I was thinking about something yesterday, sent it to my sister, and thought it might make a good blog post. It's probably going to be long, but that's because I'm pompous, long-winded, and extremely tiresome.
Over the past several years, I've begun to realize how Christ's life has been so obvious overlooked in the evangelical church. I never learned about His life unless it was within the context of moralism and how I should try to live a good and godly life. His 40 days of temptation in the wilderness was a time to see an example of standing up against temptation, and His words to the Pharisees were to give us a true understanding of how God wants us to live.
In other words, Christ's death and resurrection were a gift; His life, however, was an example for us all to follow and imitate: Christ died for our sins, yes, but it's up to use to live the life of righteousness He typified for us.
Without using a bunch of big words/concepts, which I really tend to do, here's the problem: God deserves two things:
1. A life of perfect obedience. A single iota of disobedience merits an eternity of punishment. No amount of suffering will make our transgression go away. I need to be punished for my sin, and my inability to atone is reflected in the fact that such punishment is eternal.
2. A life of pure obedience. It's not enough to be obedient. In fact, obedience should be founded upon a life of perfect and abject love for God. Righteousness isn't earned by simply not doing what's wrong; it's earned by doing exactly what is right. In Mark 12, Jesus shows us what the crux of such righteousness is: it's 100% perfect love of the Lord in all things. Without this, we cannot be declared righteous, and thus cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.
So here's the question I was pondering while cleaning bathrooms the other morning (my wife is a slave-driver): what does it mean that Jesus fulfilled all righteousness?
That question, I think, is what's wrong with the evangelical church. They get the first thing God deserves very well (they are Christians, after all), but don't seem to understand the second at all.
We're sinners in the sight of an angry God, and He has every right (and to fulfill His justice, He is obligated) to condemn and punish our sin. Christ died so that this punishment would be meted out upon Himself, rather than upon His people (or the world, if you're evangelical or Lutheran). But the evangelical church seems to stop there, and the resulting message usually sounds something like this:
1. Christ died so you might have eternal life.
2. Once you are saved, you are now enabled by the Holy Spirit to do righteous works.
3. Righteous works are evidence of your faith.
4. Therefore, the more righteous works you show, the better you can take comfort in your faith.
5. Moreover, the Bible commands us to be righteous, and therefore, if we are to be godly Christians, our efforts should be constantly straining toward this goal. If we fall, we didn't try hard enough, or have enough faith to inspire us.
Unfortunately, this isn't the entire story. It's half of the story, and when we miss the other half, I think we will either be driven to cynically give up (which was my response) or to despair (which I've seen in many others).
Reconciling us to God isn't just dealing with our punishment, though I certainly don't want to minimize Christ's atoning and propitiating death. But even if God's wrath for disobedience is appeased, He still deserves and demands perfect hearts in obedience. Not only does He deserve perfect obedience, but He also deserves perfect glory and honor from His people, at all times.
Anyway, here's where the Reformers, I think, better understood Christ's life than we do today:
1. Christ lived a perfect life so that, in doing so, He would merit the righteousness which comes from a perfect heart lived perfectly before the Lord.
2. He honored and glorified God in all ways, in all things, and without reservation.
3. His works were perfect in intention, motive, and result.
4. In the wilderness, He withstood temptation and expelled Satan from His presence (as Adam, Israel, and we fail utterly to do).
5. In Christ, God is, therefore, afforded the perfect honor and glory He justly deserves.
6. Christ was crucified and punished to atone for our sins. He died the death we deserve, giving to God the perfect sacrifice which is sufficient for the enormity of our sin.
Therefore, when we talk about our "works" as Christians, I think we need to be careful with how we define them:
1. Our lives, when lived through the power of the Holy Spirit, are not lived to afford God the righteousness His perfect nature requires. Christ accomplished this fully and completely, and we can add absolutely nothing to it.
2. Our lives, when lived through the power of the Holy Spirit, are not lived to make God more pleased with us based on our climbing a ladder of achieved holiness. Because of Christ, through faith, God looks upon His righteousness and has appeased His wrath for our sin.
3. Our lives, therefore, when lived through the power of the Holy Spirit, and when we are continually reminded what Christ has accomplished, can be lived as a thanksgiving offering to the Lord; in our work, we are saying thank you to the Lord for Christ not only taking our punishment, but also earning and giving to us the righteousness which is required by Holy God.
This is why I get so skeptical when I hear people talk about works. They tend to sound something like this:
1. Yeah, Christ died for you
2. Yeah, you're saved
3. But you need the works to back it up and live the life God wants from you
4. But (just to cover our bases), you can't do it yourself, which is where the Holy Spirit comes in
5. It's You and God, workin' together, defeatin' the sin in your life
Rather than,
1. Christ lived for you
2. Christ died for you
3. In Christ, you are saved
4. In Christ, God is fully appeased
5. You are given the Holy Spirit as a promise and seal of what's to come
6. Your life, therefore, will be lived out of thanksgiving for the perfect and completed work of Christ
7. Nothing you do can add/contribute to or take away from Christ's perfect work
8. Therefore, what you need to hear regularly is Law and Gospel
Christ actively lived the Law for us. He obeyed God perfectly, all the while affording to Him the honor He so justly deserves. He then passively was crucified for our sins, transgressions which were not committed by Him.
This is what was called the Active and Passive Obedience of Christ, and, without understanding it, we'll never really know what it meant for Christ to fulfill all righteousness.
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Monday, October 17, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
The Holy Church of Self-Expression
A thought struck me today, which seemed like a decent topic to write about. I listened at work to this outstanding discussion about modern praise music for the 2nd time, and was discussing some of the premises with my wife after dinner, when this topic came up.
To keep it short, here's a brief synopsis of the podcast from Issues ETC.:
But while talking with my wife, it struck me how difficult it was to get the concept across. I don't totally grasp (or agree with) every point they were making about the songs, but my general understanding of their purpose was something like this:
Anyway, back to my discussion. When talking with my wife, it hit me how hands-off worship tends to be. Even in my own mind, I find arguments like these cropping up:
In many churches I've attended, the sermon was typically held to a high standard. If the pastor deviated from sound exegetical teaching, he would be accountable. Most of the church conformed to this pattern: teachers were accountable for what/how they taught; deacons were accountable with how they administrated various ministries; the elders were accountable with how they oversaw the church as a whole.
Nowhere do I remember a clear and strong accountability for the words of songs which were sung on a Sunday morning. It seemed that, once you became involved in the Sunday morning music, you're forbidden from even calling into question a song's veracity or clarity. It's music! Why would you call into question someone else's self-expression??
Which leads me to the title of this blog post. My sense is, more and more, that we've created a new Means of Grace, which goes beyond the worship time itself (which I don't believe is a Biblically-defined MoG, by the way): self-expression.
Of course, all evidence for this will be anecdotal, so take this with a grain of salt :)
I remember attending a service in a town about 40 miles away. The church is HUGE (considering my current church has fewer than 100 regular people in it) and is pretty typical of modern, evangelical churches. They had the standard features you would expect from an independent church: a jammin' praise band; a young, dynamic teaching pastor; verses on several screens in case you didn't bring your Bible; stadium-seating; message-based teaching, centering Scripture around a theme; etc.
At one point during the extended time of singing, the music ended and the congregation sat down. We were then treated to a very interesting (and well-done) performance by a few people: it was a combination of rock, spoken poetry, and rap. I don't recall the underlying message, but I remember how it was presented to the congregation: the words were written by the main performer (the rapper, I guess) at a time when he had been struggling and having a difficult time. He wanted to share it with the church, and so they hoped it would equally bless us all.
And of course, the assumption was that it would. By listening and soaking in this individual's experience (via his own words), God would speak to my heart and I could experience Him in a fresh way. Here was a new Means of Grace! I could experience God in a whole new, intimate way, simply by observing a few select individuals dancing around and expressing words which had nothing to do with my life, my experiences, or Law and Gospel!
Of course, being rap, the moment was pretty lost on me.
