Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
On Judging Others
What a great weekend! Kandice and I were able to visit with some our friends and family in Michigan and celebrate the wedding of my wife’s Aunt Mary and now Uncle Tim. They were married about four months ago, but Kandice’s Uncle Ray, who lives in Pinckney, Michigan, hosted a great Wedding/Memorial Day party for the family this weekend. The burgers, short ribs, and the brats were awesome! Hopefully, this was not just a weekend to eat good food, but I sincerely hope you took the time to remember those who have given their lives in wars current and past to defend our freedom.
I was able to reflect more this weekend about what it means to judge someone. Matthew 7:1 is probably one of the most abused passages by both believers and non-believers. We are commanded not to judge by any other standard but by the one that we hold ourselves to. As I was dwelling on this, I remembered Paul’s words in Romans 3 that we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The standard is the glory of God and since we have all fallen short of that, it doesn’t seem that any of us have the right to judge anyone.
I don’t think that this means that we can’t be discerning, but I think what it does mean is that we remember that this is really all about grace. There is just no way that we can show grace by drawing a line in the sand that we created and judging someone for jumping over it. We can show grace by lovingly pointing others back to our standard of right and wrong, the Word of God and per that, the glory of God.
I think that I have been guilty lately of being very judgmental; again becoming the thing that I despise and my motives, as pure as they have been, have not been pure enough. My wife lovingly reminded me as we were at McDonald’s and I was grumbling about the long time it took for the staff to get our food (i.e. being judgmental) that it’s not about us. It really is about Jesus and grace. Jesus, help me to remember this.
I was able to reflect more this weekend about what it means to judge someone. Matthew 7:1 is probably one of the most abused passages by both believers and non-believers. We are commanded not to judge by any other standard but by the one that we hold ourselves to. As I was dwelling on this, I remembered Paul’s words in Romans 3 that we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The standard is the glory of God and since we have all fallen short of that, it doesn’t seem that any of us have the right to judge anyone.
I don’t think that this means that we can’t be discerning, but I think what it does mean is that we remember that this is really all about grace. There is just no way that we can show grace by drawing a line in the sand that we created and judging someone for jumping over it. We can show grace by lovingly pointing others back to our standard of right and wrong, the Word of God and per that, the glory of God.
I think that I have been guilty lately of being very judgmental; again becoming the thing that I despise and my motives, as pure as they have been, have not been pure enough. My wife lovingly reminded me as we were at McDonald’s and I was grumbling about the long time it took for the staff to get our food (i.e. being judgmental) that it’s not about us. It really is about Jesus and grace. Jesus, help me to remember this.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Some Clarifications About My Views on Fundamentalism
Yesterday, I took a “spiritual retreat” for a class that I am taking. I drove over to Perry Sippo Park and after sitting in the library for a few minutes reading my Bible and praying some, I decided that I would go on a prayer walk. The prayer walk was really wonderful. Now, I’m not an environmentalist, but I do enjoy nature occasionally. For some strange reason that I have yet to figure out, I seem to have become fascinated with birds lately. As it turns out, Ohio has some pretty cool looking birds. I saw a few Blue Jays, which I really think are pretty albeit territorial and some other bird that is sold black with an orange spot on each wing. I haven’t looked that one up yet to tell which one it is. Feel free to let me know if you know.
My friend joked with me when I told him about the retreat. He said, “Are you going to hug a tree?’ I said, “No, I’m going to let Jesus hug me for awhile.” That’s how I have been feeling the last few days. I am not sure what makes me more ill: legalism or fighting over it. I published that blog on fundamentalism fully expecting some conversation to be spawned, but never thought I would be called names and never thought that it would cause so much angst among people that I love. Can I tell you? I needed a hug from Jesus. After all my theologizing was done, at the end of the day, I just wanted to fall into His gracious arms.
As I watched those birds, I thought of the words of Jesus in Matthew 6: “Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?” I felt the Spirit around me and as crazy as it sounds, I felt surrounded by the arms of Jesus. For a brief moment, I forgot about the fighting. I forgot of all else but the sunshine and the trees and the birds and my status in the eyes of God.
The words of Paul to the Galatians, “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” I felt very free out there on the trail. Now I know the fundamentalists out there would say that this is about sin, but it’s not just about that. It’s about living in God’s grace. This is why I get so bent out of shape about legalism, in all its various forms and issues. I hear someone say, “Don’t listen to that type of music because it is bad.” What type of music? Why is it bad? Is it played badly? What do you mean by bad? The answers I get are usually something like “It’s rock music,” “Jesus wouldn’t listen to that,” “Do you really think that music glorifies God?” The last question I think is pretty much the only legitimate one. If it glorifies God, it is good. I agree.
So can a love song glorify God? I think it can. I hear the song “Unforgettable” by Nat King Cole and I think of Kandice. I’m not sure where Cole stood with God because I know very little about him, but I know that song moves me almost every time I hear it because I think of my wife and how much I love her. Cole is pretty tame, but what about Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, Creed, Pink Floyd, or Jimi Hendrix? And I got to say, every time I hear Bob Marley, I just feel like dancing and I almost cannot help but smile.
Here is the big rub that I think really just makes fundamentalists mad: Non-Christians can glorify God. It’s true. It’s part of the image of God that He placed within us. It doesn’t mean they’re heaven-bound. It doesn’t mean that God will overlook their sin; it just means that God gave them natural talents to create beautiful music. So why not enjoy it? I’m not so naïve as to think that every song put out by any band is glorifying to God, but I’m also not a mindless robot and I can make the decision based upon the content of the song, the guidelines laid out in the Word of God, and the direction of the Holy Spirit whether or not I should be listening to it.
The same goes for movies. Every movie that any director or actor participates in is not worthy to be watched, but that does not mean that I cannot be discerning about what is good and what is bad. That is part of the freedom that God gives us. I have been accused of saying that “everything is permissible” and for the life of me, after reading back over what I wrote, cannot figure out where that came from. The closest thing that I saw was when I said that “Everything belongs to God” and I stand by that statement. But Paul does write in 1 Corinthians 10:23, “’All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. ‘All things are lawful,’ but not all things build up…”
So let me clear this up. Here is what I am not saying. I am not saying that we have carte blanche to do whatever we want because it’s all about grace. God forbid we treat His Word with such blatant disrespect that we throw it all out and live only by the Spirit. What I am saying is that we have been given these incredible gifts of our brain, the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and we should use them. We want to make it simple and just paint it all black and white when God never meant for things to always be that way. He meant for us to engage these things and to use the tools that He gave us to do that. Sure, some things are obviously something that we should avoid because the Bible plainly commands us to not do them because they are sin and/or they are not glorifying to Him, but much of what we label as this, we label not because we believe we should not engage it, but because we are afraid to engage it.
It’s much easier to paint things with a broad brush of black and white when we do not want to get our hands dirty. It’s much easier to say that all “secular” music is bad. It’s much easier to say that all music with a beat is really bad. It’s much easier to say that all PG-13 and R movies are bad. It’s much easier to say that all homeless people are homeless because they are lazy, crazy, or on drugs. It’s much easier to oversimplify economics and blame the liberals for everything. It’s much easier to say that all alcohol consumption is bad. It’s much easier to throw certain words under the category of “corrupt language” even though they are being used properly. It’s much easier to judge someone for not dressing up for church on Sunday morning.
And what about the things that really matter? It is much easier to systematize theology and condemn everything that does not fit in a box (I’m guilty of this). It is much easier to blame someone who is searching for God for having bad theology when we have the benefit of 2,000 years of it behind us (I’m guilty of this, too). It is much easier to turn our heads when someone is in pain because of their sin despite where they might be. It is much easier for us to judge others on nonessential, unclear issues in the Bible. It is much easier to claim our own personal holiness for the reason that we don’t reach out beyond our circle, our race, or our political party or just because we think we are better than them. It is much easier to claim our own personal holiness when grace might require us to get down in the trenches with them and help to pull them out. It is much easier to condemn the homosexual and ignore his or her pain. It is much easier to give static answers to complex questions. It is much easier to say, “What Would Jesus Do?” when the truth is, there are many times we just do not know.
