When Osama Bin Laden died it was interesting to see how many Christians blogged about how people should react to his death. Alright, I'm 4 months late but I started this thought in the summer and just recently finished it. My brother in law, Nate, had some very similar thoughts to mine so if you've read his blog you can delete mine. Does the Scripture give us direction concerning how to respond to the death of those who live unjust lives? I think it does. I think we might be surprised at God's response.
God does not delight in the death of the wicked. There's no place for exuberant celebration when the enemies of Christ or His Church die. God gave Ezekiel a message to proclaim to the Israelites. It was a message of repentance. It was a call to turn from evil and in Ezekiel 33:11, Ezekiel spoke for God and He said "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked but that the wicked turn from his way and live." God himself will not take delight in the physical or spiritual death of people who hate Him. He takes delight in repentance.
God is not overwhelmed with sorrow at the death of the wicked. So many, in our day, want to fashion God in our likeness and image. How would God react? We tend to think he would react similar to the way we would react. God is incredibly different than us. The Numbers 14 tells us that God is "slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love." This is true, yet when Jesus Christ finally judges the "nations" of the earth to eternal punishment He will do it in a holy way. Matthew 7 says that He will say to the unbelievers "I never knew you." In Matthew 7 Jesus is speaking to a group of people who have done many good things on earth but under the microscope of God's righteousness it will be proven that their works were incredibly self serving and rather than bringing glory to God they lived a life of "lawlessness" that glorified themselves. The interesting thing about this passage is that the Righteous Judge will display no overwhelming sorrow at the justice He executes.
God calls for proper judgment based on truth. "We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things." (Romans 2:2) In this context the Apostle Paul is speaking about Osama Bin Laden. He is speaking in the context of unbelievers who have wantonly forsaken the authority of God and have lived life their own way...to the point of sexual sin, murder, strife, haughtiness, boastfulness, foolishness, arrogance etc. What will be their end? How will God judge the lawless? He will judge based on His unchanging truth. Unlike us, he will levy an truth oriented judgment without delight and without sorrow. God's judgments are always right.
Interested to hear your thoughts.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Functional Hypocrites
The other day I had a friend exclaim to a group of peers that they cried when they heard that Steve Jobs had died. I think he was expressing something that many of our generation felt. Technology is such a part of our daily lives (especially the I Phone, Pad, Pod, Touch, MacBook, Mini, Air, Thini, I Visible, I Verson, I Razor etc) that there was a weird void left for people when they realized that the man who had brought them these products would no longer be delivering the goods. We love our neat technology that makes life as convenient and simple as possible. The internet is at our fingertips, constantly, because of Steve Jobs. Now, Apple products aren't cheap. In fact their much more expensive than comparable products made by other companies. Other products may not be as sleek or well designed as Apple products but my laptop cost about 1/2 of what a comparable Apple laptop might cost. And Steve Jobs was incredibly rich because of this. He was a multi billionaire capitalist who gave relatively little to charity...but we don't care because 'I love my I Phone and my I Pad.' 'I couldn't live without it.'
I'm not critiquing Steve Jobs. Capitalism is not wrong. There is great good that comes from free market capitalism. Consumerism, can become idolatry, but the idea of people buying and enjoying products is not necessarily bad. Here's the issue. We are a generation of people who are celebrating their I Phone, their MacBook Pro and Steve Jobs, who are also attempting to Occupy Wall Street. We believe that "Capital Finance Ruins Lives" and "A Job is a Right, Capitalism Doesn't Work." We're functional hypocrites. We believe that capitalism is bad but we use the products of capitalism (Facebook, Computers, Phones etc) to organize our anti-capitalistic marches. We buy up a bunch of technology, cry about the death of Steve Jobs, and then attempt to lambaste everyone about how they don't give enough to charity. We decry our parents American dream but we've built a new American dream. We may not have the finances to own two homes (nothing wrong with it) but we'll spend the rest of our lives crawling further into the comfort of our "Netflix world"(John Piper).
As Christians, is it possible for us to be a generation who grows to use the products without worshiping the products? Can we be thankful for Apple Computers? Can we enjoy the free market as a blessing from God and within that live a simple life that gives glory to God by giving of our finances regularly to our local church? Can we own things and not let them own us? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
I'm not critiquing Steve Jobs. Capitalism is not wrong. There is great good that comes from free market capitalism. Consumerism, can become idolatry, but the idea of people buying and enjoying products is not necessarily bad. Here's the issue. We are a generation of people who are celebrating their I Phone, their MacBook Pro and Steve Jobs, who are also attempting to Occupy Wall Street. We believe that "Capital Finance Ruins Lives" and "A Job is a Right, Capitalism Doesn't Work." We're functional hypocrites. We believe that capitalism is bad but we use the products of capitalism (Facebook, Computers, Phones etc) to organize our anti-capitalistic marches. We buy up a bunch of technology, cry about the death of Steve Jobs, and then attempt to lambaste everyone about how they don't give enough to charity. We decry our parents American dream but we've built a new American dream. We may not have the finances to own two homes (nothing wrong with it) but we'll spend the rest of our lives crawling further into the comfort of our "Netflix world"(John Piper).
As Christians, is it possible for us to be a generation who grows to use the products without worshiping the products? Can we be thankful for Apple Computers? Can we enjoy the free market as a blessing from God and within that live a simple life that gives glory to God by giving of our finances regularly to our local church? Can we own things and not let them own us? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Is the Reformation Nearly Over?
I've pasted below a blog entry from Carl Trueman. Trueman is a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary. I found the article to be incredibly insightful. I'd love to hear some of your insights.
Sincerely,
Mark Evans
Is the Reformation nearly over? Perhaps, but maybe not for the reason you think, (Carl Trueman)
Reformation21 Blog 9/25/11 12:04 PM
Time was that the megachurch was not highly thought of by those who claimed the name Reformed or looked to the Reformation for their historical inspiration. This was consistent with two basic concerns which had high priority for the Reformers: as opposition to things such as pluralities (ministers holding multiple appointments) and absenteeism (ministers not actually ever being where they ministered); and the fear of turning leaders into fetishes.
Reforming pastoral ministry along these lines was a hallmark of Reformation Protestantism. It had, after all, started with a pastoral problem and rapidly became an issue of the nature of church authority. In the process, the importance of putting educated ministers who could articulate the faith and offer pastoral nurture to the people was never far from the centre of concern.
On the whole, that lasted until about five to ten years ago when, all of a sudden, megachurches started to arise which sounded a bit like the Protestant Reformers, at least in the buzzwords and catchphrases they use. Now, strange to tell, there are actually debates going on in small 'r' reformed circles about whether pluralities and absenteeism (today known as multi-site ministries) are a good thing or not.
This is clearly antithetical to the ecclesiological concerns of the Reformation. The lack of pastoral care such multi-sites engender is common knowledge. Further, the whole idea seems clearly to turn certain preachers into fetishes. Medieval Catholics liked to obtain the body, or even just a fragment, of a saint for their church building in order to make it an authentic church, or a better church than the one in the neighbouring town (see. the undignified fight for the corpse of St. Anthony of Padua; today we need a virtual piece of a famous preacher in our locale to have access to the magic.
The cost is high: the Reformers predicated pastoral care (from preaching to personal interaction) on having local knowledge of local people. They feared cults of personality (which they saw as leading to the idolatrous medieval veneration of the saints) so much that they actively discouraged them and did not simply play the `Nothing to do with me, guv' card when they arose.