Over the past 20 years of my life, I've observed similar trends in non-denominational churches:
Self-expression is, I fear, steadily becoming an epicenter around which to focus the church service around. No longer are we gathering together as Christ's Body; no longer are we communing as the saints; no longer are we functioning for the greater good. Instead, we are fed a steady diet of what's best for you?? and how do YOU worship God??
In a way, we've created an interesting situation: in this environment, we cannot easily argue against doctrinal or theological issues when dealing with personal expression. After all, doesn't the Holy Spirit lead and speak differently to each person? Everything I understand and express is a product of my experiences and personal situation, and no one can argue about my internal state, which they've not seen!
Of course, I call BS, but no one is asking :)
Remember Willow Creek's solution to the disillusionment of their congregation? Rather than pull back and understand why people felt like they were spiritually stunted, they decided people need to be "self feeders." Regardless of their intent, notice the focus: self feeders. Yes, we need to be able to read God's Word on our own; yes, we need to be in daily prayer and confession; yes, we who are saved are each God's children and thus can approach Him as "Abba, Father!" I'm not denying the need for personal action in the life of a Christian.
But is this what we need from the church as a primary purpose? When did the Church's responsibility trend away from Word and Sacrament, and instead directing people to both feed themselves and force their personal expression upon the entirety of the Body?
When we turn the self into the primary recipient of a Sunday morning service, it's easy to see where the slip occurs. Rather than looking upon the congregation as the Body of Christ, we see it as a disparate collection of Body parts. No longer unified, and thus needing consistent nourishment (*ahem!* Law and Gospel), we are instead tailoring our services to allow any given organ equal opportunity to spout off on what it's like to be them in their particular position. Moreover, since we're not allowed to argue with an individual's experience, we really should allow them to express themselves however they see fit.
Personally, I'll take objective Word and Sacrament any day.
To keep it short, here's a brief synopsis of the podcast from Issues ETC.:
- Modern praise music often suffers from several issues
- Mysticism
- Vague or absent doctrine/theology wrapped in poeticism
- Trends toward a Theology of Glory
But while talking with my wife, it struck me how difficult it was to get the concept across. I don't totally grasp (or agree with) every point they were making about the songs, but my general understanding of their purpose was something like this:
Church worship should, as the rest of the service, be purposed to direct the congregation to the pouring out of God's grace. And since we cannot receive such grace except through the Mediatorship of Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, because of His life, death, and resurrection, our worship should make this clear. We need Law and Gospel to understand who we are and what God has done, and this should be present in the liturgy which includes the sermon, confession, absolution, and singing of songs.This is, of course, my summation, which is likely a poor one :)
Anyway, back to my discussion. When talking with my wife, it hit me how hands-off worship tends to be. Even in my own mind, I find arguments like these cropping up:
- Worship is the expression of worth and value on our behalf to God -- why should we box it in?
- Isn't it legalistic to require whole sentences in a song?
- Aren't you suppressing individuals when you try to force a particular brand of worship?
- Sure the songs aren't entirely clear (or accurate), but we know what the author is trying to say. Isn't that enough?
In many churches I've attended, the sermon was typically held to a high standard. If the pastor deviated from sound exegetical teaching, he would be accountable. Most of the church conformed to this pattern: teachers were accountable for what/how they taught; deacons were accountable with how they administrated various ministries; the elders were accountable with how they oversaw the church as a whole.
Nowhere do I remember a clear and strong accountability for the words of songs which were sung on a Sunday morning. It seemed that, once you became involved in the Sunday morning music, you're forbidden from even calling into question a song's veracity or clarity. It's music! Why would you call into question someone else's self-expression??
Which leads me to the title of this blog post. My sense is, more and more, that we've created a new Means of Grace, which goes beyond the worship time itself (which I don't believe is a Biblically-defined MoG, by the way): self-expression.
Of course, all evidence for this will be anecdotal, so take this with a grain of salt :)
I remember attending a service in a town about 40 miles away. The church is HUGE (considering my current church has fewer than 100 regular people in it) and is pretty typical of modern, evangelical churches. They had the standard features you would expect from an independent church: a jammin' praise band; a young, dynamic teaching pastor; verses on several screens in case you didn't bring your Bible; stadium-seating; message-based teaching, centering Scripture around a theme; etc.
At one point during the extended time of singing, the music ended and the congregation sat down. We were then treated to a very interesting (and well-done) performance by a few people: it was a combination of rock, spoken poetry, and rap. I don't recall the underlying message, but I remember how it was presented to the congregation: the words were written by the main performer (the rapper, I guess) at a time when he had been struggling and having a difficult time. He wanted to share it with the church, and so they hoped it would equally bless us all.
And of course, the assumption was that it would. By listening and soaking in this individual's experience (via his own words), God would speak to my heart and I could experience Him in a fresh way. Here was a new Means of Grace! I could experience God in a whole new, intimate way, simply by observing a few select individuals dancing around and expressing words which had nothing to do with my life, my experiences, or Law and Gospel!
Of course, being rap, the moment was pretty lost on me.
Over the past 20 years of my life, I've observed similar trends in non-denominational churches:
- Dance routines (often by the Pastor's daughter, who happens to be a skilled ballerina)
- Rap or poetry sessions
- Drama teams
- Non-Scriptural Book Readings
- Stand-up and give us a word from God if you're so inspired" moments
- Sign-language (in churches where it's clear no deaf people are in attendance)
Self-expression is, I fear, steadily becoming an epicenter around which to focus the church service around. No longer are we gathering together as Christ's Body; no longer are we communing as the saints; no longer are we functioning for the greater good. Instead, we are fed a steady diet of what's best for you?? and how do YOU worship God??
In a way, we've created an interesting situation: in this environment, we cannot easily argue against doctrinal or theological issues when dealing with personal expression. After all, doesn't the Holy Spirit lead and speak differently to each person? Everything I understand and express is a product of my experiences and personal situation, and no one can argue about my internal state, which they've not seen!
Of course, I call BS, but no one is asking :)
Remember Willow Creek's solution to the disillusionment of their congregation? Rather than pull back and understand why people felt like they were spiritually stunted, they decided people need to be "self feeders." Regardless of their intent, notice the focus: self feeders. Yes, we need to be able to read God's Word on our own; yes, we need to be in daily prayer and confession; yes, we who are saved are each God's children and thus can approach Him as "Abba, Father!" I'm not denying the need for personal action in the life of a Christian.
But is this what we need from the church as a primary purpose? When did the Church's responsibility trend away from Word and Sacrament, and instead directing people to both feed themselves and force their personal expression upon the entirety of the Body?
When we turn the self into the primary recipient of a Sunday morning service, it's easy to see where the slip occurs. Rather than looking upon the congregation as the Body of Christ, we see it as a disparate collection of Body parts. No longer unified, and thus needing consistent nourishment (*ahem!* Law and Gospel), we are instead tailoring our services to allow any given organ equal opportunity to spout off on what it's like to be them in their particular position. Moreover, since we're not allowed to argue with an individual's experience, we really should allow them to express themselves however they see fit.
Personally, I'll take objective Word and Sacrament any day.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Happy Easter -- He is risen indeed!
It's getting late, so I'll make this short (which is rare for me).
Easter always sneaks up on me. It's a holiday which doesn't get quite the same hype as Thanksgiving and Christmas. Independence Day stands out as the only major holiday during the summer (not to denigrate Memorial Day, but it's usually over a weekend, so there isn't a floater to give you an extra chunk of time off); Easter just slips in at the last moment, leaving us Christians with something akin
to the following thought process:
OmigoshIcompletelyforgotit'sEasteranditjustsnuckuponmeandifIdon'tsomehowmusterupthestrengthtoadoptasombermindestfollowedbyextremeamountsofjoyitwillbeclearIdon'tloveJesusasmuchasIthoughtIdidandI'llupsetHimwithmyficklenessandinconstancyandthenIhavetomakesuretoplanEasterdinnerwithmyfamilyandIdon'tknowifI'llbetootiredtohavethemoverbutit'sEasterafterallandI'msupposedtoshowlovelikeChristdidandwhatisthematterwithmethesedaysbecauseitalwaysseemslikeI'mslippingbehind,butifIcangetmyacttogetherI'llbereadyforGoodFridayandbeinthecorrectemotionalstateofwhichI'mprettysurefrenzyandguilt(wellmaybeguilt)aren'tsupposedtobecontributing...