When are we going to learn that we do have freedom? And it’s not for us to abuse; it is for us to help others, to show grace, to enjoy his creation, and to love God with all our hearts. I am very tired of defending my Christian freedom to those who would judge me without ever really knowing me. I believe in enjoying God and His creation to the fullest and worshipping with everything I do. I don’t consider it a free pass to do whatever I want, but I refuse to conform to a legalistic standard that is someone else’s opinion of what godliness is which is evident by their behavior and attitude. I cannot win God’s favor by boosting the standard even higher. It doesn’t work and that’s the point.
I also think that I need to publically (if that is the right term for this) repent of when I have done this. I am a work in progress. Jesus saved me, but I have to rely on the Spirit to help me not be the very thing that I despise. I try my very best to not judge others by a standard that I cannot even reach, but it often comes out of me in a very prideful way much more than I acknowledge or admit and for that I am very sorry and I need to ask all of you for your forgiveness for my own judgmental attitude. I just want to live fully in God’s grace and I desperately want that for others also, for the glory of God alone.
To be honest, I wish I could live everyday in that moment that I had yesterday evening, just surrounded by God and His creation and not have to be concerned with what people think. I guess that’s a bit idealistic, but the little piece of that that I can have right now is to choose to not be so dogmatic on things that in the end, I don’t really know, just plain do not matter, or that I can be discerning about. I have to be vulnerable and willing to make mistakes and not let that shatter my sense of worth, because God loves me no matter what. I do not need to earn his favor. That’s freedom and that’s grace.
My friend joked with me when I told him about the retreat. He said, “Are you going to hug a tree?’ I said, “No, I’m going to let Jesus hug me for awhile.” That’s how I have been feeling the last few days. I am not sure what makes me more ill: legalism or fighting over it. I published that blog on fundamentalism fully expecting some conversation to be spawned, but never thought I would be called names and never thought that it would cause so much angst among people that I love. Can I tell you? I needed a hug from Jesus. After all my theologizing was done, at the end of the day, I just wanted to fall into His gracious arms.
As I watched those birds, I thought of the words of Jesus in Matthew 6: “Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?” I felt the Spirit around me and as crazy as it sounds, I felt surrounded by the arms of Jesus. For a brief moment, I forgot about the fighting. I forgot of all else but the sunshine and the trees and the birds and my status in the eyes of God.
The words of Paul to the Galatians, “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” I felt very free out there on the trail. Now I know the fundamentalists out there would say that this is about sin, but it’s not just about that. It’s about living in God’s grace. This is why I get so bent out of shape about legalism, in all its various forms and issues. I hear someone say, “Don’t listen to that type of music because it is bad.” What type of music? Why is it bad? Is it played badly? What do you mean by bad? The answers I get are usually something like “It’s rock music,” “Jesus wouldn’t listen to that,” “Do you really think that music glorifies God?” The last question I think is pretty much the only legitimate one. If it glorifies God, it is good. I agree.
So can a love song glorify God? I think it can. I hear the song “Unforgettable” by Nat King Cole and I think of Kandice. I’m not sure where Cole stood with God because I know very little about him, but I know that song moves me almost every time I hear it because I think of my wife and how much I love her. Cole is pretty tame, but what about Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, Creed, Pink Floyd, or Jimi Hendrix? And I got to say, every time I hear Bob Marley, I just feel like dancing and I almost cannot help but smile.
Here is the big rub that I think really just makes fundamentalists mad: Non-Christians can glorify God. It’s true. It’s part of the image of God that He placed within us. It doesn’t mean they’re heaven-bound. It doesn’t mean that God will overlook their sin; it just means that God gave them natural talents to create beautiful music. So why not enjoy it? I’m not so naïve as to think that every song put out by any band is glorifying to God, but I’m also not a mindless robot and I can make the decision based upon the content of the song, the guidelines laid out in the Word of God, and the direction of the Holy Spirit whether or not I should be listening to it.
The same goes for movies. Every movie that any director or actor participates in is not worthy to be watched, but that does not mean that I cannot be discerning about what is good and what is bad. That is part of the freedom that God gives us. I have been accused of saying that “everything is permissible” and for the life of me, after reading back over what I wrote, cannot figure out where that came from. The closest thing that I saw was when I said that “Everything belongs to God” and I stand by that statement. But Paul does write in 1 Corinthians 10:23, “’All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. ‘All things are lawful,’ but not all things build up…”
So let me clear this up. Here is what I am not saying. I am not saying that we have carte blanche to do whatever we want because it’s all about grace. God forbid we treat His Word with such blatant disrespect that we throw it all out and live only by the Spirit. What I am saying is that we have been given these incredible gifts of our brain, the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and we should use them. We want to make it simple and just paint it all black and white when God never meant for things to always be that way. He meant for us to engage these things and to use the tools that He gave us to do that. Sure, some things are obviously something that we should avoid because the Bible plainly commands us to not do them because they are sin and/or they are not glorifying to Him, but much of what we label as this, we label not because we believe we should not engage it, but because we are afraid to engage it.
It’s much easier to paint things with a broad brush of black and white when we do not want to get our hands dirty. It’s much easier to say that all “secular” music is bad. It’s much easier to say that all music with a beat is really bad. It’s much easier to say that all PG-13 and R movies are bad. It’s much easier to say that all homeless people are homeless because they are lazy, crazy, or on drugs. It’s much easier to oversimplify economics and blame the liberals for everything. It’s much easier to say that all alcohol consumption is bad. It’s much easier to throw certain words under the category of “corrupt language” even though they are being used properly. It’s much easier to judge someone for not dressing up for church on Sunday morning.
And what about the things that really matter? It is much easier to systematize theology and condemn everything that does not fit in a box (I’m guilty of this). It is much easier to blame someone who is searching for God for having bad theology when we have the benefit of 2,000 years of it behind us (I’m guilty of this, too). It is much easier to turn our heads when someone is in pain because of their sin despite where they might be. It is much easier for us to judge others on nonessential, unclear issues in the Bible. It is much easier to claim our own personal holiness for the reason that we don’t reach out beyond our circle, our race, or our political party or just because we think we are better than them. It is much easier to claim our own personal holiness when grace might require us to get down in the trenches with them and help to pull them out. It is much easier to condemn the homosexual and ignore his or her pain. It is much easier to give static answers to complex questions. It is much easier to say, “What Would Jesus Do?” when the truth is, there are many times we just do not know.
When are we going to learn that we do have freedom? And it’s not for us to abuse; it is for us to help others, to show grace, to enjoy his creation, and to love God with all our hearts. I am very tired of defending my Christian freedom to those who would judge me without ever really knowing me. I believe in enjoying God and His creation to the fullest and worshipping with everything I do. I don’t consider it a free pass to do whatever I want, but I refuse to conform to a legalistic standard that is someone else’s opinion of what godliness is which is evident by their behavior and attitude. I cannot win God’s favor by boosting the standard even higher. It doesn’t work and that’s the point.
I also think that I need to publically (if that is the right term for this) repent of when I have done this. I am a work in progress. Jesus saved me, but I have to rely on the Spirit to help me not be the very thing that I despise. I try my very best to not judge others by a standard that I cannot even reach, but it often comes out of me in a very prideful way much more than I acknowledge or admit and for that I am very sorry and I need to ask all of you for your forgiveness for my own judgmental attitude. I just want to live fully in God’s grace and I desperately want that for others also, for the glory of God alone.
