:6-7)
It seems there is some connection between faithful living (obedient living) and accepting the Gospel. The two simply go together. LeRoy Eims states:
I have seen people “make decisions,” but when I tried to help them grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I discovered that they were still dead in their trespasses and sins. They had no spiritual life. I have learned the hard way that it is impossible to disciple a person who is spiritually dead.
Paul stated, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” (2 Cor. 5:17). IN order to identify a genuine convert, you must see in him a change of attitude toward Jesus Christ and a change of attitude toward sin. (The Lost Art of Disciple Making, 62)
As Eims goes on to explain, the lordship of Christ may not be fully understood right away, but the desire for Christ and against sin can still be evident. Jesus expects obedience. He expects people to live lives that go against the way of sin, that despise sin and any appearance of it. This is a bigger call than simply accepting deliverance from future eternal judgment.
Even in the midst of teaching the basic gospel message similar to what was put forward in the previous post, some people still believe the result of coming to faith should be one of prosperity.
The argument often goes to a passage that is very often taken out of context; Jeremiah 29:11. Even in that passage the promise is given because the people are finding themselves in the midst of exile, living in a foreign land and in the way of suffering.
Another common misconstrued passage is John 10:10. True Jesus said he came to give us abundant life, but we must ask ourselves what he means by these terms. The context of this verse is referring to the sheep and the door. Jesus is the door that brings the sheep into protection. Jesus will lead them to safe pastures, but only under his care, away from “thieves and robbers.” Given Jesus’ mention of salvation in verse 9, we can understand his meaning of life is in reference to eternal life which he often speaks of throughout John’s Gospel. It is true in John’s Gospel that Jesus is giving life both now and in eternity, that the Gospel is about more than a “future salvation”, so understanding this we can know that the abundant life does apply to this one as well. But allow Scripture to interpret itself. Jesus, in the same Gospel, also warns of hard times to come to those who follow him. I heard Mark Lowry once talk on this verse referring to the fact that before Christ life was full of ups and downs. Come to Christ and your life will be even more full, the ups will be greater, but so can the downs.
As we will talk about in the next post, the Gospel is more than a call to a good life or to deliverance from eternal judgment. It is also a call to faithful obedience to Christ in both good and bad times of life.
Evangelical tracts, church websites, evangelistic messages in concerts and other crusade type meetings all focus on the same basic principles. Perhaps the most simplified version of these presentations is the famed 4 Spiritual Laws Gospel tract. As a student in college I was required to memorize these 4 laws and be able to present them to a class. While these may be helpful in creating converts, the question is whether they are useful in creating disciples. However, as important a question this may be, they do provide the doctrinal aspects of the Gospel in a rather succinct manner, which is what we will seek to do in this entry.
The basic Gospel message holds to that title--basic. From a doctrinal standpoint, the message is simple. Rather than start where Campus Crusade and Bill Bright did with the 4 Spiritual Laws, we begin at a much earlier starting point--the Fall.
Man was created innocent in the Garden, having full fellowship with God. In Genesis 3, man chose to disobey the one simple command God gave the first couple, and thus sin entered the world. Because of this we are all born in a fallen state, unable to live the holy lives required to be in God’s presence (Rom 5:18-19).
Because God is Holy and Just, he is required to seek justice against the sin of man. The only way for justice is for God to pour out his wrath on man. Thus all are under God’s wrath (Eph. 2:3; Heb 9:27; 2 Thess. 1:6-8).
But God is also merciful, and so to act in accordance with his mercy and love for his creation, he sent his son to bear God’s wrath in our place at the cross (John 3:16). Accepting Christ’s call to believe and follow him results in our salvation from his wrath (Acts 16:31). Jesus death is the payment of our penalty. God’s justice is satisfied, not by being placed on us but on Christ.
The trouble with this presentation is the opportunity for what many call “easy believism.” What is missing from this message is actually in the message but easily overlooked--the call to follow Christ.
What is the Gospel? How do we share it with others? What affect should it have on our lives when we become followers of Christ? What part does the Gospel play in the lives of those who have been Christian for years? These questions have been coming to mind a great deal lately and I have found myself rethinking the common view of the Gospel message in the evangelical church. These next few posts will be an attempt to journey through a process of understanding what the Gospel really is and what we should expect as a result.
The journey into this study started at the beginning of my seminary career, but has not been happening in earnest until the last few months. My upbringing took place in a Baptist church that held to a very typical view of the Gospel – that Christ dies for our sins and if we just believe in him and pray to ask for forgiveness, we will receive salvation. That is the extent. That is what was taught. Then afterward came a long but unwritten list of do’s and don’ts, typical of those churches coming out of the fundamentalist movement. Though the church taught salvation was eternally secure, this holiness view made us live in fear of having “not experienced true salvation” when we first accepted Christ. We lived on constant fear of ensuring our assurance and wariness to never backslide.