Ok, I exaggerate a bit. But, I do think this holiday kinda creeps up on us. And how ironic is that? We as Christians sometimes get a bit cocky when it comes to evidence for our faith. We've read C.S. Lewis and Josh McDowell, both of whom have written scintillating and sound logical basis for a historic foundation underneath Christianity. We perk our ears up when the secularists of our day present modern interpretations of Christ, and are ready and rip-roaring prepared to devastate their arguments with every factual bit of information we can glean from the historical record with logic and reason. Of course, this is very often out of a heart of love for those who are outside of Christ, but our ability to drill the historical facts home can be astounding.
And rightly so -- the Bible says we are to be able to present ourselves as workmen who correctly handle the Word of truth. Moreover, we are to be able to give an account for the hope in us, and that hope is founded on historical truth.
So why does Easter sneak up on us?? Easter is the time when the historical truth of our faith is most emphasized. Good Friday is, for those in Christ, the single most pivotal moment for our sin. After living a perfect life, adhering to every aspect and nuance of both the Mosaic Law, and God's natural Law, Christ, Who by all rights should have been crowned with glory and honor for achieving what no man ever had, was instead brutally and most horrifically slaughtered, for all the eyes in Jerusalem to see. His crucifixion and death on early Friday was the judgment of God upon the sins of His children. Though we look to the coming Judgment with trembling, we know our Judgment has been placed upon Christ.
Saturday comes, and we tend to move on with our lives. After all, Christ was in the grave at this time and life must be lived; there are bathrooms to clean, dinners to make, and hams for Sunday to buy.
And then, of course, the sun rises on the 3rd day. We awaken to the glorious and breathtaking knowledge that one person, One historical Person, came back from the dead and proved Who He said He Is. He came back from the dead in power and majesty, witnessed throughout the historical world of Palestine; no more must death be feared! Our hearts are light and we rejoice in the hope that, as Christ was risen, so too will we be risen on the last day. No longer under condemnation, we are risen with Christ! Hallelujah! Let the Amen sound!
(Please note: I'm not being sarcastic. These are words of rejoicing and exultation, though they are shallow, given my personal inconstancy and lack of preparation for the celebration of Easter).
And then Monday hits, and it's back to work. Back to the daily grind. Back to having my job transitioned to another company, while trying to encourage my wife through the final weeks of her first trimester.
Why is Easter so short lived? Christmas isn't like this. Christmas is preceded by weeks, nay, months of anticipation and planning. We hear of people doing their Christmas shopping in January! Whoever heard of people planning their Easter celebration in May??
Here's what I think we've lost: Lent. Yes, I said it. Lent. Please understand, I'm not speaking of the Catholic tradition of not eating meat on Friday. I'm referring to the season (typically starting with Ash Wednesday) which precedes the celebration of Easter and is intended to inspire within us as the sense of anticipation and preparation for the Holy One of Israel.
Please note: we don't prepare ourselves to be worthy of Easter; that's a grave (and fatal, I fear) mistake. We can never be worthy of the glory of Easter; Christ's death and resurrection is, and always will be, an act of monergistic mercy and grace. To try and earn His favor by denying ourselves is to practice the same self-reliance as the other religions of the world. We are saved by faith alone, by grace alone, in Christ alone. We are not saved by our good works (which are as filthy rags), nor by our observances.
And yet, why would Lent be important?
Lent was a period of time in which believers were encouraged to reflect and ponder upon the fragility of life, the reality of death, the condemnation of our sin, and the glorious fulfillment of God's promises in Christ. The season was meant to bring to mind and heart the reality of Good Friday and Easter. In many churches today (Lutheran, Catholic, Anglican), the "Gloria in Excelsis Deo" is not sung and the word "Alleluia" is withheld from the service. In other words, they refrain, not out of reluctance to ascribe to God His proper glory, but rather out a desire for penitence and contrition before a just and holy God. Do some of these churches misrepresent what penitence and contrition mean? Absolutely. But the original intention was to provide the congregation with a period of time in which the oncoming season of Good Friday and Easter were met with anticipation.
Imagine, if you will, withholding the celebratory aspect of church until Easter morning. How real and powerful would our rejoicing be after a period of reflection and contemplation upon the harsh and unfathomable reality of Christ's death. The darkness which covered the land being reflected, in some way, by the somberness of our worship in church.
We have several weeks prior to Christmas in which the church prepares for the season in which Christ was born; we call them Advent, and they are a beautiful time to be in the church. And yet, what now prepares us for the season in which our sin and guilt have been swept away?? What prepares us for the nakedness of our shame and condemnation, and then clothing of righteousness we receive in Christ's death and resurrection??
Though Lent is celebrated in some churches whose doctrines we disagree with (I am not a Catholic, Lutheran, or Anglican), its purpose and correct observance can and should be, I think, a blessing for us as we prepare our hearts to celebrate Christ's resurrection.
Given how fast Easter sprung up for me, it's definitely something I want to be thinking of this year.
Soli Deo Gloria! Christ is risen indeed!!
Easter always sneaks up on me. It's a holiday which doesn't get quite the same hype as Thanksgiving and Christmas. Independence Day stands out as the only major holiday during the summer (not to denigrate Memorial Day, but it's usually over a weekend, so there isn't a floater to give you an extra chunk of time off); Easter just slips in at the last moment, leaving us Christians with something akin
to the following thought process:
OmigoshIcompletelyforgotit'sEasteranditjustsnuckuponmeandifIdon'tsomehowmusterupthestrengthtoadoptasombermindestfollowedbyextremeamountsofjoyitwillbeclearIdon'tloveJesusasmuchasIthoughtIdidandI'llupsetHimwithmyficklenessandinconstancyandthenIhavetomakesuretoplanEasterdinnerwithmyfamilyandIdon'tknowifI'llbetootiredtohavethemoverbutit'sEasterafterallandI'msupposedtoshowlovelikeChristdidandwhatisthematterwithmethesedaysbecauseitalwaysseemslikeI'mslippingbehind,butifIcangetmyacttogetherI'llbereadyforGoodFridayandbeinthecorrectemotionalstateofwhichI'mprettysurefrenzyandguilt(wellmaybeguilt)aren'tsupposedtobecontributing...
Ok, I exaggerate a bit. But, I do think this holiday kinda creeps up on us. And how ironic is that? We as Christians sometimes get a bit cocky when it comes to evidence for our faith. We've read C.S. Lewis and Josh McDowell, both of whom have written scintillating and sound logical basis for a historic foundation underneath Christianity. We perk our ears up when the secularists of our day present modern interpretations of Christ, and are ready and rip-roaring prepared to devastate their arguments with every factual bit of information we can glean from the historical record with logic and reason. Of course, this is very often out of a heart of love for those who are outside of Christ, but our ability to drill the historical facts home can be astounding.
And rightly so -- the Bible says we are to be able to present ourselves as workmen who correctly handle the Word of truth. Moreover, we are to be able to give an account for the hope in us, and that hope is founded on historical truth.
So why does Easter sneak up on us?? Easter is the time when the historical truth of our faith is most emphasized. Good Friday is, for those in Christ, the single most pivotal moment for our sin. After living a perfect life, adhering to every aspect and nuance of both the Mosaic Law, and God's natural Law, Christ, Who by all rights should have been crowned with glory and honor for achieving what no man ever had, was instead brutally and most horrifically slaughtered, for all the eyes in Jerusalem to see. His crucifixion and death on early Friday was the judgment of God upon the sins of His children. Though we look to the coming Judgment with trembling, we know our Judgment has been placed upon Christ.
Saturday comes, and we tend to move on with our lives. After all, Christ was in the grave at this time and life must be lived; there are bathrooms to clean, dinners to make, and hams for Sunday to buy.