To be honest, I wish I could live everyday in that moment that I had yesterday evening, just surrounded by God and His creation and not have to be concerned with what people think. I guess that’s a bit idealistic, but the little piece of that that I can have right now is to choose to not be so dogmatic on things that in the end, I don’t really know, just plain do not matter, or that I can be discerning about. I have to be vulnerable and willing to make mistakes and not let that shatter my sense of worth, because God loves me no matter what. I do not need to earn his favor. That’s freedom and that’s grace.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
A Review of The Shack
Before I get to this review, I think that some background is necessary. I first heard of The Shack when Kandice came home and asked me to get the book from the library because a friend of hers had recommended it to her. Not long after that, I saw a video on YouTube of Mark Driscoll reviewing it and, as you probably know, it was not a positive review. Another friend of mine from high school also referenced it and that is when I first got wind of what it really was about. When I lashed out, he encouraged me to read it. To be honest with you, I really did not want to read it. I got the book on CD and have listened to it as I work.
I am probably a little more liberal than most when it comes to works of fiction, possibly because I enjoy writing, but maybe more because I know that when someone is to tell a story, it is sometimes necessary to suspend belief in certain things because it lends to the story more. While this story has some of that, it also presents some very troubling theology.
I think it’s important to point out here that my relationship with Christ is, hands down, the most fulfilling relationship that I have ever had. It is very easy for me to romanticize it and perhaps on some levels, that is warranted. Despite those wondrous mountain tops when you feel so close to God, you don’t think your body can handle it, there are also those times when the relationship feels like it is suffering or silent. Those are the times when I cannot rely on my feelings and have to resort to my beliefs. A simple relationship with Christ would never get me through those times, but my beliefs coupled with that relationship sustain me during the most difficult times of my faith. This story presents, I believe, a watered-down version of the gospel that would not sustain a person through difficult times, but offer a pseudo-hope of a pie-in-the-sky relationship that would not stand the test of evil, despite the best intentions of the author. The story itself is quite moving and if it was not for the fact that it presents some very questionable theology, I would probably recommend it. What troubles me is that Young could have changed a few things in his presentation and the story could have been a monument to the glory of God, but instead, it stands in error by promoting humanistic ideas and relative theology.
The first thing that struck me is that Mac’s assumptions about God were wrong from the beginning. God does still speak. The way that the ideas are presented is as if they are the assumptions that most people have about God. This simply is not true. I think that the straw man that Young presents gives permission for him to present some more very questionable theology. Below is a list of some things I saw that are most certainly questionable, if not downright wrong:
1. “The Great Spirit” that the Native Americans worshipped is not the same God that Jews and Christians worship.
2. The belief that sin is a sickness or a disease is clearly presented in this book and it appears that the idea of the idea of a penal substitutionary atonement is rejected. This further evidenced by a quote from the book. God is speaking and he (she) says, “I don’t need to punish people for their sin. Sin is its own punishment…It’s not my purpose to punish it. It’s my joy to cure it.”(I think that I should do an entire blog on this so we won’t go there now. This may require a bit of study so don’t hold your breath for this tomorrow.)
3. This may offend some of my female readers, but I do have a problem with God being presented as a woman. I believe the Bible has specific and theological reasons for presenting God as a Father and to present him any other way is not the way it was intended.
4. This book clearly states that God the Father and Jesus the Son became human (“We” became flesh). This is theologically incorrect. The person of God the Father was not part of the incarnation; why would Jesus pray to God if this was the case? Jesus the Son was the only person in the Trinity involved in the incarnation.
5. The book also states that Jesus’ miracles were not part of His divinity, but rather a result of His humanity. Since Jesus was the only person to live to His full human potential, he was able to perform miracles. This is so far off base that it is very disconcerting.
6. This book seems to ignore the sin issue or at the very least, redefine it. I am not even sure if the book actually mentions the word “sin” or not. The book says, “Humans are not defined by their limitations, but by the intention that I have for them.” I believe this is not biblical. As human beings, we are victims of the fall, born with a sin nature and, I believe, totally depraved in that we have no ability to reach God apart from His grace. This is not a mere limitation; let’s call it what it is: it is sin that separates us from God.
7. God does not limit Himself, as the book says. It is true that in order for Jesus to be human, some of his divine characteristics had to be veiled, but this is far different from limitation.
8. The book argues that Jesus Christ never established a church. At one point, Jesus says, “I do not create institutions.” Later, the book says, “We work within your systems even as we seek to free you from them.” So much for “Upon this rock I will build my church.” Oh wait…Jesus actually said that.
9. A particularly egregious point that this book makes is that it suggests that one can get to God the Father other than through His Son, Jesus Christ. THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO GOD—THROUGH HIS SON JESUS CHRIST.
10. The book says that in Jesus, “we are fully human.” This hearkens back to this book’s emphasis on Jesus’ humanity and de-emphasis (perhaps denial?) of Jesus’ divinity. We are fully human the day we are born, complete with the imago dei, but born with a sinful nature. We do not need to aspire to be more human. We need to aspire to be more like Christ.
11. I have defined the essentials as the Apostles Creed with a relational emphasis. This book takes it a step further and says that it is all about relationship. This is simply not true. It argues that one can be a follower of Christ and not be able to believe anything else other than He is in a relationship with Christ. Never mind God. Never mind sin. It’s not about those things. Well...while I do accept that there is a relational emphasis to being a Christ-follower as I wrote above, there is more to it. For me to have a relationship with Christ, I must believe certain things. There are prerequisites, if you will. You cannot just do what you want as long as you are in a relationship with Christ, which brings me to the next point…
12. The book says that we are not under the law. Depending on what one means, this can be true. It is true that we are no longer under the ceremonial or the civil law of the Old Testament, in other words, those ceremonial things that were limited to the tabernacle and the Temple and the civil laws that helped to guard the Israelites from disease and helped to maintain order. However, there are portions of the law that can be classified as moral law. Moral law flows directly from the character of God as revealed by Scripture. Since the character of God does not change because God does not change, this law does not pass away. For the most part, we have a very good synoptic statement of this law in what is commonly referred to as the Ten Commandments. A word of caution here: there is a happy medium here. This is not about following a legalistic and lawful standard that we could never reach anyway. This is about understanding the character of God so that we do not sin and place roadblocks in our way of having a relationship with Christ. There is a relational emphasis here, but it’s not all about relationship.
13. This book furthers a liberal argument that we are all children of God. The Bible speaks directly against this in 1 John when it says, “By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.”
This was a really hard review to do because there is so much in the book that I disagree with and it had so much potential, but in the end, there is just too much here to be ignored. I do not suggest you read it unless you are very secure and firm in your faith. This is a book you should leave off your shelf.
I am probably a little more liberal than most when it comes to works of fiction, possibly because I enjoy writing, but maybe more because I know that when someone is to tell a story, it is sometimes necessary to suspend belief in certain things because it lends to the story more. While this story has some of that, it also presents some very troubling theology.
I think it’s important to point out here that my relationship with Christ is, hands down, the most fulfilling relationship that I have ever had. It is very easy for me to romanticize it and perhaps on some levels, that is warranted. Despite those wondrous mountain tops when you feel so close to God, you don’t think your body can handle it, there are also those times when the relationship feels like it is suffering or silent. Those are the times when I cannot rely on my feelings and have to resort to my beliefs. A simple relationship with Christ would never get me through those times, but my beliefs coupled with that relationship sustain me during the most difficult times of my faith. This story presents, I believe, a watered-down version of the gospel that would not sustain a person through difficult times, but offer a pseudo-hope of a pie-in-the-sky relationship that would not stand the test of evil, despite the best intentions of the author. The story itself is quite moving and if it was not for the fact that it presents some very questionable theology, I would probably recommend it. What troubles me is that Young could have changed a few things in his presentation and the story could have been a monument to the glory of God, but instead, it stands in error by promoting humanistic ideas and relative theology.
The first thing that struck me is that Mac’s assumptions about God were wrong from the beginning. God does still speak. The way that the ideas are presented is as if they are the assumptions that most people have about God. This simply is not true. I think that the straw man that Young presents gives permission for him to present some more very questionable theology. Below is a list of some things I saw that are most certainly questionable, if not downright wrong:
1. “The Great Spirit” that the Native Americans worshipped is not the same God that Jews and Christians worship.