Then during my years of college I began to seriously question this “legalistic” form of a baptistic faith. I began to understand the role of grace and forgiveness, that it wasn’t about rules and regulations, but simply living to please Christ in everything we do. While I am convinced this set me on the path to where I am today, I still did not see how the Gospel actually was a part of this “post-salvation-experience” life. The Gospel only applied to those in need of salvation and those who are in process of obtaining salvation.
Then came seminary, and the key word of these years in my experience has been “relationship.” The Christian faith is being redefined from first being a religion, to then being a simple world-view or ‘way of life’ to now being about relationship. This created a significant conflict in my mind as I sought to continue in the journey of separating myself from my once legalistic religion. Then added into the discussion of relationship is the word community. I have come to believe both are important, both are results of the call of the Gospel, but they do not constitute the Gospel.
One last thing; influences. I would like to send out some thank-yous because I have not been going through this thought process alone. Many have stimulated thoughts, guided my thinking, and given feedback. Others have directed me toward some great books on the subject which I will list below. Of particular thanks, one goes to Dr. Roger Peugh at Grace Theological Seminary. He has been thinking through these things for years and has stimulated a great deal of my own thinking on the subject. I will not claim that my conclusions and his are the same, only he can answer that. But he has helped direct me toward particular Scriptures and other books along the way. Also, thanks to a fellow blogger, Jonathan Erdman, for also stimulating many thoughts about my faith. Again, I do not agree with everything he says and writes, but he challenges me on a regular basis. Also, thanks to many classmates and small groups I’ve been in whom I have bounced ideas off of and have also received other ideas from. The number of people in this list could be numerous.
What is considered the oldest text of the New Testament known to date has been reassembled and is available online for your free viewing pleasure.
The codex sinaiticus originally was found in the Monastery of St. Catherine but was divided in the mid-1800's among several universities. Now it has been reassembled and is available online for free.
Why is it so important? As noted on the website;
Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most important books in the world. Handwritten well over 1600 years ago, the manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. Its heavily corrected text is of outstanding importance for the history of the Bible and the manuscript – the oldest substantial book to survive Antiquity – is of supreme importance for the history of the book.
This will be a helpful tool for many New Testament scholars as we seek to continually understand the early church period as well as in the area of textual criticism, opening the doors to many who once found access to these documents difficult.
I was directed to Josh Harris' blog where he posted this and I found even the comments to the blog interesting. The song is not clear as to whether she is speaking against the vain and even blasphemous mentions of God in everyday speech or if she is truly feeling the absence of God in even the hard times. What are your thoughts?
Laughing With Lyrics:
No one laughs at God in a hospital No one laughs at God in a war No one's laughing at God when they're starving or freezing or so very poor
No one laughs at God when the doctor calls after some routine tests No one's laughing at God when it's gotten real late and their kid's not back from that party yet
No one laughs at God when their airplane starts to uncontrollably shake No one's laughing at God when they see the one they love hand in hand with someone else and they hope that they're mistaken No one laughs at God when the cops knock on their door and they say "We've got some bad new, sir," No one's laughing at God when there's a famine, fire or flood
But God can be funny At a cocktail party while listening to a good God-themed joke or Or when the crazies say he hates us and they get so red in the head you think that they're about to choke
God can be funny When told he'll give you money if you just pray the right way And when presented like a genie Who does magic like Houdini Or grants wishes like Jiminy Cricket and Santa Claus
God can be so hilarious Ha ha Ha ha
No one laughs at God in a hospital No one laughs at God in a war No one's laughing at God when they've lost all they got and they don't know what for
No one laughs at God on the day they realize that the last sight they'll ever see is a pair of hateful eyes No one's laughing at God when they're saying their goodbyes
But God can be funny At a cocktail party while listening to a good God-themed joke or Or when the crazies say he hates us and they get so red in the head you think that they're about to choke
God can be funny When told he'll give you money if you just pray the right way And when presented like a genie Who does magic like Houdini Or grants wishes like Jiminy Cricket and Santa Claus
God can be so hilarious
No one laughs at God in a hospital No one laughs at God in a war
No one laughs at God in a hospital No one laughs at God in a war
No one's laughing at God in a hospital No one's laughing at God in a war
No one's laughing at God when they're starving or freezing or so very poor
No one's laughing at God No one's laughing at God No one's laughing at God We're all laughing with God
Laughing With by Regina Spektor from the album Far
These are extended quotes from an article by Richard L. Mayhue (citation at the bottom). One question I ask is from where do we get our authority? From where does God gain his authority?