Further, they were too busy training people to go to places where there was no Reformation witness to have found the idea of church planting on the doorstep of faithful churches to be an attractive idea - let alone to do so in a way that would have brought no personal discomfort or cost to themselves but caused great frustration and distress to other decent saints. I have become aware of a number of `ordinary' (sic) pastors recently - good men, solid preachers, diligent churchmen - whose ministries have been seriously harmed by the arrival of `videolink' ministries of big names in their locales.
Yes, these particular local pastors are decent preachers. Do not fob me off with the lazy argument 'Well, small churches often have boring preachers' gambit -- that is sometimes the case, it is true; but let us be honest -- some of today's biggest reformed names spend more pulpit time telling jokes and talking about themselves than preaching the biblical text; they may not be boring and they may fill the house to the rafters but a twenty minute sermon should not take fifty minutes to deliver (and, as an aside, is it not time somebody of influence in such circles pointed that out?).
Yet these small church pastors can only offer their people hard work and the need for real get-your-hands-dirty commitment. By contrast, the video hook-up brings the fetish to town and makes no few demands upon anyone beyond the tech guy, the head of physical plant and the local praise band. In today's consumer world, there is no doubt who has the more attractive product to sell. Presumably the cancer wards will offer similar video link-ups when members of the virtual congregation lie dying and in need of final comfort.
This is not reformation in any way that the sixteenth and seventeenth century Reformers would have understood it. It is rather the kind of thing against which they were reacting, and that with passion.
The problem with the way `Reformed' is often used today is that it divorces certain things (typically the five, or more often, four points of Calvinism) from the overall Reformation vision of pastoral care, church worship, Christian nurture and all-round approach to ministry. The Bible becomes sufficient for the doctrines of grace; but what works, what pulls in the punters, becomes the criterion for everything else, especially ecclesiology and pastoral practice.
I have noted before how grateful I am that my sons grew up in churches where the pastor knew their names, chatted to them after the service and even stood on the occasional touchline or track to cheer them on at school sports events. If they ever abandon the faith, it will not be because they never knew the pastor cared for them as individuals, rather than just as mere concepts or numbers or pixels on a two way videolink. I am also grateful that my pastors really cared about my wife and me, prayed for us regularly by name and, I am sure, even occasionally shaped parts of their sermons to give a word of needed encouragement and to help us with trials through which they knew we were going. These pastors were not perfect -- far from it; but they were at least actually there, really available and genuinely concerned. In short, they tried to embody true Reformation -- biblical! -- church leadership.
The Reformation was about more than a doctrinal insight into justification; it was also about abolishing the fetishisation of certain great figures as if they possessed some special magic and about instituting an ideal of educated, personal, local ministry. Maybe the Reformation is nearly over; and maybe it is Benedictine Catholicism but actually the new reformation, with its multi-sites and its rvirtual pastors, that is finishing it off. That is quite a sobering and ironic thought.
Sincerely,
Mark Evans
Is the Reformation nearly over? Perhaps, but maybe not for the reason you think, (Carl Trueman)
Reformation21 Blog 9/25/11 12:04 PM
Time was that the megachurch was not highly thought of by those who claimed the name Reformed or looked to the Reformation for their historical inspiration. This was consistent with two basic concerns which had high priority for the Reformers: as opposition to things such as pluralities (ministers holding multiple appointments) and absenteeism (ministers not actually ever being where they ministered); and the fear of turning leaders into fetishes.
Reforming pastoral ministry along these lines was a hallmark of Reformation Protestantism. It had, after all, started with a pastoral problem and rapidly became an issue of the nature of church authority. In the process, the importance of putting educated ministers who could articulate the faith and offer pastoral nurture to the people was never far from the centre of concern.
On the whole, that lasted until about five to ten years ago when, all of a sudden, megachurches started to arise which sounded a bit like the Protestant Reformers, at least in the buzzwords and catchphrases they use. Now, strange to tell, there are actually debates going on in small 'r' reformed circles about whether pluralities and absenteeism (today known as multi-site ministries) are a good thing or not.
This is clearly antithetical to the ecclesiological concerns of the Reformation. The lack of pastoral care such multi-sites engender is common knowledge. Further, the whole idea seems clearly to turn certain preachers into fetishes. Medieval Catholics liked to obtain the body, or even just a fragment, of a saint for their church building in order to make it an authentic church, or a better church than the one in the neighbouring town (see. the undignified fight for the corpse of St. Anthony of Padua; today we need a virtual piece of a famous preacher in our locale to have access to the magic.
The cost is high: the Reformers predicated pastoral care (from preaching to personal interaction) on having local knowledge of local people. They feared cults of personality (which they saw as leading to the idolatrous medieval veneration of the saints) so much that they actively discouraged them and did not simply play the `Nothing to do with me, guv' card when they arose.
Further, they were too busy training people to go to places where there was no Reformation witness to have found the idea of church planting on the doorstep of faithful churches to be an attractive idea - let alone to do so in a way that would have brought no personal discomfort or cost to themselves but caused great frustration and distress to other decent saints. I have become aware of a number of `ordinary' (sic) pastors recently - good men, solid preachers, diligent churchmen - whose ministries have been seriously harmed by the arrival of `videolink' ministries of big names in their locales.
Yes, these particular local pastors are decent preachers. Do not fob me off with the lazy argument 'Well, small churches often have boring preachers' gambit -- that is sometimes the case, it is true; but let us be honest -- some of today's biggest reformed names spend more pulpit time telling jokes and talking about themselves than preaching the biblical text; they may not be boring and they may fill the house to the rafters but a twenty minute sermon should not take fifty minutes to deliver (and, as an aside, is it not time somebody of influence in such circles pointed that out?).
Yet these small church pastors can only offer their people hard work and the need for real get-your-hands-dirty commitment. By contrast, the video hook-up brings the fetish to town and makes no few demands upon anyone beyond the tech guy, the head of physical plant and the local praise band. In today's consumer world, there is no doubt who has the more attractive product to sell. Presumably the cancer wards will offer similar video link-ups when members of the virtual congregation lie dying and in need of final comfort.
This is not reformation in any way that the sixteenth and seventeenth century Reformers would have understood it. It is rather the kind of thing against which they were reacting, and that with passion.
The problem with the way `Reformed' is often used today is that it divorces certain things (typically the five, or more often, four points of Calvinism) from the overall Reformation vision of pastoral care, church worship, Christian nurture and all-round approach to ministry. The Bible becomes sufficient for the doctrines of grace; but what works, what pulls in the punters, becomes the criterion for everything else, especially ecclesiology and pastoral practice.
I have noted before how grateful I am that my sons grew up in churches where the pastor knew their names, chatted to them after the service and even stood on the occasional touchline or track to cheer them on at school sports events. If they ever abandon the faith, it will not be because they never knew the pastor cared for them as individuals, rather than just as mere concepts or numbers or pixels on a two way videolink. I am also grateful that my pastors really cared about my wife and me, prayed for us regularly by name and, I am sure, even occasionally shaped parts of their sermons to give a word of needed encouragement and to help us with trials through which they knew we were going. These pastors were not perfect -- far from it; but they were at least actually there, really available and genuinely concerned. In short, they tried to embody true Reformation -- biblical! -- church leadership.
The Reformation was about more than a doctrinal insight into justification; it was also about abolishing the fetishisation of certain great figures as if they possessed some special magic and about instituting an ideal of educated, personal, local ministry. Maybe the Reformation is nearly over; and maybe it is Benedictine Catholicism but actually the new reformation, with its multi-sites and its rvirtual pastors, that is finishing it off. That is quite a sobering and ironic thought.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Numbers????????