2. The belief that sin is a sickness or a disease is clearly presented in this book and it appears that the idea of the idea of a penal substitutionary atonement is rejected. This further evidenced by a quote from the book. God is speaking and he (she) says, “I don’t need to punish people for their sin. Sin is its own punishment…It’s not my purpose to punish it. It’s my joy to cure it.”(I think that I should do an entire blog on this so we won’t go there now. This may require a bit of study so don’t hold your breath for this tomorrow.)
3. This may offend some of my female readers, but I do have a problem with God being presented as a woman. I believe the Bible has specific and theological reasons for presenting God as a Father and to present him any other way is not the way it was intended.
4. This book clearly states that God the Father and Jesus the Son became human (“We” became flesh). This is theologically incorrect. The person of God the Father was not part of the incarnation; why would Jesus pray to God if this was the case? Jesus the Son was the only person in the Trinity involved in the incarnation.
5. The book also states that Jesus’ miracles were not part of His divinity, but rather a result of His humanity. Since Jesus was the only person to live to His full human potential, he was able to perform miracles. This is so far off base that it is very disconcerting.
6. This book seems to ignore the sin issue or at the very least, redefine it. I am not even sure if the book actually mentions the word “sin” or not. The book says, “Humans are not defined by their limitations, but by the intention that I have for them.” I believe this is not biblical. As human beings, we are victims of the fall, born with a sin nature and, I believe, totally depraved in that we have no ability to reach God apart from His grace. This is not a mere limitation; let’s call it what it is: it is sin that separates us from God.
7. God does not limit Himself, as the book says. It is true that in order for Jesus to be human, some of his divine characteristics had to be veiled, but this is far different from limitation.
8. The book argues that Jesus Christ never established a church. At one point, Jesus says, “I do not create institutions.” Later, the book says, “We work within your systems even as we seek to free you from them.” So much for “Upon this rock I will build my church.” Oh wait…Jesus actually said that.
9. A particularly egregious point that this book makes is that it suggests that one can get to God the Father other than through His Son, Jesus Christ. THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO GOD—THROUGH HIS SON JESUS CHRIST.
10. The book says that in Jesus, “we are fully human.” This hearkens back to this book’s emphasis on Jesus’ humanity and de-emphasis (perhaps denial?) of Jesus’ divinity. We are fully human the day we are born, complete with the imago dei, but born with a sinful nature. We do not need to aspire to be more human. We need to aspire to be more like Christ.
11. I have defined the essentials as the Apostles Creed with a relational emphasis. This book takes it a step further and says that it is all about relationship. This is simply not true. It argues that one can be a follower of Christ and not be able to believe anything else other than He is in a relationship with Christ. Never mind God. Never mind sin. It’s not about those things. Well...while I do accept that there is a relational emphasis to being a Christ-follower as I wrote above, there is more to it. For me to have a relationship with Christ, I must believe certain things. There are prerequisites, if you will. You cannot just do what you want as long as you are in a relationship with Christ, which brings me to the next point…
12. The book says that we are not under the law. Depending on what one means, this can be true. It is true that we are no longer under the ceremonial or the civil law of the Old Testament, in other words, those ceremonial things that were limited to the tabernacle and the Temple and the civil laws that helped to guard the Israelites from disease and helped to maintain order. However, there are portions of the law that can be classified as moral law. Moral law flows directly from the character of God as revealed by Scripture. Since the character of God does not change because God does not change, this law does not pass away. For the most part, we have a very good synoptic statement of this law in what is commonly referred to as the Ten Commandments. A word of caution here: there is a happy medium here. This is not about following a legalistic and lawful standard that we could never reach anyway. This is about understanding the character of God so that we do not sin and place roadblocks in our way of having a relationship with Christ. There is a relational emphasis here, but it’s not all about relationship.
13. This book furthers a liberal argument that we are all children of God. The Bible speaks directly against this in 1 John when it says, “By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.”
This was a really hard review to do because there is so much in the book that I disagree with and it had so much potential, but in the end, there is just too much here to be ignored. I do not suggest you read it unless you are very secure and firm in your faith. This is a book you should leave off your shelf.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The Problem Of New Evangelicalism
The problem with New Evangelicalism is really quite simple compared to the other issues that we have looked at. When this movement began in the middle of the 20th century, it was an honest and sincere attempt to re-engage the culture that Fundamentalism had left behind. But somewhere along the way, it catered too much and began to become a parody of itself. It went beyond evangelicalism and began to appear more like Protestant Liberalism.
What is fascinating to me is that in the 20th century, several schools of thought emerged (no pun intended) from the framework that had been built for two centuries before it. But in the end, New Evangelicalism brought us back to the same answers as before. If you cater to the culture too much and do not recognize and stand on issues that the Bible calls sin, you risk becoming a watered-down shell of a theological movement. But if you do not engage the culture at all, you risk becoming a separatist, fueled by hate and fear of the culture around you and completely oblivious to anything relevant.
That is why I call myself “fundamentalistic.” I do believe that a person should remain separate from sin, but when we begin to call things sin that the Bible does not call sin, we add to the Word of God. We are called to be discerning. It is very easy to paint something black and white. It does not require us to think, only to judge. That’s too easy. To be discerning, one must rely on the Holy Spirit to lead and guide us.
What is fascinating to me is that in the 20th century, several schools of thought emerged (no pun intended) from the framework that had been built for two centuries before it. But in the end, New Evangelicalism brought us back to the same answers as before. If you cater to the culture too much and do not recognize and stand on issues that the Bible calls sin, you risk becoming a watered-down shell of a theological movement. But if you do not engage the culture at all, you risk becoming a separatist, fueled by hate and fear of the culture around you and completely oblivious to anything relevant.
That is why I call myself “fundamentalistic.” I do believe that a person should remain separate from sin, but when we begin to call things sin that the Bible does not call sin, we add to the Word of God. We are called to be discerning. It is very easy to paint something black and white. It does not require us to think, only to judge. That’s too easy. To be discerning, one must rely on the Holy Spirit to lead and guide us.
Monday, May 18, 2009
The Problem With Fundamentalism
On a personal note today, I would like to wish my brother-in-law, Brian, a very happy birthday. We celebrated Saturday night by having dinner at Menches Brothers and then going to see Star Trek. By the way, I give it a hearty two thumbs up! Sunday, we had lunch at my in-laws where we did lunch, gifts, cake, and ice cream.
It was a very active weekend. I finally got a “honey do” project done and we picked up some great things at the community-wide yard sale in Navarre. It was a lot of fun. Also, there are a couple of upcoming dates that you should be aware of. I will be speaking at Mt. Eaton Community Church in Mt. Eaton, Ohio, on June 28th in their morning service at 10:30am and also on July 19th at my former church in Shelby, Ohio, CORE Community Church. I’m looking forward to both dates!
It is shaping up to be a very busy few weeks for me. Next week, my wife and I will be traveling up the Detroit area to visit friends and family. The following weekend I will have class Friday night and Saturday (with about four papers due for this one class) and will attend services at my former church in Shelby, Ohio, the one I will be speaking at in July. Following the service, we will attend Jocelyn Steven’s graduation party. The following weekend was the original date for the Mt. Eaton sermon, but that has just been moved so it looks like I have a free weekend! The weekend after that, Kandice and I will be traveling to Columbus to celebrate my brother-in-law, Tim, graduate from Ohio State.
Speaking of family, today’s blog topic is one that strikes home for me. The problem with fundamentalism, in my opinion, is big. I have a great many friends and family that are fundamentalists. I hearken back to the definition that I used before. Fundamentalism is an evangelical movement started in the late 19th and early 20th century in reaction to Protestant Liberalism characterized by adherence to “the fundamentals” and a separation from culture. After New Evangelicalism (which we will talk about later), fundamentalists became characterized by being primarily dispensational and premillenial in their theology.