...with a biblical worldview, original authority and ultimate authority reside with God and God alone. God did not inherit His authority--there was no one to bequeth it to Him. God did not receive His authority--there was no one to bestow it on Him. God's authority did not come by way of an election--there was no one to vote for Him. God did not seize His authority--there was no one to steal it from. God did not earn His authority--it was already His. God inherently embodies authority because He is the great "I AM" (Exod 3:14; John 8:58)
Where did God come from? He came from nowhere! The reason God came from nowhere is that there was nowhere for Him to come from. Coming from nowhere, He stood on nothing. The reason He had to stand on nothing is there was nowhere for Him to stand. and standing on nothing, He reached out where there was nowhere to reach and caught something where there was nothing to catch and hung something on nothing and He told it to stay there. Now standing on nothing, He took the hammer of His own will; He struck the anvil of His omnipotence and sparks flew. He caught them on the tips of His fingers, flung them out into space and bedecked the heaven with stars, but no one said a word. The reason no one said anything is that there was nobody there to say anything. So God Himself said, 'That is very good.'
Mayhue, Richard L. “The Authority of Scripture.” Master’s Seminary Journal. 15 no 2 Fall 2004 p 227-236. First quote - pg 228 Second quote pg 229 footnoted with this note: S.M. Lockridge as quoted by permission in Richard Mayhue, Seeking God (Fearn, Ross-shire, Great Britan: Christian Focus, 2000) 186.
I will never forget. It was my final year at the Moody Bible Institute. Founder's Week was upon us, and the topic of the week was prayer. We had many incredible speakers to look forward to and I was excited because I have always had many questions about the topic. As tradition has it the then president of Moody, Joseph M Stowell III, spoke at the first session that Monday night. His text: James 5:16.
The prayer of a righteous man avails much.
He titled his message "The Muchness of Prayer." While he was able to get us all excited about the fact of how God listens to and answers our prayers, he left me very depressed on another point.
...a righteous man...
Righteous??? Definitely not a description of me! In fact, I am quite the opposite. Yes, I know through salvation I am positionally made righteous before God through the imputed righteousness of Christ. But to know it and to own it are two different things. And I have no idea how or when I will ever own it in my life. But here is why I struggle with that thought the most.
...avails much.
If I am made righteous by the imputed righteousness of Christ, then why do my prayers avail so little? I have prayed for numerous things and almost never seen them answered; positively or negatively. But when I have certain friends pray for me or something I know about, I do see God answer it. There is one friend in particular that I have asked to pray for things, and I know she does, and I see God answer her prayers almost immediately. So what is the problem here? This is when my thought returns to the first part.
...a righteous man...
So I must ask the question of what the problem might be. A couple possibilities come to mind. First; a problem of unconfessed sin that is hindering my relationship with God, and second; faith.
Unconfessed Sin
While we may have found forgiveness from sin at a fundamental level in the salvation experience, we still are bound to bodies of flesh that are bent toward sinning. Our spirits are renewed day by day, but our bodies of flesh are still in need of that final redemption, and as a result we still sin. The sins committed after the salvation experience can hinder our relationship with God. They do not cause us to loose salvation because our salvation is not dependant upon us but God, but they do get in the way of our ability to have close fellowship with him. So positionally I may be righteous before God thanks to the imputed righteousness of Christ, but experientially my sin is getting in the way of my fellowship and thus my prayers could be rendered ineffective. Perhaps the A.C.T.S. acronym for prayer is so helpful in this regard. First we show adoration; praise and worship towards God in prayer. Then we confess sin, even praying that God would reveal to us sin that we may not be aware of. Then after expressing thanksgiving for his work in our lives can we make our requests, our supplications made known to God, and thus the prayer of the righteous man will avail much.
Faith
Here is the second concern. Do I have faith that my prayers are not just being heard, but answered? Are my prayers specific, or am I being so general that even when God does answer, the answers are unrecognizable? We have the right and privilege to go before the throne of Grace BOLDLY. So let us do that, let us pray believing God will answer. And if we still struggle with faith, then maybe we should pray as the man in Mark 9:24 expressed; “I believe, help my unbelief!”
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.
Reflecting on the situation of American culture and the state of the church, I am compelled to ask a question related to this the first and greatest commandment in Scripture; are we loving God with all our minds?
My church recently held a baptism service, and as part of the service a video recording was played of the people who were baptized giving their testimony. Later, while reflecting on the service, a friend pointed out there was something significant missing from the testimonies; conviction over sin, punishment, redemption. All testimonies were focused on what God has done for the person on an emotional level. People would talk about the “bad stuff” which they were a part of, but very little was spoken about sin. The salvation experiences recounted were focused on feeling, not on sound judgment of the mind. But it seems this is characteristic of the church as a whole. People are lead into the church to find the answer to their immediate problems, to gain emotional relief. People come to Christ looking for that next emotional high, and when it leaves they leave the church or even the religion to find a new high to obtain.