And then, of course, the sun rises on the 3rd day. We awaken to the glorious and breathtaking knowledge that one person, One historical Person, came back from the dead and proved Who He said He Is. He came back from the dead in power and majesty, witnessed throughout the historical world of Palestine; no more must death be feared! Our hearts are light and we rejoice in the hope that, as Christ was risen, so too will we be risen on the last day. No longer under condemnation, we are risen with Christ! Hallelujah! Let the Amen sound!
(Please note: I'm not being sarcastic. These are words of rejoicing and exultation, though they are shallow, given my personal inconstancy and lack of preparation for the celebration of Easter).
And then Monday hits, and it's back to work. Back to the daily grind. Back to having my job transitioned to another company, while trying to encourage my wife through the final weeks of her first trimester.
Why is Easter so short lived? Christmas isn't like this. Christmas is preceded by weeks, nay, months of anticipation and planning. We hear of people doing their Christmas shopping in January! Whoever heard of people planning their Easter celebration in May??
Here's what I think we've lost: Lent. Yes, I said it. Lent. Please understand, I'm not speaking of the Catholic tradition of not eating meat on Friday. I'm referring to the season (typically starting with Ash Wednesday) which precedes the celebration of Easter and is intended to inspire within us as the sense of anticipation and preparation for the Holy One of Israel.
Please note: we don't prepare ourselves to be worthy of Easter; that's a grave (and fatal, I fear) mistake. We can never be worthy of the glory of Easter; Christ's death and resurrection is, and always will be, an act of monergistic mercy and grace. To try and earn His favor by denying ourselves is to practice the same self-reliance as the other religions of the world. We are saved by faith alone, by grace alone, in Christ alone. We are not saved by our good works (which are as filthy rags), nor by our observances.
And yet, why would Lent be important?
Lent was a period of time in which believers were encouraged to reflect and ponder upon the fragility of life, the reality of death, the condemnation of our sin, and the glorious fulfillment of God's promises in Christ. The season was meant to bring to mind and heart the reality of Good Friday and Easter. In many churches today (Lutheran, Catholic, Anglican), the "Gloria in Excelsis Deo" is not sung and the word "Alleluia" is withheld from the service. In other words, they refrain, not out of reluctance to ascribe to God His proper glory, but rather out a desire for penitence and contrition before a just and holy God. Do some of these churches misrepresent what penitence and contrition mean? Absolutely. But the original intention was to provide the congregation with a period of time in which the oncoming season of Good Friday and Easter were met with anticipation.
Imagine, if you will, withholding the celebratory aspect of church until Easter morning. How real and powerful would our rejoicing be after a period of reflection and contemplation upon the harsh and unfathomable reality of Christ's death. The darkness which covered the land being reflected, in some way, by the somberness of our worship in church.
We have several weeks prior to Christmas in which the church prepares for the season in which Christ was born; we call them Advent, and they are a beautiful time to be in the church. And yet, what now prepares us for the season in which our sin and guilt have been swept away?? What prepares us for the nakedness of our shame and condemnation, and then clothing of righteousness we receive in Christ's death and resurrection??
Though Lent is celebrated in some churches whose doctrines we disagree with (I am not a Catholic, Lutheran, or Anglican), its purpose and correct observance can and should be, I think, a blessing for us as we prepare our hearts to celebrate Christ's resurrection.
Given how fast Easter sprung up for me, it's definitely something I want to be thinking of this year.
Soli Deo Gloria! Christ is risen indeed!!
Friday, February 26, 2010
Charismata and the Post-Revelatory World
I don't consider myself a learned theologian. Nor do I consider myself a "decent" Christian. I struggle daily with understanding the faith God has graciously given me in Christ, by the power of His Holy Spirit; how to connect it to work, my professional relationships, my family, my friends, and my inward life; with sinful and selfish pride (among other things). I often have doubts regarding the physical nature of things around me (life often feels like a TV which I'm waiting to be turned off), and I have discipline issues when it comes to reading and memorizing Scripture. I'm saying these things not to sound good through humility (though I'm sure there's a motive like that somewhere inside); instead, I wanted to be clear on one thing: I don't want to write on this blog because I feel like I have a lot to offer. Rather, I decided to write these next few articles because it helps me systematize my thoughts and buckle down and pore through Scripture and other writings which discuss spiritual gifts. In the meantime, if someone finds these things interesting or helpful, then thanks be to God.
Over the past 2 years, I've undergone a fairly intense re-education of my theology and doctrine. I've studied God's means of grace, His Covenantal relationship to mankind, the Sacraments, and the nature of salvation. I hope and pray it is all to His glory, though I know how weak and prone I am to intellectualism and learning for "learning's" sake. In the meantime, I believe my leanings theologically and doctrinally have been honing in on the historical and Scripturally accurate teachings upheld by the Church for almost 2,000 years.
One topic which I haven't dealt with much over the past few years has been spiritual gifts. This has always seemed like an issue better left alone; it divides the Church (tragically), and often evokes emotional and personal reaction. Fortunately, I don't think this topic inspires responses near the intensity of infant baptism, which I heartily and unwittingly dove head-first into last year when my daughter was born. As a result, I believe I've developed the courage to openly confront what I've learned in my distant past (I am, after all, turning 30) and what's been recently brought to my attention regarding Scripture, God, mankind, and Salvation.
As a result, I hope to put together a sort of "series" of articles which discuss this topic. It's less emotional than infant baptism or Communion (both of which I would also like to write about in the future), and has a lot of practical application for my life specifically.
The topic was recently brought to my wife's attention as my brother-in-law has been exposed (for the first time in his life) to the more "charismatic" movements within the Church. He's been a bit disturbed by some of what he's seen, though I believe he's been loving and gracious in his interactions -- something I greatly admire in him. (I would likely be less loving, since I'm so bloody opinionated.) He asked Jenn and I to talk with him about the gifts of tongues and prophecy, and we both realized we hadn't thought much about spiritual gifts as a whole. What does Scripture say about these topics? What can we learn from the apostles and their writings/examples? How do we address these topics with our friends in a loving and gracious manner, while remaining open to the fact that our presuppositions and education may be wrong or right?
In other words, it's been a bit of a journey, and I'd like to continue it.
As a result, I would like to try and finish these articles over the next few months. I don't have a specific order or manner in which I would like to address spiritual gifts, but I would like to cover these topics:
In any case, I will be relying heavily on the logic and wisdom of other people; this topic is not new, nor is there anything more I could add to any side of the debate. Rather, I would like to layout what I see to be the strongest arguments for/against the view of Spiritual Gifts I believe to be the most Scripturally sound.
Soli Deo gloria!
Over the past 2 years, I've undergone a fairly intense re-education of my theology and doctrine. I've studied God's means of grace, His Covenantal relationship to mankind, the Sacraments, and the nature of salvation. I hope and pray it is all to His glory, though I know how weak and prone I am to intellectualism and learning for "learning's" sake. In the meantime, I believe my leanings theologically and doctrinally have been honing in on the historical and Scripturally accurate teachings upheld by the Church for almost 2,000 years.
One topic which I haven't dealt with much over the past few years has been spiritual gifts. This has always seemed like an issue better left alone; it divides the Church (tragically), and often evokes emotional and personal reaction. Fortunately, I don't think this topic inspires responses near the intensity of infant baptism, which I heartily and unwittingly dove head-first into last year when my daughter was born. As a result, I believe I've developed the courage to openly confront what I've learned in my distant past (I am, after all, turning 30) and what's been recently brought to my attention regarding Scripture, God, mankind, and Salvation.
As a result, I hope to put together a sort of "series" of articles which discuss this topic. It's less emotional than infant baptism or Communion (both of which I would also like to write about in the future), and has a lot of practical application for my life specifically.
The topic was recently brought to my wife's attention as my brother-in-law has been exposed (for the first time in his life) to the more "charismatic" movements within the Church. He's been a bit disturbed by some of what he's seen, though I believe he's been loving and gracious in his interactions -- something I greatly admire in him. (I would likely be less loving, since I'm so bloody opinionated.) He asked Jenn and I to talk with him about the gifts of tongues and prophecy, and we both realized we hadn't thought much about spiritual gifts as a whole. What does Scripture say about these topics? What can we learn from the apostles and their writings/examples? How do we address these topics with our friends in a loving and gracious manner, while remaining open to the fact that our presuppositions and education may be wrong or right?