Let’s start with the positive. There are elements of fundamentalism that I agree with, so much so that I would describe myself as “fundamentalistic,” but not a fundamentalist. When fundamentalism emerged in the early 20th century, it was in reaction to Protestant Liberalism, a school of theology that was not biblical or evangelical. It is important to note here that the nature of theology seems to be reactionary rather than proactionary. A wonderful example is the Nicene Creed, which talks more about what Jesus is not rather than what it is. Given that this is the nature of theology, we cannot fault fundamentalism for reacting against something as heretical as Protestant Liberalism.
First among the positives is that like evangelicalism, it emphasizes the Bible as the Word of God, usually couching the argument as presenting the Bible as the inerrant, infallible Word of God. This, in my opinion, is a positive thing for fundamentalism. Secondly, like evangelicalism, emphasis is placed on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, particularly on the substitutionary atonement model, which I also primarily agree with. Third, there is a belief in personal conversion that comes as a result of accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and His death on the cross for your sins.
Negatively though, when New Evangelicalism began to reengage culture in the mid-20th century, fundamentalism did not go with it. Instead, it began to emphasize belief in other things that were not originally fundamentals such as premillenialism and dispensationalism. Primarily at issue it seems is the idea of separatism. Taking the hard line are Closed Fundamentalists. In this movement, almost anything contemporary in culture is viewed as evil, in particular, movies and music. Complete abstinence from alcohol is often emphasized, sometimes even to the point that it is not even used for medicinal purposes. A sub sect of Closed Fundamentalists is what is called “KJV only,” meaning that they believe that the King James Version is the only acceptable version of the Bible. A sub sect of that sub sect believes that the KJV is exalted even over the original language.
It is often hard to identify specific denominations that fall into the Closed Fundamentalist category because many of them are “independent, Bible-believing” churches; however it seems that most are primarily Baptist. It is easier to identify this group by certain colleges and universities that cater to these specific beliefs, particularly Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina and Pensacola Christian College in Pensacola, Florida.
Taking a bit of a softer line are the Open Fundamentalists. Open Fundamentalists are not quite as dogmatic on nonessential issues, but contemporary cultural issues are, at the very least, viewed with suspicion, particularly in the area of music. Some contemporary music may be acceptable, but certainly not all. Some movies are acceptable, but certainly not all. Usually, complete abstinence from alcohol is still the standard. A popular university that could be labeled as Open Fundamentalist is Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.
Let me pause here and make something perfectly clear. This is not about being Baptist. For those of you that know me well, you know that I grew up Southern Baptist. Indeed, I have been Baptist most of my life. The church that I am a member of now, while officially nondenominational, is primarily Baptist in its doctrine. I do not hate Baptists. I do not hate any denomination; although there is a few that have become heretical. This is not about what denomination you belong to. This is about separation. How separate is a believer to be in the world?
The only thing the Bible commands us to be separate from is sin. The Bible never commands to avoid the appearance of sin. It only commands us to avoid sin. This ought to be the thing that sets us apart from the world, not the mere appearance of godliness. This “avoid the appearance of evil” passage is from the King James Version of 1 Thessalonians 5:22. In the original Greek, the word “appearance” is not there. In my opinion, this is a badly translated passage. The ESV reads, “Abstain from every form of evil” which is much closer to the original Greek. I am not sure about you, but I have a hard enough time avoiding sin than to additionally be concerned about how I appear to other people. The only person that I should be concerned about my appearance is Jesus Christ.
Often when I say the above, one of the first questions I get is “What about the principle of the weaker brother?” It is true that Paul said that he would rather not eat meat at all than to offend others, but I think that it is important to remember that the principle of the weaker brother requires one thing: A weaker brother. The principle of the weaker brother is only for those Christians who are new in their faith. The person that has been a Christian for years upon years and says that they are offended by my actions are not actually being offended, they are being judgmental. The only standard that I am to conform to is that standard set forth by the Word of God. For someone to judge me by any other standard is not only rude, it is sin. Don’t argue with me about it; argue with Christ. He said it (Matthew 7:1).
Think about it this way: Wasn’t it Jesus who expounded on the letter of the law and went to man’s intentions? For example, it is not the mere act of adultery that makes it sin. Jesus said that if you look on another woman with lust, you have sinned. Jesus went to the heart of the matter; in other words, what are your intentions? Jesus did not care about appearances. He ate and drank with sinners and was accused of being a drunk (Matthew 9).
Common sense dictates that if a person who is truly seeking God with all their heart and is genuine in their faith is having a hard time by something that I do (and they are not being judgmental) that I believe is permissible, then I should not do that thing in front of them or around them. This really should be a temporary thing, though. The goal for the weaker brother is to get stronger.
I also think there is an element to this debate that of often missed. It is the idea of the sacred versus the secular. I very much do not believe in this concept. Everything belongs to God. Music belongs to God, no matter what style. Movies belong to God. Are we using these things to glorify God? Is our every breath, our every heartbeat, our very passions glorifying to God? The biblical command is not to separate from these things; the biblical command is whatever you do, do it to the glory of God. I will openly admit, it is very hard to break out of the sacred versus secular mindset, but I really think that it is something that is crucial for the believer.
I said in one of my earlier blog posts that the definition of the essentials of Christianity is “the Apostles’ Creed with a relational emphasis.” This is where the relational emphasis comes in. As a Christian who has been liberated from the letter of the law by the death, burial, and especially the resurrection of Jesus Christ, my focus should be not on the point of the letter of the law, but the point where something comes between me and my Savior. The Bible is our handbook and our guideline for this. If it violates the Word of God, it violates my relationship with God. There are times, however, when the Holy Spirit will reveal to someone that something is not right. I have met people who genuinely believe that they should not listen to certain kinds of music because it violates their relationship with God. I think this is admirable. I applaud it! And heaven forbid that I should come in between them and God. But they certainly do not try and forbid others from doing the same because they understand that this is about their relationship and they don’t try to bend the Bible to fit a new definition of godliness.
To sum all of this up:
1. The only thing the Bible commands us to be separate from is sin.
2. The only person that I should be concerned about my appearance is Jesus Christ.
3. The only standard that I am to conform to is that standard set forth by the Word of God. For someone to judge me by any other standard is not only rude, it is sin.
4. The principle of the weaker brother does not always apply. The goal for the weaker brother is to get stronger.
5. Everything belongs to God.
As a Christian who has been liberated from the letter of the law by the death, burial, and especially the resurrection of Jesus Christ, my focus should be not on the point of the letter of the law, but the point where something comes between me and my Savior
It was a very active weekend. I finally got a “honey do” project done and we picked up some great things at the community-wide yard sale in Navarre. It was a lot of fun. Also, there are a couple of upcoming dates that you should be aware of. I will be speaking at Mt. Eaton Community Church in Mt. Eaton, Ohio, on June 28th in their morning service at 10:30am and also on July 19th at my former church in Shelby, Ohio, CORE Community Church. I’m looking forward to both dates!
It is shaping up to be a very busy few weeks for me. Next week, my wife and I will be traveling up the Detroit area to visit friends and family. The following weekend I will have class Friday night and Saturday (with about four papers due for this one class) and will attend services at my former church in Shelby, Ohio, the one I will be speaking at in July. Following the service, we will attend Jocelyn Steven’s graduation party. The following weekend was the original date for the Mt. Eaton sermon, but that has just been moved so it looks like I have a free weekend! The weekend after that, Kandice and I will be traveling to Columbus to celebrate my brother-in-law, Tim, graduate from Ohio State.
Speaking of family, today’s blog topic is one that strikes home for me. The problem with fundamentalism, in my opinion, is big. I have a great many friends and family that are fundamentalists. I hearken back to the definition that I used before. Fundamentalism is an evangelical movement started in the late 19th and early 20th century in reaction to Protestant Liberalism characterized by adherence to “the fundamentals” and a separation from culture. After New Evangelicalism (which we will talk about later), fundamentalists became characterized by being primarily dispensational and premillenial in their theology.