I am convinced part of the cause for this is the church’s neglect of the mind. The church has followed the culture in seeking to fulfill the next emotional high. We develop programs and worship services centered around this high, but little is focused on the mind and real, thoughtful conviction of sin.
But the call to true Christian faith involves all of the faculties of humanity; emotion, strength, and the oft neglected mind. We must be careful as we share the Gospel to focus on sin and resulting punishment. Salvation is not about good feelings, though that may result. Salvation is not about finding ways to improve our earthly lives. Salvation is about dealing with sin, finding hope from living under the wrath of God. The Gospel is about redemption and forgiveness of sin. Yes this forgiveness often brings about a sense of relief, as if a huge weight has been lifted off the shoulders, and thus salvation is an emotional experience, but it is also an intellectual experience. We must remember the importance of the intellectual acknowledgment of sin for what it is, an affront to the will of God.
Maybe Paul’s summation of the problem with Israel can apply to the modern evangelical church;
For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. (Romans 10:2)
Zeal, emotional highs, warm fuzzies, the quest for health and prosperity all simply do not cut it. Knowledge of Christ, what he has done, is the only thing that will bring us to him in a lasting, meaningful relationship. Knowledge, the use of the mind, is required for true salvation.
It's that time of year. Graduation open house invitations keep coming in the mail. People demanding that I attend, leave a card, and make sure it's stuffed with money. I don't mind all that, but there is one thing I've noticed that is in common with so many graduates. If they include a "life verse," nine times out of ten it is Jeremiah 29:11. I wonder how often people really take the time to find out what that verse is all about. Well, here is a study I did recently to better understand why Jeremiah wrote that wonderful verse.
Context, context, context. My hermeneutics professor told us over and over that those are the three most important things when studying the Bible. And in this instance it is of particular importance. The entire 29th chapter of Jeremiah is a letter written to Israelites shortly after the Babylonian exile began. The people were in great distress, wondering what was to happen to them. Had God given up on His covenant promise to them? Many false prophets were telling them that He had not and that they would soon be returning to their homeland. Jeremiah knew better. No, God had not given up on His covenant, but they were destined to live in Babylon for 70 years. So, through Jeremiah, God sent this letter to His people in exile.
He told the people to settle down. Live and enjoy life. Establish businesses, start families, do what they would normally do even when in their homeland. In spite of this, it was a very difficult time for the people. They were captives. They were living in exile, in a foreign land, a foreign culture. Life was hard, things were not making sense. Thus comes the encouragement of verse 11. He knows the plans He has for His people. He desires to cause them to prosper, to have a hope and a future, not plans to bring evil on them, but good. Even so, they must go through this trial for 70 years. It is a time of judgment, of punishment, of chastisement.
They sinned and are now paying the penalty. The temptation is to become angry with God for it, but God reassures them, stating that this is only temporary, and there is a goal in mind. The plan and goal He has for them comes in verses 12 through 14. His desire is for perfect, unadulterated fellowship with them. And when they turn and seek Him alone, then and only then will he return them to the promised land.
So how does this apply to us? All to often we approach this verse with a social gospel mentality. This is the idea that God will bless us at all times and that we will prosper in health, wealth, and all the other "good" things of this life. But that is not necessarily true. The true gospel is a call to suffering. When we come to Christ, we are promised trials, hardships, and persecutions. But these things are not meant for evil, but for good. These trials are meant for our growth. They cause us to grow in our trust and reliance upon Him. They drive us to seek Him. The ultimate good is the sweet fellowship we have with our God as a result. The true blessed future is an eternal future of perfect, fulfilling fellowship with God in the form of a deeper love, experienced only in part here on Earth, but in its fullest form in Heaven. That is our hope, our future, the place in which true prosperity comes.
I recently read this illustration.
A group of researchers once studied 100 caterpillars which were about to fight their way free from their cocoons. Instead of letting them struggle, the observers gently cut them out and released them. Then they set them on a table and tried to get them to fly. But none of them could. Not one.
The study demonstrated that the time of wrestling and fighting through the walls of the cocoon actually strengthens the wings of the butterfly to take flight. The very struggle - all the pushing and thrashing to free itself from restraint - is what makes new life possible. Without strife, there is no strength. (not a perfect quote, but very close)
If we hold to the promise of Jeremiah 29:11 in this manner, we will not be disappointed. But if we hold to this promise expecting health, wealth and prosperity here in this life, we quite possibly will be disappointed. When the trials come, we may become disillusioned because of our false perception of verses such as this one.
The prosperity we will experience in Heaven, in eternal, perfect fellowship with our God, will far outweigh any suffering we may experience here on Earth.
I have been pondering some things lately and in the process I came to a realization but want to get some feedback before I make any final conclusions on this thought. So for all you theologically and philosophically minded people out there, I could use your help.