Have you ever noticed how we tend to be when our small group, Sunday School class, the youth group we work with, the discussion group we lead, is full as opposed to when there are only a few in attendance? We're on top of the world when everyone involved with our Bible study is there but the weeks that it's empty we can be despondent. How do we feel when a person at Bible study/small group/church service/youth group looks around and says "Where is everybody?" (by the way this is almost always exclaimed by a person who comes once a month)
What is happening in those moments? What is happening when life couldn't be better because the place is packed and life couldn't be worse when the place is empty? I think we'd like to believe that we're disappointed because we really care for people and we want to see them grow. That probably is part of the issue. We want to see greater maturity in our people. But because we are Americans we have a keen interest in tangible, quantifiable, results. The only way to quantify the results of a small group is numbers. We hang on the numbers. The numbers reign supreme in our minds. When most people think back to the glory days of their local church, small group, Sunday School class, they think back to days when the ministry was the largest. Remember back then? It was awesome. I might ask the question; Was it really awesome? Not necessarily. The work that God does is spiritual. It's internal. The internal work that God does can be seen on the outside but sometimes what we see on the outside appears to be spiritual and is not. The work that God does is not always manifested in numbers. In other words, the glory days may or may not have been that glorious.
When we ride high because our group was packed or sink low because our group was empty we've made numbers an idol. In those moments we've made Christ very small and the response of man very big. We're looking more to man for our satisfaction than to God. In addition, the person who used to oversee a large group but now is angry because their group is small must believe that it was their skills, ability, or worse yet, their personality, that made it big. Wow, how big is our pride? Even the Apostle Paul, one of the most gifted men to ever live did not believe he had the ability to grow people or group sizes. He said that when it came to the church he "planted, Apollos watered, BUT GOD GAVE THE GROWTH. (1 Cor 3:6)" It was God that did the real work.
Our calling is not to make everything bigger. The American economy is supposed to continue to grow numerically not the size of your church, small group, youth group etc. If numeric growth does come our way, we need to thank God and refuse to look to ourselves. And if numbers fall, may our eyes go more to Christ as we rely more on Him and His Word, not our long term plans or abilities. Smart and ambitious people know how to create numbers but only the Holy Spirit creates real numbers. He creates real followers. He creates real disciples.
Below is a question and answer with Dr. Mark Dever. He addresses the issue of numbers in the church. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_NqWzwDo6o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_NqWzwDo6o
What is happening in those moments? What is happening when life couldn't be better because the place is packed and life couldn't be worse when the place is empty? I think we'd like to believe that we're disappointed because we really care for people and we want to see them grow. That probably is part of the issue. We want to see greater maturity in our people. But because we are Americans we have a keen interest in tangible, quantifiable, results. The only way to quantify the results of a small group is numbers. We hang on the numbers. The numbers reign supreme in our minds. When most people think back to the glory days of their local church, small group, Sunday School class, they think back to days when the ministry was the largest. Remember back then? It was awesome. I might ask the question; Was it really awesome? Not necessarily. The work that God does is spiritual. It's internal. The internal work that God does can be seen on the outside but sometimes what we see on the outside appears to be spiritual and is not. The work that God does is not always manifested in numbers. In other words, the glory days may or may not have been that glorious.
When we ride high because our group was packed or sink low because our group was empty we've made numbers an idol. In those moments we've made Christ very small and the response of man very big. We're looking more to man for our satisfaction than to God. In addition, the person who used to oversee a large group but now is angry because their group is small must believe that it was their skills, ability, or worse yet, their personality, that made it big. Wow, how big is our pride? Even the Apostle Paul, one of the most gifted men to ever live did not believe he had the ability to grow people or group sizes. He said that when it came to the church he "planted, Apollos watered, BUT GOD GAVE THE GROWTH. (1 Cor 3:6)" It was God that did the real work.
Our calling is not to make everything bigger. The American economy is supposed to continue to grow numerically not the size of your church, small group, youth group etc. If numeric growth does come our way, we need to thank God and refuse to look to ourselves. And if numbers fall, may our eyes go more to Christ as we rely more on Him and His Word, not our long term plans or abilities. Smart and ambitious people know how to create numbers but only the Holy Spirit creates real numbers. He creates real followers. He creates real disciples.
Below is a question and answer with Dr. Mark Dever. He addresses the issue of numbers in the church. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_NqWzwDo6o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_NqWzwDo6o
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Half Day of Prayer
One of the assignments for a class that I am taking is to spend a half day in prayer. I will be spending 4 hours in prayer on Friday. I'm in the process of ordering those 4 hours. One part of my time in prayer will be devoted to making requests to God. If you have any things that you'd like me to be in prayer about situation, for you personally, or for someone that you know (specific or general) feel free to email me your requests. Hoping that God uses this time for His purposes. Also, depending on how many responses I get, I may not be able to follow up with each of your requests but know that you've been prayed for if you email me.
Mark Evans
mark@calvarybfc.org
Mark Evans
mark@calvarybfc.org
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Harold Camping and Rob Bell: Two Sides of the Same Coin, Part 3
Points 2 and 3 why Rob Bell and Harold Camping are really two sides of the same coin.
2. They both lack real accountability. Harold Camping is the head of a Christian radio organization that encourages people to leave their local church. Camping himself left his local church in the late 80's. This seems preposterous to many because Christians, of every stripe, have always believed that when individuals have come to understand the forgiveness of Christ join the local church and believe it to be the Body of Christ. They believe it to be the physical and spiritual representation of Christ on earth. They've believed that one cannot be close to Christ without being close to His gathered people, His table, and His baptism. They've believed that distance from the church is always representative of distance from Jesus.
To some, the comparison between Harold Camping and Rob Bell seems preposterous when it comes to their relationship to the local church. Camping calls people to leave the church but Rob Bell is encouraging people to come to his church. Camping believes that churches are under the control of Satan but Rob Bell still believes that the Body of Christ is within the church. But Rob Bell eschews accountability also. Rob Bell's congregation is not affiliated with any particular denomination. His ordination does not seem to be with any particular group of churches. No one, in his church, has called for him to be disciplined because of his blatant false teaching. Even though many respected church leaders have from around the country questioned his teaching he has refused to recant. Both Camping and Bell are emboldened by the masses that follow them rather than the clear teaching of the Bible.
When individuals get outside of the authority that the local church and denominations of churches provide, they are susceptible to every wind of false doctrine. There is authority and accountability in church structures that every Christian needs. This is God's plan.
3. They both have a twisted view of church history. There is a story that church history tells. Church history is not authoritative (as some would believe) but it is informative. Biblical conclusions that are not supported throughout the various stages of church history need to be questioned strongly. I'm fairly convinced that Harold Camping does not see church history as important at all and knows very about it but Rob Bell is aware of the history of the church but he does an interesting thing with it. Bell has substantiated his views on the testimony of individuals from church history rather than the testimony of the Churches of Church history. With this approach, one could make history say almost anything. All one would need to do is to string together a list of questionable characters or heretics from church history and say "there has been within the Christian tradition a number of people who have said give it enough time, God will win everybody over. (Rob Bell http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg-qgmJ7nzA)" Bell even goes so far as to misuse letters written by Martin Luther in order to say that Luther himself questioned whether or not people could turn to God after death. Luther never taught this.
Church history is not the final authority but it tells a story. Church history unanimously tells a story of a Triune Creator God, a sacrificed and resurrected Son, an indwelling Spirit, a set apart worshiping people, a table of remembrance, a baptism in water, a real heavenly state and a real hell. Christians of every group have believed these things, and more, because they are so clear in the Bible.
2. They both lack real accountability. Harold Camping is the head of a Christian radio organization that encourages people to leave their local church. Camping himself left his local church in the late 80's. This seems preposterous to many because Christians, of every stripe, have always believed that when individuals have come to understand the forgiveness of Christ join the local church and believe it to be the Body of Christ. They believe it to be the physical and spiritual representation of Christ on earth. They've believed that one cannot be close to Christ without being close to His gathered people, His table, and His baptism. They've believed that distance from the church is always representative of distance from Jesus.