Let’s start with the positive. There are elements of fundamentalism that I agree with, so much so that I would describe myself as “fundamentalistic,” but not a fundamentalist. When fundamentalism emerged in the early 20th century, it was in reaction to Protestant Liberalism, a school of theology that was not biblical or evangelical. It is important to note here that the nature of theology seems to be reactionary rather than proactionary. A wonderful example is the Nicene Creed, which talks more about what Jesus is not rather than what it is. Given that this is the nature of theology, we cannot fault fundamentalism for reacting against something as heretical as Protestant Liberalism.
First among the positives is that like evangelicalism, it emphasizes the Bible as the Word of God, usually couching the argument as presenting the Bible as the inerrant, infallible Word of God. This, in my opinion, is a positive thing for fundamentalism. Secondly, like evangelicalism, emphasis is placed on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, particularly on the substitutionary atonement model, which I also primarily agree with. Third, there is a belief in personal conversion that comes as a result of accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and His death on the cross for your sins.
Negatively though, when New Evangelicalism began to reengage culture in the mid-20th century, fundamentalism did not go with it. Instead, it began to emphasize belief in other things that were not originally fundamentals such as premillenialism and dispensationalism. Primarily at issue it seems is the idea of separatism. Taking the hard line are Closed Fundamentalists. In this movement, almost anything contemporary in culture is viewed as evil, in particular, movies and music. Complete abstinence from alcohol is often emphasized, sometimes even to the point that it is not even used for medicinal purposes. A sub sect of Closed Fundamentalists is what is called “KJV only,” meaning that they believe that the King James Version is the only acceptable version of the Bible. A sub sect of that sub sect believes that the KJV is exalted even over the original language.
It is often hard to identify specific denominations that fall into the Closed Fundamentalist category because many of them are “independent, Bible-believing” churches; however it seems that most are primarily Baptist. It is easier to identify this group by certain colleges and universities that cater to these specific beliefs, particularly Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina and Pensacola Christian College in Pensacola, Florida.
Taking a bit of a softer line are the Open Fundamentalists. Open Fundamentalists are not quite as dogmatic on nonessential issues, but contemporary cultural issues are, at the very least, viewed with suspicion, particularly in the area of music. Some contemporary music may be acceptable, but certainly not all. Some movies are acceptable, but certainly not all. Usually, complete abstinence from alcohol is still the standard. A popular university that could be labeled as Open Fundamentalist is Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.
Let me pause here and make something perfectly clear. This is not about being Baptist. For those of you that know me well, you know that I grew up Southern Baptist. Indeed, I have been Baptist most of my life. The church that I am a member of now, while officially nondenominational, is primarily Baptist in its doctrine. I do not hate Baptists. I do not hate any denomination; although there is a few that have become heretical. This is not about what denomination you belong to. This is about separation. How separate is a believer to be in the world?
The only thing the Bible commands us to be separate from is sin. The Bible never commands to avoid the appearance of sin. It only commands us to avoid sin. This ought to be the thing that sets us apart from the world, not the mere appearance of godliness. This “avoid the appearance of evil” passage is from the King James Version of 1 Thessalonians 5:22. In the original Greek, the word “appearance” is not there. In my opinion, this is a badly translated passage. The ESV reads, “Abstain from every form of evil” which is much closer to the original Greek. I am not sure about you, but I have a hard enough time avoiding sin than to additionally be concerned about how I appear to other people. The only person that I should be concerned about my appearance is Jesus Christ.
Often when I say the above, one of the first questions I get is “What about the principle of the weaker brother?” It is true that Paul said that he would rather not eat meat at all than to offend others, but I think that it is important to remember that the principle of the weaker brother requires one thing: A weaker brother. The principle of the weaker brother is only for those Christians who are new in their faith. The person that has been a Christian for years upon years and says that they are offended by my actions are not actually being offended, they are being judgmental. The only standard that I am to conform to is that standard set forth by the Word of God. For someone to judge me by any other standard is not only rude, it is sin. Don’t argue with me about it; argue with Christ. He said it (Matthew 7:1).
Think about it this way: Wasn’t it Jesus who expounded on the letter of the law and went to man’s intentions? For example, it is not the mere act of adultery that makes it sin. Jesus said that if you look on another woman with lust, you have sinned. Jesus went to the heart of the matter; in other words, what are your intentions? Jesus did not care about appearances. He ate and drank with sinners and was accused of being a drunk (Matthew 9).
Common sense dictates that if a person who is truly seeking God with all their heart and is genuine in their faith is having a hard time by something that I do (and they are not being judgmental) that I believe is permissible, then I should not do that thing in front of them or around them. This really should be a temporary thing, though. The goal for the weaker brother is to get stronger.
I also think there is an element to this debate that of often missed. It is the idea of the sacred versus the secular. I very much do not believe in this concept. Everything belongs to God. Music belongs to God, no matter what style. Movies belong to God. Are we using these things to glorify God? Is our every breath, our every heartbeat, our very passions glorifying to God? The biblical command is not to separate from these things; the biblical command is whatever you do, do it to the glory of God. I will openly admit, it is very hard to break out of the sacred versus secular mindset, but I really think that it is something that is crucial for the believer.
I said in one of my earlier blog posts that the definition of the essentials of Christianity is “the Apostles’ Creed with a relational emphasis.” This is where the relational emphasis comes in. As a Christian who has been liberated from the letter of the law by the death, burial, and especially the resurrection of Jesus Christ, my focus should be not on the point of the letter of the law, but the point where something comes between me and my Savior. The Bible is our handbook and our guideline for this. If it violates the Word of God, it violates my relationship with God. There are times, however, when the Holy Spirit will reveal to someone that something is not right. I have met people who genuinely believe that they should not listen to certain kinds of music because it violates their relationship with God. I think this is admirable. I applaud it! And heaven forbid that I should come in between them and God. But they certainly do not try and forbid others from doing the same because they understand that this is about their relationship and they don’t try to bend the Bible to fit a new definition of godliness.
To sum all of this up:
1. The only thing the Bible commands us to be separate from is sin.
2. The only person that I should be concerned about my appearance is Jesus Christ.
3. The only standard that I am to conform to is that standard set forth by the Word of God. For someone to judge me by any other standard is not only rude, it is sin.
4. The principle of the weaker brother does not always apply. The goal for the weaker brother is to get stronger.
5. Everything belongs to God.
As a Christian who has been liberated from the letter of the law by the death, burial, and especially the resurrection of Jesus Christ, my focus should be not on the point of the letter of the law, but the point where something comes between me and my Savior
Saturday, May 16, 2009
The Problem With Evangelicalism
Out of all the movements that I will talk about in this “problem” series, I believe that evangelicalism is the most biblical movement today. This particular brand of theology has grown out of the Reformation which, as we mentioned before, left a divided but purified church. Earlier, we defined it as a movement that occurred in the early 18th century as a result of the Protestant Reformation and, some would say, in reaction to Enlightenment thinking characterized by a belief in a personal conversion, adherence to the Bible, and an emphasis on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ who is the Son of God. I am not so sure that this was a reaction to the Enlightenment. Rather, I believe it was biblical Christianity that has existed since the Reformation, but became much more distinct in the 18th century. Its strengths are certainly those listed above: belief in a personal conversion, adherence to the Bible, and an emphasis on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ who is the Son of God. However, it did (does) have one glaring problem which still exists today.
In the late 19th and early 20th century, Evangelicalism morphed into a separatist movement called Fundamentalism. We will talk more about this later, but one of the primary characteristics of this movement was that it separated from the culture. In the mid 20th century, a movement called New Evangelicalism formed and has changed mainstream evangelicalism to be more connected to culture and to actually engage it. The problem is that, in my opinion, it still does not seem to engage the culture enough and glosses over and sometimes ignores major problems in our culture. Somehow, this movement has been linked exclusively with the pro-military (some would say pro-war), Republican agenda that the two ideologies are sometimes virtually the same. In doing this, we have sent the message that in order to be an evangelical Christian, or to even be considered one, you must be a Republican, you must be pro-military and pro-war, you’re probably Caucasian, and you probably listen to Rush Limbaugh.