The topic I am studying is the biblical teaching on divorce, and I was reading an article today from the theological journal Didaskalia, and it provoked some thoughts. If you are curious and have access, the article is titled “Divorce and Remarriage in Church History” and it is by David Smith (Sp 2000, p 59-75).
Here is the thought: in Matthew’s gospel is the primary teaching of Jesus on divorce, and there is the infamous clause that has created significant controversy. Either way, it seems Jesus gives the ok for a particular form of divorce related to some form of sexual immorality (see Matthew 5:31-32). The Greek word there is porneia, which is debatable as to what form of sexual immorality Christ is referring to, but most believe it to be adultery. This does not mean he is condoning divorce, only that he is allowing it in this particular case.
But let us consider this in its context. Just before our divorce text, Jesus gives a teaching on lust and adultery. The teaching there is that even lusting after a woman is committing adultery. He is getting at the heart of the law and going beyond the simple letter of the law. Even before that we have the passage on hating a brother is the equivalent of murder, again the heart of the law versus the letter of the law. Put all this together:
If looking at a woman with lust is adultery, and sexual immorality which is typically accepted as being adultery in Matthew 5:32 is grounds for divorce, is it possible to say Jesus was implicating lust as being legitimate grounds for divorce? I titled this blog “Hermeneutical Hypocrisy” because it seems we are forcing a limiter on Christ’s teaching on divorce, ignoring the context. We are forcing our desired understanding into the text?
Again, this is where I am asking for help out there, to see if there is a flaw in the logic. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
What a nice way to close a letter! Warm fuzzies spread through the body as we close out conversations and letters with the simple phrase (or maybe a slightly more developed form) “grace be with you.” Paul liked to use this, giving some form of it in every one of his letters. But is that all this is? Some trite statement that sounds like a simple, nice way to open and close a letter? I do not believe so.
Consider the nature of Paul’s letters. Typically, his purpose in writing is to address a spiritual or theological issue plaguing the church. The letters usually consist of two parts, the first doctrine, and the second action. We could label them as the first the Orthodoxy section, and the second as the Orthopraxy section The second is always rooted in the first as if to say; “this is what we believe, now here is what we should do as a result of that belief.” Yet, with a careful reading of the orthopraxy, it seems as though his desires of what the church should do is unattainable. These are high and lofty demands!
Rooted throughout his demands though is one thing we can never forget. Paul’s writings are loaded with the centrality of the Gospel. He knows that in everything, orthodoxy and orthopraxy, the Gospel is what gives it power, what makes both possible. Without Christ, doctrine is useless and practice is hopeless. It is this fact, this Gospel, that makes “grace be with you” more than just a trite statement to give the readers warm fuzzies. The grace of Christ is what makes anything Paul writes about possible, without his grace we are powerless to live a life that is pleasing to him.
Think for example; Timothy, a young man is placed in charge of a troubled church and Paul gives him this list of things he wants Timothy to do to make the church become strong again. The charge is immense, almost impossible. But Paul closes out the letter with a very simple statement, three words in the Greek; “grace be with you.” I can hear Timothy now, reading those words; “ahhh.” Timothy may have been overwhelmed, but that simple reminder let him know God is with him, God’s grace is upon him, and because God’s grace is there for him, he can do what he has been charged to do.
So as we face the tasks of life, seeking to live according to the holy will of God, just remember this statement and all its implications:
It is common today to hear Christians talk of their 'brokenness.' but when you listen closely, you may discover that they are talking about their wounds, the things they have suffered, not about the evil that is in them.
Reading this quote has brought to mind a number of thoughts in my head, mostly about my own "brokenness" but also about the many revival events I have attended where people became "broken." And these revival events are not necessarily intended to be that, but are later labeled as a meeting that experienced revival. Too often I wonder if we are more tired and sorry about the symptoms of our sin rather than the sin itself. When is the last time you truly felt broken about the wicked nature lying within? Are you merely tired of the fact that you have at various times "screwed up?" Or how many times have I confessed a sin, felt sorry that I had committed it, but did not seek to make things right? These are examples of a false sense of brokenness.
True brokenness results in true repentance. Repentance is not just feeling sorry for a mistake you have made and searching out forgiveness. Repentance is the quest to do more than just make right a past wrong. It is the work of putting in place barriers, reforming a thought process, whatever it may take to prevent from ever allowing that sin to occur again. When is the last time we took part in true repentance and did not stop at the stage of confession. Confession is an act, repentance is a work. And I honestly believe repentance comes only when true brokenness occurs.
But as Willard pointed out, brokenness does not occur over just one specific act of sin, but over the nature of sin, the wickedness residing within us. Numerous times have I graced the doors of a church, walked into a sanctuary, sang the music, listened to the sermon, and left having felt no sense of my sinfulness. We are gathering to worship a Holy God. Any encounter with this God results in a complete awareness of just who we are. Note Isaiah's reaction when he came into contact. He fell flat on his face and cried out "Woe is me!"