To some, the comparison between Harold Camping and Rob Bell seems preposterous when it comes to their relationship to the local church. Camping calls people to leave the church but Rob Bell is encouraging people to come to his church. Camping believes that churches are under the control of Satan but Rob Bell still believes that the Body of Christ is within the church. But Rob Bell eschews accountability also. Rob Bell's congregation is not affiliated with any particular denomination. His ordination does not seem to be with any particular group of churches. No one, in his church, has called for him to be disciplined because of his blatant false teaching. Even though many respected church leaders have from around the country questioned his teaching he has refused to recant. Both Camping and Bell are emboldened by the masses that follow them rather than the clear teaching of the Bible.
When individuals get outside of the authority that the local church and denominations of churches provide, they are susceptible to every wind of false doctrine. There is authority and accountability in church structures that every Christian needs. This is God's plan.
3. They both have a twisted view of church history. There is a story that church history tells. Church history is not authoritative (as some would believe) but it is informative. Biblical conclusions that are not supported throughout the various stages of church history need to be questioned strongly. I'm fairly convinced that Harold Camping does not see church history as important at all and knows very about it but Rob Bell is aware of the history of the church but he does an interesting thing with it. Bell has substantiated his views on the testimony of individuals from church history rather than the testimony of the Churches of Church history. With this approach, one could make history say almost anything. All one would need to do is to string together a list of questionable characters or heretics from church history and say "there has been within the Christian tradition a number of people who have said give it enough time, God will win everybody over. (Rob Bell http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg-qgmJ7nzA)" Bell even goes so far as to misuse letters written by Martin Luther in order to say that Luther himself questioned whether or not people could turn to God after death. Luther never taught this.
Church history is not the final authority but it tells a story. Church history unanimously tells a story of a Triune Creator God, a sacrificed and resurrected Son, an indwelling Spirit, a set apart worshiping people, a table of remembrance, a baptism in water, a real heavenly state and a real hell. Christians of every group have believed these things, and more, because they are so clear in the Bible.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Harold Camping and Rob Bell: Two Sides of the Same Coin, Part 2
Here's one reason why people like Harold Camping and Rob Bell are two sides of the same coin. Two more reasons coming next week.....
1. They both believe that the meaning of the Scripture is not within the words themselves. Harold Camping is a civil engineer and approaches the Bible as such. He's looking for the math of the Scriptures. He trying to crack the Bible code through the use of mathematics. In his mind, if you do the equations right then you get ALL of the right answers. He approaches the Bible as a modernist. A modernist says 'I can understand truth by applying my mind properly.' Camping believes that the meaning of the Scripture is underneath the words. If you know all he knows, then you'll really know. On the other side of the coin, Rob Bell approaches the Bible as a mystic. He's wants to revel in the mystery of the Scripture. He approaches the Bible as a post-modernist. A post-modernist says 'because of the diversity of our world, truth is not cross cultural but is intensely personal and individually understood by what I experience.' To Rob Bell the meaning of the Scripture is not mainly contained in the words of Scripture but is mystically understood. To Bell, the meaning of the Scripture is above the Scripture. 'Don't get caught up with the detail of the words', he might say, 'get caught up in the grand mystery of it all'.
Jesus says, that to his disciples "has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God but for others they are in parables so that seeing they may not see and hearing they may not hear. (Luke 8:10)" The idea that Rob Bell promotes that Christianity is a continual reveling in unanswered questions is not compatible with the Bible. This way of thinking cannot be substantiated by the Old or New Testament. Jesus says in Luke 8 that his disciples come to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of God but that unbelievers are blind and deaf to this meaning. The Bible repeatedly says that true faith is a growing realization of who God is and how He works, with growing certainty (Deut 29:29, Isaiah 43:10, John 17:3, Rom 8:16, Heb 11:1). At the same time, the idea that all of the things that we ever wanted to know are answered in the Bible is not accurate. This is where Harold Camping has gone astray. Harold Camping is in trouble because God repeatedly gives warnings against mapping out a detailed timeline in order to ascertain the day of Christ's return (Matt 24:36, Mark 13:32). The meaning of the Bible is neither below or above the text. The meaning of the Bible is within the words themselves. The meaning of the Bible is right in the text. It is the Words that are true and powerful( Jn 17, Rom 10). It is the Words that impart life (Gen 1, Ez 37). It is the words that reveal Jesus Christ (Lk 24:27). The meaning of the Scripture is plain and these words will be saving and transformative when God applies them by His Holy Spirit (2 Thess 2:13-14).
1. They both believe that the meaning of the Scripture is not within the words themselves. Harold Camping is a civil engineer and approaches the Bible as such. He's looking for the math of the Scriptures. He trying to crack the Bible code through the use of mathematics. In his mind, if you do the equations right then you get ALL of the right answers. He approaches the Bible as a modernist. A modernist says 'I can understand truth by applying my mind properly.' Camping believes that the meaning of the Scripture is underneath the words. If you know all he knows, then you'll really know. On the other side of the coin, Rob Bell approaches the Bible as a mystic. He's wants to revel in the mystery of the Scripture. He approaches the Bible as a post-modernist. A post-modernist says 'because of the diversity of our world, truth is not cross cultural but is intensely personal and individually understood by what I experience.' To Rob Bell the meaning of the Scripture is not mainly contained in the words of Scripture but is mystically understood. To Bell, the meaning of the Scripture is above the Scripture. 'Don't get caught up with the detail of the words', he might say, 'get caught up in the grand mystery of it all'.
Jesus says, that to his disciples "has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God but for others they are in parables so that seeing they may not see and hearing they may not hear. (Luke 8:10)" The idea that Rob Bell promotes that Christianity is a continual reveling in unanswered questions is not compatible with the Bible. This way of thinking cannot be substantiated by the Old or New Testament. Jesus says in Luke 8 that his disciples come to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of God but that unbelievers are blind and deaf to this meaning. The Bible repeatedly says that true faith is a growing realization of who God is and how He works, with growing certainty (Deut 29:29, Isaiah 43:10, John 17:3, Rom 8:16, Heb 11:1). At the same time, the idea that all of the things that we ever wanted to know are answered in the Bible is not accurate. This is where Harold Camping has gone astray. Harold Camping is in trouble because God repeatedly gives warnings against mapping out a detailed timeline in order to ascertain the day of Christ's return (Matt 24:36, Mark 13:32). The meaning of the Bible is neither below or above the text. The meaning of the Bible is within the words themselves. The meaning of the Bible is right in the text. It is the Words that are true and powerful( Jn 17, Rom 10). It is the Words that impart life (Gen 1, Ez 37). It is the words that reveal Jesus Christ (Lk 24:27). The meaning of the Scripture is plain and these words will be saving and transformative when God applies them by His Holy Spirit (2 Thess 2:13-14).
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Harold Camping and Rob Bell: Two Sides of the Same Coin
Few people have made more noise in Christianity in 2011 then Harold Camping and Rob Bell. Harold Camping is an 89 year old radio Bible preacher. It's sometimes hard to believe that Camping has any audience at all. He speaks with a ridiculous monotone. He wears suits that look like he purchased them from the Salvation Army in 1975. His radio stations and websites are completely outdated. Over the years he has taught that the church is under the control of Satan so Christians should abandon their local church. He has taught that torment in hell is not eternal and the occupants of hell will eventually be annihilated. He taught the end of the world was to come in 1994. He later predicted the beginning of judgment on May 21, 2011. He has since said that the judgment has begun but it is a "spiritual" judgment. The end of the world is still coming on October 21, 2011.