Some of this I say with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, but the stereotypes and the assumptions are there. I believe that it is time that the evangelical movement abandons, once and for all, the ideology of the so-called “religious right” and return to a belief system that does not endorse any political party, but rather stands on the principles of God’s Word. I believe that we are seeing encouraging signs that this is happening, but it certainly not happening fast enough. For too long, we have ignored our biblical mandate to care for the poor and “the least of these.” It should wait no longer. This is a problem that the evangelical church needs to fix…now.
In the late 19th and early 20th century, Evangelicalism morphed into a separatist movement called Fundamentalism. We will talk more about this later, but one of the primary characteristics of this movement was that it separated from the culture. In the mid 20th century, a movement called New Evangelicalism formed and has changed mainstream evangelicalism to be more connected to culture and to actually engage it. The problem is that, in my opinion, it still does not seem to engage the culture enough and glosses over and sometimes ignores major problems in our culture. Somehow, this movement has been linked exclusively with the pro-military (some would say pro-war), Republican agenda that the two ideologies are sometimes virtually the same. In doing this, we have sent the message that in order to be an evangelical Christian, or to even be considered one, you must be a Republican, you must be pro-military and pro-war, you’re probably Caucasian, and you probably listen to Rush Limbaugh.
Some of this I say with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, but the stereotypes and the assumptions are there. I believe that it is time that the evangelical movement abandons, once and for all, the ideology of the so-called “religious right” and return to a belief system that does not endorse any political party, but rather stands on the principles of God’s Word. I believe that we are seeing encouraging signs that this is happening, but it certainly not happening fast enough. For too long, we have ignored our biblical mandate to care for the poor and “the least of these.” It should wait no longer. This is a problem that the evangelical church needs to fix…now.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
The Problem With The Enlightenment
The Enlightenment elevated reason to the level of faith. Few people realize today that we are still experiencing products of this era which began nearly 300 years ago, including the birth of the American nation. Indeed, many of the concepts that we as Americans hold sacred and that are written in the American Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution are products of the age of Enlightenment.
The Enlightenment is a two-edged sword. On one hand, it has brought to light several critical issues regarding Scripture and our application of Scripture. In some ways, it has helped us to dig deeper archeologically (no pun intended) and question some of the more traditional ways in which we have interpreted and has shed new light on passages. Of course, the disovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the mid-20th century has also helped this, but the Enlightenment allowed us to have the tools in our tool box we need to look at Scripture on a deeper level.
However, I think that the other side of the sword is sharper. By elevating reason above faith, we have somehow denied that the supernatural exists. This is a travesty, indeed. Without a God that stands outside of our limited reason, we cannot allow for any of Jesus’ miracles, the incarnation, among other things and most importantly, the resurrection. Without the resurrection, per Paul in Corinthians, our faith is in vain. Our faith is reduced to a love ethic with no teeth and a perverted gospel that is not worthy of belief.
My challenge to believers and unbelievers is not to let your reason dictate to you where you place your faith. It is not that we cannot have, per William Lane Craig, a reasonable faith, but science and reason should never trump our relationship with Christ.
The Enlightenment is a two-edged sword. On one hand, it has brought to light several critical issues regarding Scripture and our application of Scripture. In some ways, it has helped us to dig deeper archeologically (no pun intended) and question some of the more traditional ways in which we have interpreted and has shed new light on passages. Of course, the disovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the mid-20th century has also helped this, but the Enlightenment allowed us to have the tools in our tool box we need to look at Scripture on a deeper level.
However, I think that the other side of the sword is sharper. By elevating reason above faith, we have somehow denied that the supernatural exists. This is a travesty, indeed. Without a God that stands outside of our limited reason, we cannot allow for any of Jesus’ miracles, the incarnation, among other things and most importantly, the resurrection. Without the resurrection, per Paul in Corinthians, our faith is in vain. Our faith is reduced to a love ethic with no teeth and a perverted gospel that is not worthy of belief.
My challenge to believers and unbelievers is not to let your reason dictate to you where you place your faith. It is not that we cannot have, per William Lane Craig, a reasonable faith, but science and reason should never trump our relationship with Christ.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The Problem With The Reformation
On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther tacked his 95 Theses on the door of the Whittenburg Chapel in Whittenburg, Germany. Luther had been troubled for quite some time regarding several issues in the Catholic Church, among which were its departure from the Scriptures and the Papal abuse of power. What most people do not know is that the 95 Theses were originally published in Latin, which in the 16th century, only clergy could read. Luther meant to spawn debate among the church and open things up for discussion, but the powers that be did not take it this way. Soon, someone translated the theses into German and distributed them among the German people and the flames of Reformation were fanned.
Luther’s purpose was never to break with the Catholic Church. He wanted to reform it. Nevertheless, Luther’s courage to stand up for the Word of God finally prompted his break with the church. For the first time in the Western Church, Christianity appeared to be self-destructing.
It is interesting to me that the church’s (speaking now of the global church as in Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox) greatest strength up to this point was its unity. For the most part, the church was united as one entity. But when the Protestant Reformation ripped the church in two and subsequently splintered into several factions by the end of the 17th century, what was the greatest strength dissolved into another greatest strength: purification. The biblical teaching of justification by grace alone through faith alone was recovered (or maybe liberated) from the power structure of the Catholic Church and the priesthood of the believer once again took preeminence over any hierarchy that would place something between the believer and his or her Savior.
The problem of the Reformation is disunity. It is our weakness. While we have united under the banner of grace alone through faith alone, we have often been guilty of ignoring our spiritual heritage and dismissing a theologian or a theology simply because the theologian or theology is Catholic. Catholics view the Reformation as divisive and still divide over the issue of salvation by grace alone through faith alone. While we do still need to, as Protestant Christians, stand on the Word of God and proclaim the five solas, we also need to continue the conversation.
However, we should never give up our other beliefs, one of which is that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. That belief, which was and is the dividing line for Protestants and Catholics, is an essential and cannot be compromised. It is the point of purification to separate those who lean on their own works for salvation or those who depend on the work of Christ on the cross, once and for all time.
To summarize, The Reformation’s problem and greatest weakness is disunity, but we should never compromise unity for a false gospel, especially a gospel that inserts our own works on any level for our salvation. Our salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. That is our new greatest strength.
Luther’s purpose was never to break with the Catholic Church. He wanted to reform it. Nevertheless, Luther’s courage to stand up for the Word of God finally prompted his break with the church. For the first time in the Western Church, Christianity appeared to be self-destructing.
It is interesting to me that the church’s (speaking now of the global church as in Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox) greatest strength up to this point was its unity. For the most part, the church was united as one entity. But when the Protestant Reformation ripped the church in two and subsequently splintered into several factions by the end of the 17th century, what was the greatest strength dissolved into another greatest strength: purification. The biblical teaching of justification by grace alone through faith alone was recovered (or maybe liberated) from the power structure of the Catholic Church and the priesthood of the believer once again took preeminence over any hierarchy that would place something between the believer and his or her Savior.
The problem of the Reformation is disunity. It is our weakness. While we have united under the banner of grace alone through faith alone, we have often been guilty of ignoring our spiritual heritage and dismissing a theologian or a theology simply because the theologian or theology is Catholic. Catholics view the Reformation as divisive and still divide over the issue of salvation by grace alone through faith alone. While we do still need to, as Protestant Christians, stand on the Word of God and proclaim the five solas, we also need to continue the conversation.
However, we should never give up our other beliefs, one of which is that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. That belief, which was and is the dividing line for Protestants and Catholics, is an essential and cannot be compromised. It is the point of purification to separate those who lean on their own works for salvation or those who depend on the work of Christ on the cross, once and for all time.