I have spent numerous hours over the course of my life sitting in a church pew, looking at the cross perched on the wall behind the pulpit. How many times have I truly felt a sense of humbling awe while staring at that cross and the significance of what it represents? Not enough. I can certainly say that.
Entering this Easter season, I am reminded of the significance of the cross. It is easy to feel brokenness over sin when being forced to truly, deeply meditate on the cross. But this Palm Sunday, something else entered my mind. As Jesus was approaching Jerusalem, what did he do?
And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it… (Luke 19:41)
It is interesting that later, as Jesus enters the city, there is great pomp and circumstance over his arrival. He enters as the triumphant king. But within a week the whole city turns completely against him and crucifies him. How can this change happen? The people are blinded by their own desires. They saw him as a triumphant king about to overthrow the Roman government. Instead he came as the triumphant king about to defeat sin and death. The people were focused on their selfish desires, not on who God is and what is his mission. Being blinded to God is devastating. This is why brokenness is so vital. Brokenness opens our heart’s eye to God, removing the distractions of our own selfish desires. Our desires and sin can blind us so much that tragedy is made certain. But when we enter into brokenness, our eyes are opened, and we can celebrate God’s wonderful work in our own lives and in the world.
Thus says the LORD: "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest? All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be, declares the LORD. But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word.
Some time ago a pastor mentioned these words from Isaiah 66 should be seriously looked at when looking to someone to become a spiritual leader, namely, a pastor. I think he is right. And it is true that this should be seriously considered in that context, but it also applies to everyone else as well.
The first line of the proclamation is the most encouraging line for all people. God is in charge. He is in charge over the heavens and the earth. The word picture of calling the earth his footstool is amazing. In Old Testament thought, the footstool of God is often a description of the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies. Bear in mind this is where man was required to go if he were to commune with God. But here, the whole earth is his footstool. We are not required to go anywhere, for he is here. We think we must build some church building, and only there can we meet God. But that is simply false. He made the earth. He made the materials we use to build our churches. We cannot build anything adequate for him, anything that is sufficient to “house” God. I like how we often refer to the church building as the house of God. It isn’t. It is a meeting place for the Church to gather corporately to worship God. We cannot build him a house. He has already built one ~ the whole of creation, the heavens and the Earth.
How often do I think about what I can do for God? In reality, I can do nothing to help his cause that he cannot already do. It is not about what I do, but my attitude. I shouldn't do things because I can or I should, but because He has given me the opportunity and privilege.
Then think about the last line. When I read His word or hear it preached, do I pay attention to it with fear, reverence, and awe? Or have I started to treat it as another interesting book on the shelf? Or (especially in my case - being in seminary) has it become another textbook? These are tough words.
My final installment on a series of old posts from a previous blog I authored that has been shut down.
I could wait no longer. Earlier this week I was directed to view a video on YouTube that I found to be both hilarious and sad all rolled into one. This video is been quickly spreading around the Grace College campus, and so I decided to post some of my thoughts on the video and the beliefs behind it.
The exegesis committed by this pastor is horrendous. He shows no regard for context and has no interest in how language functions. He is a King James Only advocate which creates a whole other host of issues, but his arguments from his church's website are poor at best and very anti-intellectual. I was raised in a KJO church, and at that church the arguments were at least academic in nature, so while I do not agree with the position, I at least respect their attempt at making their argument. But those who make an argument based on strict opinion and even anti-intellectual beliefs, they earn zero respect.
What saddens me most about this is the fact that this man is standing behind a pulpit, proclaiming what he believes to be the Word of God, and thus leading a church down a treacherous path. He also, by publishing his sermon videos on YouTube, is potentially creating a negative witness to the Gospel message and what true followers of Christ are about. It seems he is more concerned about the judgment of God than he is the love of God. True, even I believe the judgment of God is poorly understood and downplayed far more than it should be, but if it is not preached alongside the love of God, then the Gospel is not preached. And the purpose of preaching is to proclaim the good news. (side note, the word translated Gospel in the Greek literally means 'good news' and the verb is 'to proclaim good news').
So here is the video.
Ok, now some critique on it.
First - the issue of context. The pastor is seeking to proclaim that only men who urinate while standing are true men, and this is whom God is seeking. Therefore, we should also only urinate while standing if we want to be men that God seeks. But notice that in the context God is seeking these men for one purpose: to destroy them. The passages he is referring to are I Sam 25:22, 34; I Kings 14:10; 16:11; 21:21; and II Kings 9:8. In each one of these the phrase is used in the context of those whom God is going to destroy. Is this message reflected in the pastor's exposition?