In other words, it's been a bit of a journey, and I'd like to continue it.
As a result, I would like to try and finish these articles over the next few months. I don't have a specific order or manner in which I would like to address spiritual gifts, but I would like to cover these topics:
- The Primary Purpose of Spiritual Gifts
- Speaking in Tongues
- Prophecy
- Miraculous Healing
- Spiritual Gifts and their Relationship to Special Revelation
In any case, I will be relying heavily on the logic and wisdom of other people; this topic is not new, nor is there anything more I could add to any side of the debate. Rather, I would like to layout what I see to be the strongest arguments for/against the view of Spiritual Gifts I believe to be the most Scripturally sound.
Soli Deo gloria!
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Truth in Worship?
A friend of mine recalled a song which was often sung in a church I previously attended. I hadn't visited in several years, and I completely forgot about this song. It was titled "More than Anything." Since I don't want to deal with the issues of copyright and citing sources, I'll leave it to the reader to look up this song on their own. I will, however, summarize the underlying theological point being made in the first line of the chorus (and resounding throughout the song): "God loves people more than anything."
Another song I remember from these days (again, please look up the lyrics if you're interested) came to our college group from a source I don't remember (I believe it's a Vineyard song, though I'm not positive). It was called "Every Move I Make." In summary, the underlying theological statement was (in accordance to the first line of the song), "Every move I make I make in You, You make me move Jesus."
Two interesting points are being made, during a church service, sung by a congregation to God Who sits upon His throne.
Before I proceed to examine these two songs and their theological ramifications, let me first state this unequivocally: I don't believe there was any intention upon the authors of these songs to cross theological or doctrinal boundaries. Most artists speak from the heart and the seat of their emotions (something which will be addressed later), and their motives often stem from sincerity and openness.
This said, there are two fundamental problems with these two songs, which can be traced (somewhat haphazardly, I'll admit) to a single issue.
First, let's consider these words: "God loves people more than anything." We know one of the perfections of God is His love. I John 4:7-8 states explicitly,
The nearsighted, and incomplete human experience we know as "love" finds its perfection in God and God alone. Within Him alone does love manifest itself to its fullest extent for because it is an attribute (for lack of a better word) He permits us to experience and apprehend. We do well to consider the love from the Lord and the means in which He reveals this to us.
But the primary theological point of the song isn't the reality of this attribute of God. It pertains to the direction of this particular attribute flowing in its fullest measure from top-down. God's love, according to the song, is expressed only in its perfection after mankind's creation and fall. In essence, God loves people more than anything.
Is this, strictly speaking, true? Does God love mankind more than anything? Does He love us more than Himself? Is there a lack in the unity and perfection of our Triune God in which He must seek the final expression of His love in something other than Himself? I would posit this to be absolutely impossible, bordering on the absurd. To say God loves mankind (fallen or otherwise) either places upon the Lord imperfection or mutability, both of which are Scripturally untenable.
What was God's state prior to the creation of mankind? Such a question is, of course, impossible for us to answer. Before our appearance, we have no knowledge of God's work or expression of Himself. In Scripture we are given glimpses of Him in His eternal Being; we read of occurrences (e.g. Satan's rebellion) in a spiritual reality of which we are not capable of interacting; we are even given insight into certain attributes of God which provide us with imperfect understanding of Who He Is. But, we are not given any glimpse into eternity-past.
Unfortunately, if we are to posit God's love for mankind exceeds His love for anything else, we must first attempt to grasp this as it relates from God as an eternal Being. Does God love us more than Himself? If so, what was the state in the Trinity prior to His creation of mankind? Was there an impenetrable barrier in which God could not express His love in its fullest to Himself? We know the Father loves the Son (John 5:20); was this love incomplete in eternity-past? Did the love of God (a fundamental attribute of His Being, according to the apostle John) grow in greater measure upon this one creative act? If so, this redefines God into a God of development and evolution.
Rather than God being complete within and of Himself, we are forced to accept a God Who, upon the creation and fall of mankind, experienced an altering in the fullness of one of His attributes, the result of which was the fullest expression of love being bestowed from the Creator to the Creator.
If we reject the previous assertion (as we should), the next question arises: What was the cause of such change upon the advent of fallen human beings? Did the Lord redirect the expression of His love in its fullest away from Himself (within the Trinity) to His creation? Is there any Scriptural precedence for such a position? According to Scripture, there is not. God has repeatedly revealed Himself to His creation as unchanging and immutable (Malachi 3:6). Unfortunately, this truth as ascribed by Scripture is incompatible with the statement, "God loves people more than anything." If the fullness of God was complete in eternity-past, and God reveals Himself as unchanging, then we can, logically, rely on His completeness after the creation of mankind. To do otherwise results in the same error as previous: God becomes a being of evolution and progress, rather than perfection and completeness.
So what's wrong with this statement: "every move I make I make in You, You make me move Jesus"?
The answer is simple: Jesus is not the author of sin, and, therefore, is not present in every act we make. He does not make us move in certain contexts and sinful expressions of our fallen nature.
Scripture is quite clear about the dangers of either ascribing sin to the Lord, or finding means to justify sin with theology (Romans 3:8). According to Romans 5, sin entered into this world through one man, not through an act of the Lord. Justification and redemption from the curse and enslavement of sin has been given through the direct intervention of God, and by these means we are set free. This, however, does not preclude the continued existence of sin.
In lecturing on Romans, Martin Luther coined a phrase which resounded throughout the Reformation: simul justus et peccator. This statement referred to the regenerated nature of sinful man: "simultaneous justified and sinful." Paul's statements in Romans 7 attest to this reality: though fully justified in the righteousness, and death and resurrection of Christ, he still experienced the daily struggle with sin and a nature which is bent away from the Holiness of God.
What does this song commonly used in church services and college groups say about this? It states, without equivocation, every move we make is in Jesus. Quite strictly speaking, this is a preposterous statement. Was Paul's lament regarding his inability to do right a condemnation of Christ moving him to do wrong? Of course not. Indeed, in verse 25 he breaks out into praise of the One in Whom righteousness and justification is found.
The words of this song beg a question: are we moving in Jesus when we are entertaining lustful thoughts? When we lie to our bosses? When we disrespect and dishonor our parents? When we mock and deride? I don't doubt the author of the song would answer with a resounding: not at all!
What, ultimately, does this matter? Is it possible the authors of these two songs were speaking with poetic license? Are we not allowed freedom to understand the heart of a song or message, disregarding its technical accuracy?
First of all, I believe the primary motives behind these two songs (judged by the words used) were this:
1. God's love for people is awe-inspiring and unfathomable. The expressions of His love in redeeming the lost are beyond all comprehension, and merit worship and praise.
2. In Christ, all existence is sustained and the changes inspired by the work of the Holy Spirit move us to a greater understanding of the Lord's presence in our lives.
It's possible I've completely missed the mark in interpreting the underlying intent of these songs, but I do wish to give the authors the greatest benefit of the doubt.
Unfortunately, we cannot afford such inaccuracy in the Church.
In Romans 14, Paul provides a strong imperative to those in the church who are "stronger."
A corporate service, however, has no such freedom. Ministers and music leaders have no knowledge of the overall maturity of the congregation. In point of fact, they would be safe to assume a wide variety of wisdom, knowledge, and maturity in the local church body. With this in mind, is it reasonable to offer up songs of praise which do not, strictly speaking, adhere to truths in Scripture? Is it more important to elicit a certain emotional reaction, inspired by well-meaning words, regardless of their validity?
To both questions, I would purport, "no." During the local church services, we have a responsibility (one which I fell short of consistently in my previous times in various worship bands) to speak, preach, and sing the truth. God should and will be worshiped in truth (John 3:23-24).
Another song I remember from these days (again, please look up the lyrics if you're interested) came to our college group from a source I don't remember (I believe it's a Vineyard song, though I'm not positive). It was called "Every Move I Make." In summary, the underlying theological statement was (in accordance to the first line of the song), "Every move I make I make in You, You make me move Jesus."