You might think that Harold Camping couldn't be more different than Rob Bell. Unlike Camping, Rob Bell is 40 years old and probably thinks that Harold Camping is a kook. Rob Bell created a stir in 2011 by writing a book that questioned what Christians have traditionally believed about hell. Camping says that the judgment of God is a terrible thing while Rob Bell insists that the judgment that God brings will not be painful but rather a wooing process similar to how a romantic boy gets a girl to like him. Rob Bell is seemingly hip and accessible to young people. He dresses cool and wears those cool square glasses and tells great stories. He's an entertaining communicator. He's got an entrepreneurial flare to his ministry. Rob Bell is no annihilationist. He believes that hell is virtually empty and if it does exist it is not a physical place. Rob Bell openly questions Christian beliefs like the atonement, election, and sovereign work of God that Harold Camping clings to. But despite these glaring differences, Harold Camping and Rob Bell are two sides of the same coin. In other words, they look different but they have similar value. Here are three values that Rob Bell and Harold Camping share. The conclusion comes next week....
You might think that Harold Camping couldn't be more different than Rob Bell. Unlike Camping, Rob Bell is 40 years old and probably thinks that Harold Camping is a kook. Rob Bell created a stir in 2011 by writing a book that questioned what Christians have traditionally believed about hell. Camping says that the judgment of God is a terrible thing while Rob Bell insists that the judgment that God brings will not be painful but rather a wooing process similar to how a romantic boy gets a girl to like him. Rob Bell is seemingly hip and accessible to young people. He dresses cool and wears those cool square glasses and tells great stories. He's an entertaining communicator. He's got an entrepreneurial flare to his ministry. Rob Bell is no annihilationist. He believes that hell is virtually empty and if it does exist it is not a physical place. Rob Bell openly questions Christian beliefs like the atonement, election, and sovereign work of God that Harold Camping clings to. But despite these glaring differences, Harold Camping and Rob Bell are two sides of the same coin. In other words, they look different but they have similar value. Here are three values that Rob Bell and Harold Camping share. The conclusion comes next week....
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Arrogance and Humility
Well, everyone's blogging about how Christians should respond to the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Maybe I'll write about it next week but I think it may have been done to death (insert joke here).
Below is a great clip by an educator/pastor named Doug Wilson. Wilson has openly criticized Rob Bell and comments on how American Christianity has inverted the definitions of arrogance and humility. I hope you enjoy it.
http://desposyni.blogspot.com/2011/04/doug-wilson-on-arrogance-and-humility.html
Below is a great clip by an educator/pastor named Doug Wilson. Wilson has openly criticized Rob Bell and comments on how American Christianity has inverted the definitions of arrogance and humility. I hope you enjoy it.
http://desposyni.blogspot.com/2011/04/doug-wilson-on-arrogance-and-humility.html
Monday, April 4, 2011
Who are you to judge? Part 2
Here are 4 principles for proper judgment from the Bible.
"Judge not lest ye be judged" is not the complete story on judgment. In Matthew 7:1 Jesus said "Judge not that you be not judged, for with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged." For most people, even Christians, these are the only verses in the Bible that they are aware of that speak directly towards judgment. In these verses Jesus is not forbidding all judgment but rather forbidding Christians from hypocritical judgment. He goes on to say in the following verses, "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."(7:5) He warns believers against our tendency to harshly judge the sin in others that we're deeply entrenched in.
The Bible doesn't forbid Christian people from identifying and opposing unjust actions in a proper manner. "Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker, but he who is generous to the needy honors him."(Prov 14:31) God's idea of justice has nothing to do with self-righteousness but is rather concerned with His name being honored by believers acting with integrity and uprightness. It has to do with the believer knowing what is right and learning to do what is right. This not only applies to the oppressed but it applies to fidelity to the message of Christ. Paul says in Galatians 2 that when he heard that the Apostle Peter was drawing back from the Gentiles in favor of fellowship with the Jews, Paul identifies this as "a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you". In response to Peter, Paul "opposed him to his face because he stood condemned." The Apostle Paul was not only willing "to remember the poor" and was eager to do it but believed that fidelity to the Gospel was the driving force of his desire to see justice take place. He felt so strongly about upholding the True Gospel that he was willing to go directly to Peter and confront him on his compromised lifestyle.
The Bible warns Christians against pride and feelings of superiority when they deal with the sin of unbelievers. The Bible says do not judge those outside the church. Clearly, the Bible warns believers not to apply God's expectation for holiness to unbelievers. "But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard or swindler- not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? .... God judges those outside (the church)." (1 Cor 5:11-13) We tend to want to exercise these verses differently. We tend to want to give believers a free pass when it comes to judgment and think ourselves superior to the world. Paul, says it must be the opposite. We can oppose sinful ideas and sinful people for the sake of the oppressed but we must guard against pride and superiority when doing it. I know the outcome of an unbelieving life but the ultimate judgment of the unbeliever will be levied by Christ (Acts 10:42) not by me.
It is good and right for believers to speak directly to each other about actions and attitudes that are sinful. This is good judgment. In Matthew 18 Jesus gives the believer a prescription for how to approach other believers who have sinned. In summary, it has to do with going to people personally with a desire to see them return to obedience in Christ. If going to them personally does not bring about repentance then Jesus calls the believer to bring along another believer and then to eventually involve the entire church body. 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 say "Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?.... Purge the evil person from among you." If you don't believe in the church disciplining it's members you'll need to go back and examine the message of Jesus and Paul. The Scriptures are painfully clear on this point. We, as believers, have a responsibility to confront one another in love because the reputation of Christ is at stake in the life of the Church and in the life of the individual believer. This is the proper judgment amongst believers. Many believe that actions like these are the absence of love but Jesus assures us that actions like these represent love. Jesus makes it clear that the actions of the church body, either to restore an individual or to put them out of the church, is the church attempting to agree with what heaven already knows about the individual. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (if you think you have a better explanation of that verse, I'd genuinely like to hear it) It's caring about the soul of the individual.
"Judge not lest ye be judged" is not the complete story on judgment. In Matthew 7:1 Jesus said "Judge not that you be not judged, for with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged." For most people, even Christians, these are the only verses in the Bible that they are aware of that speak directly towards judgment. In these verses Jesus is not forbidding all judgment but rather forbidding Christians from hypocritical judgment. He goes on to say in the following verses, "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."(7:5) He warns believers against our tendency to harshly judge the sin in others that we're deeply entrenched in.
The Bible doesn't forbid Christian people from identifying and opposing unjust actions in a proper manner. "Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker, but he who is generous to the needy honors him."(Prov 14:31) God's idea of justice has nothing to do with self-righteousness but is rather concerned with His name being honored by believers acting with integrity and uprightness. It has to do with the believer knowing what is right and learning to do what is right. This not only applies to the oppressed but it applies to fidelity to the message of Christ. Paul says in Galatians 2 that when he heard that the Apostle Peter was drawing back from the Gentiles in favor of fellowship with the Jews, Paul identifies this as "a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you". In response to Peter, Paul "opposed him to his face because he stood condemned." The Apostle Paul was not only willing "to remember the poor" and was eager to do it but believed that fidelity to the Gospel was the driving force of his desire to see justice take place. He felt so strongly about upholding the True Gospel that he was willing to go directly to Peter and confront him on his compromised lifestyle.