Second - the understanding of language. He attacks the NKJV and NIV translators for not correctly translating the phrase, but instead translates it only as "men." This is true, and there is nothing wrong with it. The phrase in Hebrew is simply idiomatic. There may be some emphasis being made by using the idiom, but this does not automatically display inferiority in the newer translations. His other attacks have issues as well, but are outside the scope of this post. And we don't even have time to get into the issues of textual criticism!
Lastly - poor understanding of canonical development. He alludes to numerology, particularly pointing out verse referencing. The problem with this is that the verse numbering system was not in place until well after the cannon was established. But he uses the verse numbering system to make a theological point. The verse and chapter divisions are in no way inspired, so on what basis can he make this argument.
There are more, but I can only spend so much time blogging. I do have a life outside of the internet, and it is a busy one.
The third in a series of old posts from my previous blog.
Thanks to a friend, I was directed to an article in Newsweek called Happiness: Enough Already that I found to be very interesting. Apparently too much happiness is bad for our health. We all need a little more depression in our lives. Imagine what would happen to love songs if the song writers paid more attention to the article... ok, scary thought!
However, there is some truth to what they are saying. If we were all happy 100% of the time, life would be stagnant and boring. After all, what would there be to gossip about??? But then, wouldn't that result in our being dissatisfied with life and therefore we would become unhappy? Maybe complete happiness 100% of the time is not even possible.
Contrary to social gospel preachers, it is nice to know that while the Bible does not offer euphoric unending happiness, it does offer a sense of joy and peace that is beyond explanation. Maybe because the weight of sin and guilt has been lifted?...
Again, this post comes from an old blog I authored that is been shut down.
Like last week, this week I am posting on something brought to my attention some time ago that I occasionally revisit to meditate on. Whereas last week I mentioned a sociological study that got me thinking, and still does every time I visit the supermarket, this week I shall focus on a study of a single verse of Scripture. I was directed by my Greek professor Matt Harmon to occasionally check out another blog called Hellenisti ginoskeis by Daniel J. Phillips about Greek studies. It has been very enriching, and one particular entry consistently gets me thinking.
Hebrews 5:8 is an incredible statement of the "boot camp" Christ had to go through as he worked to be the source of salvation for us.
The ESV reads;
Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. (Hebrews 5:8-10)
Anyway, allow me to point out the beauty of verse eight, which really gets me thinking. For ease, I'll just quote Phillips;
Then there is what I'll un-academically call the syntactic suspense. The author does not write, ἔμαθεν τὴν ὑπακοήν ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἔπαθεν. Rather, it is ἔμαθεν ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἔπαθεν τὴν ὑπακοήν. "Son though He was, He learned from the things He suffered"— learned what? The wickedness of sin? The brokenness of the world? The rough providences of God? No. "Submission." And this is held in suspense until the last, syntactically. As if to say, "Son though He was, He learned from the things He suffered—submission!"
It is amazing first of all to think that Christ learned anything. Obviously, he did not learn in the same way we do, because he is infinite and we are finite. But he still learned. How to wrap this into my theological understanding is no easy task, and I have yet to do so.
Another difficult thing to grasp is how he learned - suffering. I doubt anyone will contest that he endured suffering unlike anything any other man has ever endured. For he, being one with God the Father, came under the weight of the full extent of the wrath of God. Not only this, but he who enjoyed complete fellowship with the Father since eternity past was forsaken by the Father while enduring the Father's wrath. Not one of us will ever begin to understand just how much suffering he endured.
The most difficult aspect is what he learned. He is God, equal with the Father, and he placed himself under submission to the Father. This is most clearly seen in the Garden of Gethsemane; "Not my will, but your's" The one who is ruler over all submitted himself to the Father. I struggle under my pride to submit to anything and I do not hold the position he held even before he came to this earth.
But most importantly, he did all this for us. He did it to save us, which is astounding enough. But here's the kicker - he did it as an example for us also. He placed himself under submission to the will of God both for our salvation and to demonstrate to us the extent to which we should be willing to submit ourselves. This is tough to swallow, for it is easy to submit to God's will when it gives us immediate warm fuzzies. But what about when it calls for us to endure a little suffering for only a while. My tendency is to shy away. Instead, we, like Christ, should be saying "Not my will, but your's."
This is a republished blog I wrote at an old site that is now closed down.
I remember reading some time ago an article in a newspaper about the issue of America offering too many choices. So, having been thinking about this a fair amount over these last number of days, I have decided to do some research to see if I could find the article, but alas, the choice of which research site to use was too much, so I settled with Google. Thankfully, after a brief search, I did not have to spend much time choosing which search hit to research, for the one that caught my eye first was just what I was looking for. Barry Schwartz wrote a book The Paradox of Choice. He argues that having too many choices here in America is actually working towards our detriment. We go to the grocery store and have dozens of choices of foods to buy. Ever get stuck wondering which kind and brand of peanut butter you will choose to eat this week. We have over 25 different kinds of bread, and the aisle I find myself stuck in most often is the breakfast cereal aisle. I can't even begin to count how many choices there are there!