To summarize, The Reformation’s problem and greatest weakness is disunity, but we should never compromise unity for a false gospel, especially a gospel that inserts our own works on any level for our salvation. Our salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. That is our new greatest strength.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Definitions...
I think it is very important when we talk about Christian theology that we define our terms. One of the trademarks of a cult is that they will use words that Christianity uses and flip them to mean something else. So here is a list of definitions in the way that I use them, which of course, I think is the proper way to use them. :)
Evangelicalism—a movement that occurred in the early 18th century as a result of the Protestant Reformation and, some would say, in reaction to Enlightenment thinking characterized by a belief in a personal conversion, adherence to the Bible, and an emphasis on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ who is the Son of God.
Protestant Liberalism—a product of Enlightenment thinking, German higher criticism and Darwin’s Theory of Evolution that occurred in the late 18th century. The 18th century Enlightenment placed an emphasis on science and ration. The inerrancy of the Bible fell under heavy attack. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution began to become the accepted scientific theory for the origin of the universe. Thus, the Bible was reduced to a system of ethical rules with the overall emphasis being placed on love rather than holiness. Jesus Christ was not considered divine, but rather a good ethical teacher.
Fundamentalism—an evangelical movement started in the late 19th and early 20th century in reaction to Protestant Liberalism characterized by adherence to “the fundamentals” and a separation from culture. After New Evangelicalism, fundamentalists became characterized by being primarily dispensational and premillenial in their theology.
New Evangelicalism—a reaction to Fundamentalism in the mid 20th century that attempted (attempts) to retain most of “the fundamentals” while still engaging the culture.
I’m trying to blog more and these definitions will be crucial as I continue…
Evangelicalism—a movement that occurred in the early 18th century as a result of the Protestant Reformation and, some would say, in reaction to Enlightenment thinking characterized by a belief in a personal conversion, adherence to the Bible, and an emphasis on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ who is the Son of God.
Protestant Liberalism—a product of Enlightenment thinking, German higher criticism and Darwin’s Theory of Evolution that occurred in the late 18th century. The 18th century Enlightenment placed an emphasis on science and ration. The inerrancy of the Bible fell under heavy attack. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution began to become the accepted scientific theory for the origin of the universe. Thus, the Bible was reduced to a system of ethical rules with the overall emphasis being placed on love rather than holiness. Jesus Christ was not considered divine, but rather a good ethical teacher.
Fundamentalism—an evangelical movement started in the late 19th and early 20th century in reaction to Protestant Liberalism characterized by adherence to “the fundamentals” and a separation from culture. After New Evangelicalism, fundamentalists became characterized by being primarily dispensational and premillenial in their theology.
New Evangelicalism—a reaction to Fundamentalism in the mid 20th century that attempted (attempts) to retain most of “the fundamentals” while still engaging the culture.
I’m trying to blog more and these definitions will be crucial as I continue…
Monday, May 11, 2009
I Am Not A Postmodernist
You ever had one of those days when ideas keep coming? There are things you want to say to everyone, to people that you love…
Or maybe it’s just sermon topics or ideas or teaching lessons…
I’m having one of those mornings where its hard to concentrate on work unless I just get some of these ideas out of my head on a blog or paper. Since I type faster than I write, I thought I would try it this way:
I have been accused of being many things in my life. I often get accused of being post-modern. What I find interesting is that most of these people cannot define to me what a postmodernist is, but they still insist that I am one. Most of these people are well-meaning. Indeed, I think almost all of them are.
Let me reassure everyone that I am not a postmodernist. My theology lies firmly in what seems to be a modernist concept. I believe in absolute truth. I believe in right and wrong. I believe that some people are sincerely wrong. With all that being said though, I allow room for me to be wrong. I know quite a few people who are so sure that they are right that they pridefully look down on others. That is not being right. That is sin.
I accept that I am on a journey. That may sound like I am postmodern, but I do not believe it is. I just think I know what I don’t know and I try not to pretend like there are things that I know for sure when in reality, I just don’t know. I try to temper everything with grace. I’m not always successful. Just ask Kandice how I sometimes act when I get behind the wheel of a car. I do not try and use grace as an excuse to sin, but I recognize that on this journey, I will come to places that I am much less than what I should be and that is when God’s grace rings forever true to me. Like I said, I am learning even more to realize when I am in a place where I am limited and where most people are limited, especially in their “knowledge” of certain things theological.
Here is one example: Creationism vs. Evolution. I believe, per Genesis 1:1, that God created the heavens and the earth. I believe that God created the heavens and the earth in six days and on the seventh, God rested. What I do not know is that these were six literal days. I disagree with Ken Hamm when he says that the use of this word only denotes literal days. I believe, per the Scripture and my study of Hebrew, however limited that might be, that the Hebrew word for “day” does not always mean a literal day, particularly when we define a day as a rotation of the earth complete with a morning and evening which the book of Genesis also mentions. How can we have a day when the sun was not created yet? I don’t know. And guess what? Neither do you.
Could it be that these were six literal days? Yes. Could it be that they were not six literal days? Yes. That’s right. It could be both. The difference between me and a postmodernist is that they accept that both views are correct. I believe that one or the other is correct, not both. One or the other is correct; I just do not know which because I do not have enough information.
Another issue is that many times, the arguments are couched with false dichotomies. In this situation, there are many other options besides literal day Creationism (Young Earth Creationism) and Darwinian Evolution. What about the Gap Theory? Old Earth Creationism? There is more than one choice, and the startling reality is that in the big scheme of things, there is only one thing that matters: Do you believe that God created the heavens and the earth? If so, congratulations. You have a Biblical Creation Worldview. Believe it or not, that is all that is required.
I believe that the reason that people think that I am a postmodernist or are simply confused about my theology is that I do not stand dogmatically on issues that are not dogmatic. In other words, the essentials are worth dying for. Everything else is part of the journey of discovery and in growth in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. How do I define the essentials? I think the best definition is the Apostles’ Creed with a relational emphasis. I am not a creedal Christian in the sense that my church recites this creed every week, but I think it defines very closely the definition of what defines a person as a Christian with one caveat. The Christian life is as much about relationship as it is about belief. I do not view these things as separate, but as one entity. To believe in the essentials of Christianity, to define oneself as a Christian means you believe with all your heart, mind, and strength the essentials of Christianity and by that belief, you are committed to growing in the grace and knowledge or our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, relationally, both with your fellow man and with Christ, recognizing that He is alive and well and active in our lives today.
Well, that’s enough for now…
Some thoughts on Mothers...
It is a typical Monday morning here in Navarre, Ohio. I awoke early for work, about an hour ago, and my head is always filled with images and scenes from the weekend. Yesterday was Mother's Day, and the tradition that my in-laws have is to have lunch with the mothers and to exchange cards and gifts. Since my mom lives in North Carolina, I am not able to do that with her, but my wife and I did send a card and I did call my mother yesterday afternoon.
Like most guys, I think my mom is special. I know, I know, but really...she is. My Dad passed away when I was ten and mom raised me. I was a typical rebellious teenager until Jesus got a hold of me and I often took for granted the little things. I never went hungry, even though my mom did. I never missed church if I was well enough to go. A childhood friend on Facebook recently reminded me that I had a pretty good childhood, despite being an only child of a single mother.
This morning, I raise my cup of coffee to my mom. I love her for many reasons, but mostly just because she's my mom. That may not be a big deal on the surface, but to an only child, she was my everything.
Like most guys, I think my mom is special. I know, I know, but really...she is. My Dad passed away when I was ten and mom raised me. I was a typical rebellious teenager until Jesus got a hold of me and I often took for granted the little things. I never went hungry, even though my mom did. I never missed church if I was well enough to go. A childhood friend on Facebook recently reminded me that I had a pretty good childhood, despite being an only child of a single mother.
This morning, I raise my cup of coffee to my mom. I love her for many reasons, but mostly just because she's my mom. That may not be a big deal on the surface, but to an only child, she was my everything.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)