The Bible warns Christians against pride and feelings of superiority when they deal with the sin of unbelievers. The Bible says do not judge those outside the church. Clearly, the Bible warns believers not to apply God's expectation for holiness to unbelievers. "But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard or swindler- not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? .... God judges those outside (the church)." (1 Cor 5:11-13) We tend to want to exercise these verses differently. We tend to want to give believers a free pass when it comes to judgment and think ourselves superior to the world. Paul, says it must be the opposite. We can oppose sinful ideas and sinful people for the sake of the oppressed but we must guard against pride and superiority when doing it. I know the outcome of an unbelieving life but the ultimate judgment of the unbeliever will be levied by Christ (Acts 10:42) not by me.
It is good and right for believers to speak directly to each other about actions and attitudes that are sinful. This is good judgment. In Matthew 18 Jesus gives the believer a prescription for how to approach other believers who have sinned. In summary, it has to do with going to people personally with a desire to see them return to obedience in Christ. If going to them personally does not bring about repentance then Jesus calls the believer to bring along another believer and then to eventually involve the entire church body. 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 say "Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?.... Purge the evil person from among you." If you don't believe in the church disciplining it's members you'll need to go back and examine the message of Jesus and Paul. The Scriptures are painfully clear on this point. We, as believers, have a responsibility to confront one another in love because the reputation of Christ is at stake in the life of the Church and in the life of the individual believer. This is the proper judgment amongst believers. Many believe that actions like these are the absence of love but Jesus assures us that actions like these represent love. Jesus makes it clear that the actions of the church body, either to restore an individual or to put them out of the church, is the church attempting to agree with what heaven already knows about the individual. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (if you think you have a better explanation of that verse, I'd genuinely like to hear it) It's caring about the soul of the individual.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Who are you to judge?
A popular American author/pastor name Rob Bell recently released a book entitled Love Wins: A Book about Heaven and Hell and the Fate of Every Person who Ever Lived. Even before the book was released there was a firestorm of controversy surrounding the book. An editor from Crossway Books named Justin Taylor released a scathing critique of the book after he had read a few chapters. Taylor also critiqued the promotional video that preceded Bell's book. Upon reading Taylor's review a popular Reformed pastor named John Piper Tweeted one statement which read "Farewell Rob Bell." Interestingly, this Tweet created another round of controversy surrounding the book. Many speculated, and I think fairly, that John Piper was stating that Rob Bell had departed from the bounds of Orthodox Christianity by hinting that hell was not a place and that the love of God would not allow people be punished there eternally. But there was an uprising against John Piper for his Tweet. The criticism that Rob Bell was experiencing, in some circles, was equaled by the criticism that John Piper received. Throughout this controversy there was one quote that intrigued me. In a short response to John Piper's Tweet, a random woman wrote to John Piper "Who are you to judge?" Who are you to judge??? This is an extremely popular sentiment in our day. We hear this all the time. "He's so judgmental". "Every time I go there I feel like I'm being judged." When we're feeling really spiritual we quote Jesus and say "judge not lest ye be judged." We believe that everyone else is so judgmental but we almost never say to anyone "you're so judgmental". We announce behind their back that "they're being so judgmental".
Friends, can we at least see the hypocrisy of the statement itself. To say that someone is "judgmental" is itself a judgment. Judgments are a daily activity. We cannot survive in this world with discerning or making judgments. We're constantly judging whether or not we have enough time to run three errands and still make it to class on time. We're judging whether or not there is enough space to make the left hand turn between the two cars that are approaching. You might object to this line of reasoning because it has nothing to do with judging people. You might still believe that judgment associated with people is wrong. But I assure you that you and I are constantly making judgments concerning people. Should I let my kid hang out with that other kid? I'm going to need to make a judgment about the other kid and my kid in order to make that decision. Should I go out to lunch with my co-worker? I'll need to make judgments to decide this. Is my co-worker the same gender as me or a different gender? Where might my co-worker want to go for lunch? What would my boyfriend say? Can we all agree that judgment, itself, is not negative? Proper judgment of situations and others protects us from danger. Judgment is not the issue. The question is, What is proper judgment? According to the Bible, What are the right and wrong ways to judge situations and others? Part 2 coming next week.
Friends, can we at least see the hypocrisy of the statement itself. To say that someone is "judgmental" is itself a judgment. Judgments are a daily activity. We cannot survive in this world with discerning or making judgments. We're constantly judging whether or not we have enough time to run three errands and still make it to class on time. We're judging whether or not there is enough space to make the left hand turn between the two cars that are approaching. You might object to this line of reasoning because it has nothing to do with judging people. You might still believe that judgment associated with people is wrong. But I assure you that you and I are constantly making judgments concerning people. Should I let my kid hang out with that other kid? I'm going to need to make a judgment about the other kid and my kid in order to make that decision. Should I go out to lunch with my co-worker? I'll need to make judgments to decide this. Is my co-worker the same gender as me or a different gender? Where might my co-worker want to go for lunch? What would my boyfriend say? Can we all agree that judgment, itself, is not negative? Proper judgment of situations and others protects us from danger. Judgment is not the issue. The question is, What is proper judgment? According to the Bible, What are the right and wrong ways to judge situations and others? Part 2 coming next week.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Zach Wahls' Iowa Speech for Gay Marriage Goes Viral
Below is an article written by Steven Hoffer who writes for AOLnews.com . Directly below that is the related YouTube clip of Zach Wahls. Zach is a product of artificial insemination and was raised by two lesbians. There seems to be an increasing distance between Zach's generation and the generation that overwhelmingly approved a resolution to propose a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages in Iowa. If I'm understanding this correctly, the Iowa House of Representatives have now placed it in the hands of the people of Iowa as to whether or not their state will sanction gay marriage. After reading and watching the video I'd love to hear your reaction.
Zach Wahls' Iowa Speech for Gay Marriage Goes Viral
The Iowa House of Representatives approved a resolution on Tuesday that proposes a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in the state.
Hundreds of people packed the Iowa State House to debate the issue -- known as House Joint Resolution 6 -- which passed by a 62-37 vote.
One of the individuals who spoke was Zach Wahls, a University of Iowa engineering student and the child of a same-sex couple. His three-minute speech against the resolution is going viral across the Internet, much like Fort Worth, Texas, City Councilman Joel Burns' "It Gets Better" speech did during October.
During his statement, the 19-year-old equates his family to any other in Iowa and mentions that he owns a small business, is an Eagle Scout and scored in the 99th percentile on the ACT college aptitude test, and he even manages to not so subtly tell the House chairman that he'd be "very proud" to have a son like himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q&feature=topvideos
Zach Wahls' Iowa Speech for Gay Marriage Goes Viral
The Iowa House of Representatives approved a resolution on Tuesday that proposes a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in the state.
Hundreds of people packed the Iowa State House to debate the issue -- known as House Joint Resolution 6 -- which passed by a 62-37 vote.
One of the individuals who spoke was Zach Wahls, a University of Iowa engineering student and the child of a same-sex couple. His three-minute speech against the resolution is going viral across the Internet, much like Fort Worth, Texas, City Councilman Joel Burns' "It Gets Better" speech did during October.
During his statement, the 19-year-old equates his family to any other in Iowa and mentions that he owns a small business, is an Eagle Scout and scored in the 99th percentile on the ACT college aptitude test, and he even manages to not so subtly tell the House chairman that he'd be "very proud" to have a son like himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q&feature=topvideos
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Lost in "Lost"- Part 2
If you need a refresher on the dialogue that I'm referencing from "Lost" feel free to go back and read.
Interpreting art is difficult but not impossible. After watching every episode of "Lost" I've grown more to understand much of the post modern mindset and I sense this final dialogue was valuable in explaining what mass Western culture believes about life and the afterlife. I've proposed three false beliefs that are illustrated in the closing scene of Lost. They are the belief that.......