Schwartz wrote that an overabundance of choice can "produce genuine suffering." I have to agree. The reason is that we will spend a great deal of time trying to choose which option is the best, and in that process become what another once termed "maximizers." The problem is that we are so overwhelmed by the potential repercussions of our possible choice that we either never make one, or we settle for less than what we desire. These repercussions can be either significant or menial. They could result in severe financial loss, or simply indigestion, and the fear of failure in our decision making process overwhelms us to the point of frustration, fear, and even depression. Researchers even noted that the more choices a person is offered, the less likely they are to make a decision. We are convinced that by having more options we will become happier, when in fact we only become more distressed. The "what if" question plagues our conscience.
It seems God has an answer for everything (surprised??). Christ informed us to not worry about tomorrow, or what we shall eat or drink, or where we will lay our heads tonight or even next week. All he asks is that we concern ourselves only with what is eternal, and he will take care of all our other, temporal needs. That we get caught up in "choice" is evidence that we are not completely relying upon him. This is a tough lesson, one that never ceases to convict me. And while there may not be a good answer to this problem, it is good to be aware of it and be thankful to God that in spite of our paralyzing worries about choice, he continues to care for and about us.
Being part of a culture that promotes both community and individuality, I am torn at which is the better way. Consider this quote by R. Banks;
The Gospel is not a purely personal matter. It has a social dimension. It is a community affair. To embrace the gospel, then, is to enter into community. One cannot have the one without the other.
Because of this, I am forced to ask a question; is individualism truly a part of the intended nature of man, or is a focus on the individual a result of the Fall? When considering what is good, as exemplified in the Fruit of the Spirit and the beatitudes, the focus seems to be on the other, on the community and not on self. But when studying the works of the flesh in Galatians 5, and other mentions of types of sins, the focus can always boil down to a personal, self-interest. My culture tells me that the promotion of self, the looking out for the interests of the self as priority are deeply ingrained and the result is a desire to rectify any self-interested promotion. One might argue; isn’t the promotion of the betterment of self ultimately a benefactor in the interests of the community? By making myself better, am I not improving the community to which I belong as well? In the Christian context, if I make myself a better Christian personally, then I will automatically influence those in my Christian community and thus cause that community to benefit. This reasoning seems flawed, for the interests are still self-focused and therefore in some way a work toward boosting the personal ego – a move away from biblical humility.
One example I have encountered is in the learning to become and evangelistic person. Numerous hours of class time are spent studying methods and sometimes through role-playing, those methods are practiced out. But those I have met who are truly successful evangelists did not learn through class training, but “on-the-job” mentoring. They can point to someone who took them out with them witnessing, and through that example and the pressure to then try it themselves while being coached caused the person to learn and grow. The class room method is more focused on personal development through self-will, while the mentor method is focused on development within community. The methods used through communal development are more laborious, but they also tend to be more successful.
The result of examples such as these leads to the conclusion that self is in fact not the better way. God created man to operate in community. Consider this, before the Fall, is everything God creates called “good?” No, for God points out in Genesis 2:18 “It is not good for man to be alone.” Now granted this serves as the introduction to God showing man his need for marital companionship in particular, but it demonstrates a more fundamental need than even that; and that is community. Then, at the moment of the Fall, the couple became self-aware, and their focus was no longer on the relationship of the community, but on the inadequacy of the self. God, in seeing before the Fall, man’s need for a help-meet, was not merely sexual or for the sake of companionship, but communal as well. Communal interest was experienced between God, man, and woman, but when that communal relationship was destroyed, self became the primary focus.
Therefore, the primary interest of the church should not be the improvement of the self; the quest to find personal satisfaction in life based on self-developed opportunities and actions, but focused on a renewal of individuals focused on the other; i.e., the community. I am finding myself agreeing with Tom Holland in Contours of Pauline Theology when he writes;
Thus, in Christ's death, there is not only a dealing with the guilt of sin and its consequences, but also the severing of the relationship with sin, in which unregenerate mankind is involved. It is an experience that encompasses the individual, but it is much more than solitary salvation. It is the deliverance of the community by the covenantal annulling effect of death...Having been delivered from membership of 'the body of Sin', the church has been brought into union with a new head and made to be members of a new body, 'the body of Christ'. (p. 110)
Salvation’s focus is communal as well as individual. It is individual in that it deals with the sin problem in each man, and that each man must come into relationship with Christ to experience deliverance. But it is also communal in that Salvation is a bringing a person into a communal relationship with the Trinity and the body of Christ – the Church.
Posts