Two interesting points are being made, during a church service, sung by a congregation to God Who sits upon His throne.
Before I proceed to examine these two songs and their theological ramifications, let me first state this unequivocally: I don't believe there was any intention upon the authors of these songs to cross theological or doctrinal boundaries. Most artists speak from the heart and the seat of their emotions (something which will be addressed later), and their motives often stem from sincerity and openness.
This said, there are two fundamental problems with these two songs, which can be traced (somewhat haphazardly, I'll admit) to a single issue.
More than Anything?
First, let's consider these words: "God loves people more than anything." We know one of the perfections of God is His love. I John 4:7-8 states explicitly,
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love
The nearsighted, and incomplete human experience we know as "love" finds its perfection in God and God alone. Within Him alone does love manifest itself to its fullest extent for because it is an attribute (for lack of a better word) He permits us to experience and apprehend. We do well to consider the love from the Lord and the means in which He reveals this to us.
But the primary theological point of the song isn't the reality of this attribute of God. It pertains to the direction of this particular attribute flowing in its fullest measure from top-down. God's love, according to the song, is expressed only in its perfection after mankind's creation and fall. In essence, God loves people more than anything.
Is this, strictly speaking, true? Does God love mankind more than anything? Does He love us more than Himself? Is there a lack in the unity and perfection of our Triune God in which He must seek the final expression of His love in something other than Himself? I would posit this to be absolutely impossible, bordering on the absurd. To say God loves mankind (fallen or otherwise) either places upon the Lord imperfection or mutability, both of which are Scripturally untenable.
Imperfection
What was God's state prior to the creation of mankind? Such a question is, of course, impossible for us to answer. Before our appearance, we have no knowledge of God's work or expression of Himself. In Scripture we are given glimpses of Him in His eternal Being; we read of occurrences (e.g. Satan's rebellion) in a spiritual reality of which we are not capable of interacting; we are even given insight into certain attributes of God which provide us with imperfect understanding of Who He Is. But, we are not given any glimpse into eternity-past.
Unfortunately, if we are to posit God's love for mankind exceeds His love for anything else, we must first attempt to grasp this as it relates from God as an eternal Being. Does God love us more than Himself? If so, what was the state in the Trinity prior to His creation of mankind? Was there an impenetrable barrier in which God could not express His love in its fullest to Himself? We know the Father loves the Son (John 5:20); was this love incomplete in eternity-past? Did the love of God (a fundamental attribute of His Being, according to the apostle John) grow in greater measure upon this one creative act? If so, this redefines God into a God of development and evolution.
Rather than God being complete within and of Himself, we are forced to accept a God Who, upon the creation and fall of mankind, experienced an altering in the fullness of one of His attributes, the result of which was the fullest expression of love being bestowed from the Creator to the Creator.
Mutability
If we reject the previous assertion (as we should), the next question arises: What was the cause of such change upon the advent of fallen human beings? Did the Lord redirect the expression of His love in its fullest away from Himself (within the Trinity) to His creation? Is there any Scriptural precedence for such a position? According to Scripture, there is not. God has repeatedly revealed Himself to His creation as unchanging and immutable (Malachi 3:6). Unfortunately, this truth as ascribed by Scripture is incompatible with the statement, "God loves people more than anything." If the fullness of God was complete in eternity-past, and God reveals Himself as unchanging, then we can, logically, rely on His completeness after the creation of mankind. To do otherwise results in the same error as previous: God becomes a being of evolution and progress, rather than perfection and completeness.
Every Move I Make?
Scripture is quite clear regarding the eminence of Christ (Colossians 1:15-20):He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, andAW)"> through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.In Christ, all things are held together. He is the Word of God, present during creation and in Him all things find their life and existence. This is a truly remarkable revelation, providing even greater insight (and therefore inspiring praise and worship) into the creative acts of God (Genesis 1 and 2).
So what's wrong with this statement: "every move I make I make in You, You make me move Jesus"?
The answer is simple: Jesus is not the author of sin, and, therefore, is not present in every act we make. He does not make us move in certain contexts and sinful expressions of our fallen nature.
Scripture is quite clear about the dangers of either ascribing sin to the Lord, or finding means to justify sin with theology (Romans 3:8). According to Romans 5, sin entered into this world through one man, not through an act of the Lord. Justification and redemption from the curse and enslavement of sin has been given through the direct intervention of God, and by these means we are set free. This, however, does not preclude the continued existence of sin.
In lecturing on Romans, Martin Luther coined a phrase which resounded throughout the Reformation: simul justus et peccator. This statement referred to the regenerated nature of sinful man: "simultaneous justified and sinful." Paul's statements in Romans 7 attest to this reality: though fully justified in the righteousness, and death and resurrection of Christ, he still experienced the daily struggle with sin and a nature which is bent away from the Holiness of God.
What does this song commonly used in church services and college groups say about this? It states, without equivocation, every move we make is in Jesus. Quite strictly speaking, this is a preposterous statement. Was Paul's lament regarding his inability to do right a condemnation of Christ moving him to do wrong? Of course not. Indeed, in verse 25 he breaks out into praise of the One in Whom righteousness and justification is found.
The words of this song beg a question: are we moving in Jesus when we are entertaining lustful thoughts? When we lie to our bosses? When we disrespect and dishonor our parents? When we mock and deride? I don't doubt the author of the song would answer with a resounding: not at all!
So What's the Point?
What, ultimately, does this matter? Is it possible the authors of these two songs were speaking with poetic license? Are we not allowed freedom to understand the heart of a song or message, disregarding its technical accuracy?
First of all, I believe the primary motives behind these two songs (judged by the words used) were this:
1. God's love for people is awe-inspiring and unfathomable. The expressions of His love in redeeming the lost are beyond all comprehension, and merit worship and praise.
2. In Christ, all existence is sustained and the changes inspired by the work of the Holy Spirit move us to a greater understanding of the Lord's presence in our lives.
It's possible I've completely missed the mark in interpreting the underlying intent of these songs, but I do wish to give the authors the greatest benefit of the doubt.
Unfortunately, we cannot afford such inaccuracy in the Church.
In Romans 14, Paul provides a strong imperative to those in the church who are "stronger."
Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.We are given clear instruction to promote maturity and understanding upon those who are spiritually weaker in the Church. Such weakness may pertain to issues of freedom versus license, times of worship, or doctrinal struggles. Such weakness may also stem from simple ignorance brought upon by spiritual immaturity. Such ignorance should be met with loving knowledge and grace. For these, we must be quite careful not to introduce a Gospel which conflicts with that given by Scripture. Individuals in moment of personal, songful worship may understand the finer nuance of intention in the two, previously mentioned songs. We might hesitate to offer words which are clearly untrue in worship, but this is a point for a different topic. Regardless, spiritually mature believers may be able to distinguish between the true and the hyperbolic.
A corporate service, however, has no such freedom. Ministers and music leaders have no knowledge of the overall maturity of the congregation. In point of fact, they would be safe to assume a wide variety of wisdom, knowledge, and maturity in the local church body. With this in mind, is it reasonable to offer up songs of praise which do not, strictly speaking, adhere to truths in Scripture? Is it more important to elicit a certain emotional reaction, inspired by well-meaning words, regardless of their validity?
To both questions, I would purport, "no." During the local church services, we have a responsibility (one which I fell short of consistently in my previous times in various worship bands) to speak, preach, and sing the truth. God should and will be worshiped in truth (John 3:23-24).
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Happy Easter -- Christ is risen indeed!
What a wonderful time of the year for us, as Christians, to remember the glorious resurrection! We worship on Sundays because this was the day of Christ's resurrection from the dead, but it's also, in my mind, important to set time aside on the anniversary of our blessed hope.
I've been thinking about the resurrection more this past year, and I have a thought: one of the strongest proofs of Christ's resurrection lies in the changes the Holy Spirit wrought in the lives of His disciples and those who lived in the ancient world.