1. what happens in your afterlife will be constructed by your belief system. If your understanding what I am writing you might not believe this to be what many people on the street believe but let me illustrate. Have you ever heard someone say, "I'm not concerned with hell, I don't believe in it." "I'm not concerned about a final judgment, I don't believe in God." What are they saying with statements like these? Ultimately, they are saying that the reality of the afterlife is not dictated by whether or not there is something beyond the grave but rather whether or not I believe in something beyond the grave. Whether or not I believe in the existence of Asia does not negate it's reality. Asia goes on whether I believe in it or not. Heaven and hell, although not able to be seen with human eyes, exist whether we believe in them or not. Jack's dad says that his afterlife experience is "the place that you all made together". Their afterlife was a product of their imagination and their hope for something good and better. God's Word says something very different.
2. the purpose of the afterlife is to renew good relationships from earth and heal. Jack's dad said that they had made this place together "so you could find one another. That's why all of you are here . ... To remember... and let go." Interestingly I find that many evangelical Christians think of heaven this very way. Many are fixated on the reunion that will take place in heaven with those who have gone before them. Many comfort themselves at funerals with thoughts of their recently deceased father having a grand reunion with their mother who had died decades before. We love this sentimental image even though Jesus emphatically says that marriage does not exist in heaven. Jesus said that those who focus on what earthly relationship will be like in heaven, "know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God" (Mark 12). Heaven will be a Christ focused expression of worship in which the believer spends all eternity attempting to understand how the God of the universe would sacrifice His sinless Son in order to redeem people who are spiritually bankrupt. This is a far cry from saying hi to my grandfather. Even those who call themselves Christians are uncomfortable with heaven being about God. In the words of Paul Washer, “Everyone wants to go to Heaven. They just don't want God to be there, when they get there.”
3. life is all about relationships. Because our culture has considered the search for Truth invalid we are left with very little to hold on to. Without Truth we are left to find all of our meaning in things like relationships, feelings and experiences. Jack's dad said that "The most important part of your life was the time that you spent with these people." As a Christian, relationships are very important but they are not ultimate. Do we realize that one could actually make relationships an idol? Our Western culture is doing it constantly and it is not helping us. In fact, with our increased emphasis on relationships we're actually struggling, more and more, to maintain relationships. Technology is a great advantage to our lives but many times it is the enemy of relationships. Also, a mis-managed focus on relationships can be devastating to our spiritual condition. If I find security in a large group of friends or I'm miserable because I have a pathetically small group of friends, I'm sinning. If my friends and family are taking me away from worship opportunities or drawing me away from obedience to Christ then those relationships are sinful. My belief that marriage will make me happy is idolatry. My feeling that my insecurities will melt away when I have children is sinful. God never condemns any of these relational connections in fact he calls them all good, if they are viewed properly.
Take some time as you are observing art, whether incredibly profound or as basic as the TV show "Lost", to think about and critique the message it is sending.
Interpreting art is difficult but not impossible. After watching every episode of "Lost" I've grown more to understand much of the post modern mindset and I sense this final dialogue was valuable in explaining what mass Western culture believes about life and the afterlife. I've proposed three false beliefs that are illustrated in the closing scene of Lost. They are the belief that.......
1. what happens in your afterlife will be constructed by your belief system. If your understanding what I am writing you might not believe this to be what many people on the street believe but let me illustrate. Have you ever heard someone say, "I'm not concerned with hell, I don't believe in it." "I'm not concerned about a final judgment, I don't believe in God." What are they saying with statements like these? Ultimately, they are saying that the reality of the afterlife is not dictated by whether or not there is something beyond the grave but rather whether or not I believe in something beyond the grave. Whether or not I believe in the existence of Asia does not negate it's reality. Asia goes on whether I believe in it or not. Heaven and hell, although not able to be seen with human eyes, exist whether we believe in them or not. Jack's dad says that his afterlife experience is "the place that you all made together". Their afterlife was a product of their imagination and their hope for something good and better. God's Word says something very different.
2. the purpose of the afterlife is to renew good relationships from earth and heal. Jack's dad said that they had made this place together "so you could find one another. That's why all of you are here . ... To remember... and let go." Interestingly I find that many evangelical Christians think of heaven this very way. Many are fixated on the reunion that will take place in heaven with those who have gone before them. Many comfort themselves at funerals with thoughts of their recently deceased father having a grand reunion with their mother who had died decades before. We love this sentimental image even though Jesus emphatically says that marriage does not exist in heaven. Jesus said that those who focus on what earthly relationship will be like in heaven, "know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God" (Mark 12). Heaven will be a Christ focused expression of worship in which the believer spends all eternity attempting to understand how the God of the universe would sacrifice His sinless Son in order to redeem people who are spiritually bankrupt. This is a far cry from saying hi to my grandfather. Even those who call themselves Christians are uncomfortable with heaven being about God. In the words of Paul Washer, “Everyone wants to go to Heaven. They just don't want God to be there, when they get there.”
3. life is all about relationships. Because our culture has considered the search for Truth invalid we are left with very little to hold on to. Without Truth we are left to find all of our meaning in things like relationships, feelings and experiences. Jack's dad said that "The most important part of your life was the time that you spent with these people." As a Christian, relationships are very important but they are not ultimate. Do we realize that one could actually make relationships an idol? Our Western culture is doing it constantly and it is not helping us. In fact, with our increased emphasis on relationships we're actually struggling, more and more, to maintain relationships. Technology is a great advantage to our lives but many times it is the enemy of relationships. Also, a mis-managed focus on relationships can be devastating to our spiritual condition. If I find security in a large group of friends or I'm miserable because I have a pathetically small group of friends, I'm sinning. If my friends and family are taking me away from worship opportunities or drawing me away from obedience to Christ then those relationships are sinful. My belief that marriage will make me happy is idolatry. My feeling that my insecurities will melt away when I have children is sinful. God never condemns any of these relational connections in fact he calls them all good, if they are viewed properly.
Take some time as you are observing art, whether incredibly profound or as basic as the TV show "Lost", to think about and critique the message it is sending.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Lost in "Lost"
Alright I admit it... I got addicted. Last summer our friend Morgan asked if her boyfriend, Mark, could stay at our house while he worked at his internship for school. Mark is a senior engineering major from Penn State. Well, Mark and Morgan began to watch the TV show "Lost" from season 1 all the way to season 6. With the DVD's hanging around I began the journey. I never thought I would get into it but I could not turn away. The show sucks you into the mystery and many of the episodes end with great cliffhangers. Once you get to the 4th season you realize that the show is going downhill but you've invested so much time that you feel obligated to finish. You want to see how it will all end. Are they really on a desert island? Are they in hell? Are they in heaven? Are they dead? Are they alive? Will they get off the island and return to civilization? Once they get to civilization, will they return to the island (are you kidding me? no I'm not kidding you)? It gets pretty pathetic. At some points it was so bad that my wife accused me of being lost in my "Lost world". I was lost in "Lost".
Well, I finished in December. In the final episode one of the main characters, Jack Shepherd, is having a conversation with his elderly father in which he is attempting to make sense of everything that has happened to him. He's struggling with understanding where he is. What is real and what is not? Is the world that he is experiencing his life or some after life? Why are there people from the island in this place?
Dad- Everyone dies sometime kido. Some of them before you, some of them long after you.
Jack- But why are they all here NOW?
Dad- Well there is no NOW. Here.
Jack- Where are we dad?
Dad- This is the place that you all made together so you could find one another. The most important part of your life was the time that you spent with these people. That's why all of you are here. Nobody does it alone Jack. You needed all of them and they need you.
Jack- For what?
Dad- To remember... and let go.