At the time of Christ's death, His disciples had fled. The oligarchical religious authorities had, it seemed, succeeded in squelching what they viewed as a blasphemous trend and an affront to their authority. Jesus' friends had abandoned Him immediately after His arrest, and, on that Sunday so long ago, were in hiding. They feared the reprisal of the authorities against those Jesus had taken into His "inner circle," so they sat in their rooms, cowardly and afraid for their own lives.
Don't get me wrong -- I would have done the same...we all would have.
But, within a very short amount of time, these men swept through Israel, Palestine, Asia Minor and to even farther reaches of the known world, spreading the glorious news of Christ's death and resurrection and forgiveness for sin. They baptized and made disciples wherever they went, turning the Jewish society completely on its head. Those who had lived and breathed a fiercely xenophobic and merit-based religious lifestyle were now proclaiming the forgiveness of sins fully apart from works to those outside their respective society. Faith and belief were no longer restricted to a few select practitioners, men, women, soldiers, etc. Instead, all, even small children, were welcomed into the Church.
For those who would purport the existence of explicit "misogynism" in the early church, I would ask they read the New Testament and consider the words of Christ, Who, in a strictly patristic society, reached out to women with His teachings; as well as the apostle Paul, who, though recognizing the difference in role and responsibility between the sexes, also acclaims specific women working alongside men in the church. I would also encourage them to compare Christianity in its day to the other religious institutions at the time: it stands apart in its acceptance of all from different walks of life, and its claims of the abject uselessness of meritorious acts.
In a very short amount of time, the world was drastically and fundamentally changed. No longer basing their religious standing on their capacity to keep Law, give charitably, or act in accordance with goodness, Christians were, rather, displaying chartity and good deeds stemming from an inward change. Rather than working to earn merit, their focus was on being thankful for a gift given while they were still sinners (Romans 3:8), and spreading this good news to everyone they came near.
Christianity spread like a wild fire in its early days, in the face of the most perverse and grotesque persecution and opposition known to man. Under the reign of Domitian, Christian persecution became a matter of state policy; under the reign of Nero, Christians were tortured and ravished as a matter of entertainment. The Jewish religious authorities persecuted and murdered early leaders of the Christian church, casting others into jail.
We know the tomb is empty. Christ rose from the grave (halleluiah!) and we in Him we have a blessed hope. But we need remember one thing: no explanation, no physical evidence, no arguments are sufficient to explain this unprecedented phenomenon. It's not enough for the world to present Jesus' bones and say, "here he is!" Such an occurrence falls drastically short of the historical evidence we have of such a massive personal transformation on behalf of His followers.
What more can we ask for? The proof of Jesus' resurrection and His sending the Holy Spirit need not lie in manifestations of "spiritual gifts;" it need not be sought in an "experience" or a "feeling" or emotion; it need not be based upon the display of miraculous "healings" during televangelist gatherings. Though I don't discount gifts, feelings, or the power of the Lord to heal, we far too often seek for reassurance of His reality in things which focus us inward:
He has risen indeed!! Happy Easter!!
I've been thinking about the resurrection more this past year, and I have a thought: one of the strongest proofs of Christ's resurrection lies in the changes the Holy Spirit wrought in the lives of His disciples and those who lived in the ancient world.
At the time of Christ's death, His disciples had fled. The oligarchical religious authorities had, it seemed, succeeded in squelching what they viewed as a blasphemous trend and an affront to their authority. Jesus' friends had abandoned Him immediately after His arrest, and, on that Sunday so long ago, were in hiding. They feared the reprisal of the authorities against those Jesus had taken into His "inner circle," so they sat in their rooms, cowardly and afraid for their own lives.
Don't get me wrong -- I would have done the same...we all would have.
But, within a very short amount of time, these men swept through Israel, Palestine, Asia Minor and to even farther reaches of the known world, spreading the glorious news of Christ's death and resurrection and forgiveness for sin. They baptized and made disciples wherever they went, turning the Jewish society completely on its head. Those who had lived and breathed a fiercely xenophobic and merit-based religious lifestyle were now proclaiming the forgiveness of sins fully apart from works to those outside their respective society. Faith and belief were no longer restricted to a few select practitioners, men, women, soldiers, etc. Instead, all, even small children, were welcomed into the Church.
For those who would purport the existence of explicit "misogynism" in the early church, I would ask they read the New Testament and consider the words of Christ, Who, in a strictly patristic society, reached out to women with His teachings; as well as the apostle Paul, who, though recognizing the difference in role and responsibility between the sexes, also acclaims specific women working alongside men in the church. I would also encourage them to compare Christianity in its day to the other religious institutions at the time: it stands apart in its acceptance of all from different walks of life, and its claims of the abject uselessness of meritorious acts.
In a very short amount of time, the world was drastically and fundamentally changed. No longer basing their religious standing on their capacity to keep Law, give charitably, or act in accordance with goodness, Christians were, rather, displaying chartity and good deeds stemming from an inward change. Rather than working to earn merit, their focus was on being thankful for a gift given while they were still sinners (Romans 3:8), and spreading this good news to everyone they came near.
Christianity spread like a wild fire in its early days, in the face of the most perverse and grotesque persecution and opposition known to man. Under the reign of Domitian, Christian persecution became a matter of state policy; under the reign of Nero, Christians were tortured and ravished as a matter of entertainment. The Jewish religious authorities persecuted and murdered early leaders of the Christian church, casting others into jail.
We know the tomb is empty. Christ rose from the grave (halleluiah!) and we in Him we have a blessed hope. But we need remember one thing: no explanation, no physical evidence, no arguments are sufficient to explain this unprecedented phenomenon. It's not enough for the world to present Jesus' bones and say, "here he is!" Such an occurrence falls drastically short of the historical evidence we have of such a massive personal transformation on behalf of His followers.
What more can we ask for? The proof of Jesus' resurrection and His sending the Holy Spirit need not lie in manifestations of "spiritual gifts;" it need not be sought in an "experience" or a "feeling" or emotion; it need not be based upon the display of miraculous "healings" during televangelist gatherings. Though I don't discount gifts, feelings, or the power of the Lord to heal, we far too often seek for reassurance of His reality in things which focus us inward:
- I have this gift
- I feel this feeling/sensation
- I was healed
He has risen indeed!! Happy Easter!!
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Issues Etc -- Does Satan Exist?
I listened to a great review of the ABC Panel which discussed the existence of Satan. It's in two parts:
These are well worth listening to.
These are well worth listening to.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Musings on Palm Sunday
I had a thought this morning while at church.
Today's the day the Christian church remembers Christ's entrance into Jerusalem, the week before He was crucified by the Romans and rose again from the grave. His entrance into the city was marked by excitement, rejoicing, and (wait for it...) people waving palm branches ().
I remember past Palm Sundays in several churches, watching palm-branch-bearing children parade up and down the sanctuary aisles, while proud parents beamed from their pews, and music and songs rose up from the music team. All in all, they were somewhat emotionally-overcharged services ().
The situation in Jerusalem, however, is pretty hard to understand. During the Triumphal Entry (Palm Sunday), the crowds were ecstatic. They were energetic, excited, and generally overjoyed to welcome Jesus into their city. He entered the gates riding a donkey while they shouted praises (Mark 11).
Less than a week later, they chose a known murderer and insurrectionist over Christ, while shouting "Crucify Him!" (Mark 15). He was sentenced to death by the Romans in accordance with their collective will.
Why the difference?
From what I've learned in my short (and quite inadequate) studies, the nation of Israel (in Christ's day) were not looking for a Savior Who, in sacrificing Himself, would pay the penalty for the sins of God's chosen people. They were awaiting a conquering Messiah who would take his place on David's throne, cast out their Roman invaders, and set Israel in their rightful place. They wanted glorification for their nation-state, and freedom from the Roman government. Christ's entry into Jerusalem sparked off this "revolutionary" mentality. The people were, I believe, looking to Jesus as this Messiah, and their reaction, though ignorant, was based on a self-serving and inadequate understanding of His purpose.