Interpreting art is difficult but not impossible. After watching every episode I've grown more to understand much of the post modern mindset and I sense this final dialogue was valuable in explaining what the mass Western culture believes about the afterlife. On the whole we believe that..... part 2 coming next week and yes it is already completed...
Well, I finished in December. In the final episode one of the main characters, Jack Shepherd, is having a conversation with his elderly father in which he is attempting to make sense of everything that has happened to him. He's struggling with understanding where he is. What is real and what is not? Is the world that he is experiencing his life or some after life? Why are there people from the island in this place?
Dad- Everyone dies sometime kido. Some of them before you, some of them long after you.
Jack- But why are they all here NOW?
Dad- Well there is no NOW. Here.
Jack- Where are we dad?
Dad- This is the place that you all made together so you could find one another. The most important part of your life was the time that you spent with these people. That's why all of you are here. Nobody does it alone Jack. You needed all of them and they need you.
Jack- For what?
Dad- To remember... and let go.
Interpreting art is difficult but not impossible. After watching every episode I've grown more to understand much of the post modern mindset and I sense this final dialogue was valuable in explaining what the mass Western culture believes about the afterlife. On the whole we believe that..... part 2 coming next week and yes it is already completed...
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Is your “personal relationship” with God destroying your spiritual vitality? Part 2
If you forget part 1 in this series, feel free to go back and reread it so that what I'm currently writing will make a bit more sense. I'm working off of Richard Weaver's warning that the life of 20th century man was abysmal because his life had become "practice without theory". 20th century man developed ways of operating that were without an underlying truth. I'd like to warn us of some things that can creep into our lives if we misuse the term "personal relationship" with God and live a practice without a theory.
1. Christ is the reason that I am connected to God, not my choices. Most Christians believe that they are in Christ because of the right choices they've made. Jesus warns against this kind of thinking because he knows how prideful it will make the individual who believes it. He directly tells his disciples "you did not choose me but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit" (John 15:16). Jesus is utterly clear that the Gospel does not break through as a result of right choices of man but rather as a result of God's choice. It is Christ's work not my personal decision that makes me right before the Holy God of the universe.
2. The center of my religious practice is not what I do privately. What I do privately is important and affects how I live publicly but it is not the center of my connection to Christ. I'm connected to God through Christ because of grace and faith but the greatest practical exercise of my faith is my God given connection to His Body the Church. The center of my relationship to God is my love and attention to the church of Jesus Christ. I am called to love other believers, be baptized, receive communion, devote myself to prayer and listen to His Word as it is preached. Spiritual dryness is, many times, a result of distance from the Body of Christ. We, as privacy loving American evangelicals, have a tendency to believe that how we worship privately will drive our passion for living Christ out publicly. I sense that this thinking is out of line with the Bible. The testimony of Scripture seems to be that what happens with the church of Christ should drive our private worship. The testimony of the first church in Acts 2 is clear. In no way does Acts 2 discourage any private worship of the believer but the clear reaction of the believers to the movement of God's Holy Spirit was public repentance and baptism (v38,41), listening to sermons (42), public communion (depending on how you interpret this verse 42), corporate prayer (42), the sharing of possessions (44-45), corporate worship (46), and meals together (46). In other words, there was a real conviction in them about being together with the Body of Christ.
3. If I'm committed to my "personal relationship" with God (as defined in 21st century America), there will be clear commands in the Scripture that I will have a desire to dismiss immediately. The truth conveyed in 1 Corinthians 12 is that my struggles, my sin, and my good experiences will have tremendous affect on other Christians. In other words, as a Christian, how I live publically and privately will affect others. This bucks against my American understanding of "personal". Personal seems to imply that it is just me and Jesus but the Scriptures teach that it is me, Jesus, and other believers (1 Cor 12:27). "Obey your (church) leaders and submit to them. " (Heb 10:17) This violates my understanding of "personal relationship". Within that very same verse God tells church leaders that "they are keeping watch over (the) souls" of their church members. In other words, someone else will actually give some sort of an account for how you live when they get to heaven. That doesn't sound strictly "personal".
Hey, let's remember that at the end of the age there will be an judgment. The Scriptures seem to indicate that aspects of the judgment will be personal (2 Cor 5:10). In other words it won't be you and me or you and your minister or you and your parents in that judgment. The judgment will mainly concern what you did with Jesus Christ. Was your affection for Christ, was their faith in His work, and did that faith bring about a true repentance from sin? This is why we need to be personally justified and converted but when we are converted we are no longer individuals who run around doing the spiritual life on our own but we are grafted into the Body of Christ. We're in His vineyard/building/Kingdom/family/sheepfold/church etc. We're now experiencing "His fullness". (Eph 1)
1. Christ is the reason that I am connected to God, not my choices. Most Christians believe that they are in Christ because of the right choices they've made. Jesus warns against this kind of thinking because he knows how prideful it will make the individual who believes it. He directly tells his disciples "you did not choose me but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit" (John 15:16). Jesus is utterly clear that the Gospel does not break through as a result of right choices of man but rather as a result of God's choice. It is Christ's work not my personal decision that makes me right before the Holy God of the universe.
2. The center of my religious practice is not what I do privately. What I do privately is important and affects how I live publicly but it is not the center of my connection to Christ. I'm connected to God through Christ because of grace and faith but the greatest practical exercise of my faith is my God given connection to His Body the Church. The center of my relationship to God is my love and attention to the church of Jesus Christ. I am called to love other believers, be baptized, receive communion, devote myself to prayer and listen to His Word as it is preached. Spiritual dryness is, many times, a result of distance from the Body of Christ. We, as privacy loving American evangelicals, have a tendency to believe that how we worship privately will drive our passion for living Christ out publicly. I sense that this thinking is out of line with the Bible. The testimony of Scripture seems to be that what happens with the church of Christ should drive our private worship. The testimony of the first church in Acts 2 is clear. In no way does Acts 2 discourage any private worship of the believer but the clear reaction of the believers to the movement of God's Holy Spirit was public repentance and baptism (v38,41), listening to sermons (42), public communion (depending on how you interpret this verse 42), corporate prayer (42), the sharing of possessions (44-45), corporate worship (46), and meals together (46). In other words, there was a real conviction in them about being together with the Body of Christ.
3. If I'm committed to my "personal relationship" with God (as defined in 21st century America), there will be clear commands in the Scripture that I will have a desire to dismiss immediately. The truth conveyed in 1 Corinthians 12 is that my struggles, my sin, and my good experiences will have tremendous affect on other Christians. In other words, as a Christian, how I live publically and privately will affect others. This bucks against my American understanding of "personal". Personal seems to imply that it is just me and Jesus but the Scriptures teach that it is me, Jesus, and other believers (1 Cor 12:27). "Obey your (church) leaders and submit to them. " (Heb 10:17) This violates my understanding of "personal relationship". Within that very same verse God tells church leaders that "they are keeping watch over (the) souls" of their church members. In other words, someone else will actually give some sort of an account for how you live when they get to heaven. That doesn't sound strictly "personal".
Hey, let's remember that at the end of the age there will be an judgment. The Scriptures seem to indicate that aspects of the judgment will be personal (2 Cor 5:10). In other words it won't be you and me or you and your minister or you and your parents in that judgment. The judgment will mainly concern what you did with Jesus Christ. Was your affection for Christ, was their faith in His work, and did that faith bring about a true repentance from sin? This is why we need to be personally justified and converted but when we are converted we are no longer individuals who run around doing the spiritual life on our own but we are grafted into the Body of Christ. We're in His vineyard/building/Kingdom/family/sheepfold/church etc. We're now experiencing "His fullness". (Eph 1)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)