So...with this in mind, why do churches have children parading up and down the aisles on this Sunday, waving palm branches in a [potentially] misguided remembrance of sinful ignorance? Is this a correct observance and remembrance of Christ fulfilling prophecy foretold hundreds of years before? Should we not, perhaps, spend this Sunday reflecting on how we, as fallen human beings, will try to change Christ's purpose into something other than the incredible, and most amazing gift we could ever be given? The nation of Israel wanted Him to free them from the Romans; He was sent to free us from our sin and bridge the chasm between us and the Holy Lord. Their purposes and the Will of the Lord were at odds, and it behoves us to remember this and reflect upon Who Christ IS, and not Who we want Him to be.
Edit: My good buddy Kyle brought up a few good points to consider. Here are some passages to think through as I further ponder the discussion (emphasis mine, obviously):
Today's the day the Christian church remembers Christ's entrance into Jerusalem, the week before He was crucified by the Romans and rose again from the grave. His entrance into the city was marked by excitement, rejoicing, and (wait for it...) people waving palm branches (
I remember past Palm Sundays in several churches, watching palm-branch-bearing children parade up and down the sanctuary aisles, while proud parents beamed from their pews, and music and songs rose up from the music team. All in all, they were somewhat emotionally-overcharged services (
The situation in Jerusalem, however, is pretty hard to understand. During the Triumphal Entry (Palm Sunday), the crowds were ecstatic. They were energetic, excited, and generally overjoyed to welcome Jesus into their city. He entered the gates riding a donkey while they shouted praises (Mark 11).
Less than a week later, they chose a known murderer and insurrectionist over Christ, while shouting "Crucify Him!" (Mark 15). He was sentenced to death by the Romans in accordance with their collective will.
Why the difference?
From what I've learned in my short (and quite inadequate) studies, the nation of Israel (in Christ's day) were not looking for a Savior Who, in sacrificing Himself, would pay the penalty for the sins of God's chosen people. They were awaiting a conquering Messiah who would take his place on David's throne, cast out their Roman invaders, and set Israel in their rightful place. They wanted glorification for their nation-state, and freedom from the Roman government. Christ's entry into Jerusalem sparked off this "revolutionary" mentality. The people were, I believe, looking to Jesus as this Messiah, and their reaction, though ignorant, was based on a self-serving and inadequate understanding of His purpose.
So...with this in mind, why do churches have children parading up and down the aisles on this Sunday, waving palm branches in a [potentially] misguided remembrance of sinful ignorance? Is this a correct observance and remembrance of Christ fulfilling prophecy foretold hundreds of years before? Should we not, perhaps, spend this Sunday reflecting on how we, as fallen human beings, will try to change Christ's purpose into something other than the incredible, and most amazing gift we could ever be given? The nation of Israel wanted Him to free them from the Romans; He was sent to free us from our sin and bridge the chasm between us and the Holy Lord. Their purposes and the Will of the Lord were at odds, and it behoves us to remember this and reflect upon Who Christ IS, and not Who we want Him to be.
Edit: My good buddy Kyle brought up a few good points to consider. Here are some passages to think through as I further ponder the discussion (emphasis mine, obviously):
Luke 19:41-44: 'And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, "Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation."'
This would, if nothing else, support the idea that the masses were praising out of expectation of something other than the truth. But...(again, emphasis mine)...
I think the primary concern I have is the re-enactment itself. I'm not questioning the act of worship itself, but rather the context in which it is taking place. We worship in truth because God has revealed it to us. They worshipped in ignorance because God had not yet revealed it to them.
Of course, I could be making a lot of nothing, and I certainly don't condemn those churches in the past... :-)
Luke 19:37-40: As he was drawing near—already on the way down the Mount of Olives—the whole multitude of his disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen, saying, "Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!" And some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples." He answered, "I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out."It seems, even though they were praising out of ignorance, they were still praising. This is certainly something to consider, and perhaps have a level of understanding for them. Heck, even the disciples didn't understand why Christ had come. They were likewise expecting Him to take His place on the throne of Israel as their conquering Messiah. But...
I think the primary concern I have is the re-enactment itself. I'm not questioning the act of worship itself, but rather the context in which it is taking place. We worship in truth because God has revealed it to us. They worshipped in ignorance because God had not yet revealed it to them.
Of course, I could be making a lot of nothing, and I certainly don't condemn those churches in the past... :-)
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Some Post-Election Thoughts
I wrote this to my sister a few days ago. I won't paste the mail in its entirety, but it pretty much sums up my thoughts regarding the debacle that was our 2008 Presidential election:
Last night was an utter abomination for those of us who are conservative in our politics. It seems like our country is giving so-called "right-wingers" an ultimatum (or perhaps, just the finger) regarding our views. The amendment in Colorado which would have made the definition of "human" as starting at fertilization was TROUNCED (27% support), and the other governmental reforms were overturned. It was pretty sad. In addition, we now have a socialist-controlled government. We'll see what happen over the next few months/years. It's likely to get harder.
We Christians (the right-wing voters, including myself) have always assumed we have a "safety net" in our life here. Let's face it: this is the land of the free. We have First Amendment rights, don't we? We have freedom to worship as we please, and to tell people the truth without any consequences. This is America--we are a Constitution-led federal republic. But these words (the Bill of Rights and Constitution) are only words, unless they are truly believed by those who enforce them. The new government doesn't (and I'm not convinced the Republicans do either). We often hear about the Constitution as the be-all and end-all for our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It's an amazing document, but...it's still just a document. The Constitution gives us no more rights than the government is willing to provide. Unfortunately, the new government will likely revoke what liberties we have.
For Christians, however, the Constitution, though a wonderful example of what God-fearing men can do with a government in a depraved world, is of middling importance. Will we face higher taxes over the next few years? Yep. Will we face increasing energy costs? Yep. Will we see our "free speech" rights restricted? Yep. But what does this mean for us as God's children? Well, it means life is going to be harder...no doubts about that. But our calling from the Lord remains: "'...make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.'"
But let's face it, we have no guarantee in life which says we will get the majority of our earnings, or have access to cheap energy, or have local grocery stores filled with food. Our prosperity in this country has given Christians (and believe me, I'm 100% included in this) a false sense of security regarding our life and comfort here. Yeah, we might have some opposition when talking to people about Jesus, but this is America. We can still attend the church of our choice without penalty. We can still talk to people on the street without getting arrested. We can still shop at the local store and buy what we need for our existence. We can work and take home the fruits of our labor. We live in America--we can say we trust the Lord to provide, but...we don't necessarily need to back it up with real faith because...this is America.
Please don't misunderstand, I'm not knocking America. I don't want to live anywhere else, and I think the Founding Fathers had insight into the nature of power-based corruption and did what they could to minimize it. Unfortunately, their dream of America is flawed and unsustainable. Depraved mankind will not allow it.
I think American Christians have viewed their lives here as a form of "heaven on earth," where "live and let live" has been the norm. There's nothing wrong with prosperity and wealth--America has done more for helping raise the standard of living worldwide than any other country. America has also sent out more missionaries than any other nation. We have a rich heritage to be thankful for. But...this isn't heaven and we can't assume it will always be this way. And when life takes a turn for the worse, we should respond with faith and trust in the Lord's ultimate provision for our families and for the time when He will finally put to death all evil and sin. This is our hope and our
There's a law in physics which says, "everything is moving toward decay." Entropy is built into our reality--the heat given off by the sun for the growth of our crops (and for boiling Las Vegas ;) reveals the reality of its terminal state. Our world is dying and will continually move toward chaos and evil. The only real force in place stemming the tide is the Lord--not lower taxes, First Amendment rights, or limited government.
This is something which has slapped me hard in the face over the last 24 hours; the verse in Psalm 20:7 says, "Some boast in chariots, some in horses, but we boast in the name of the Lord our God." This has really challenged me to abandon my preconceived disposition to a comfortable life here. I don't think it's wrong to desire a peaceful life, but the Lord is ultimately in control...not our government.
Anyway, don't be troubled. The Lord is OUR shepherd and He will provide for our needs. The government will tear away every pound of flesh it can, but we have a future HOPE which cannot be taken from us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)