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.

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...

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)

What is a proper amount of involvement, in politics, for a Christian?

Thank you to all of you who commented on my last blog. Eight people expressed their opinion concerning the blog. I even thank my brother Jim who, instead of giving a comment on my controversial issue, wrote a list of controversial issues. I'll need your help one more time in order to help me with my class assignment. So I'll ask of you again, if you have a comment on this post please write it directly onto the blog rather than sending it to me by email and if you have a friend who might be interested in this please forward them the link to the blog.

What is a proper amount of involvement, in politics, for a Christian?
Can we all start by agreeing that the Bible does not mandate that we all be members of any particular political party? Depending on what type of church you attend (if you are a Christian) it may be unfathomable that Christians could have any other political view than you do. It used to be hip in Evangelical circles to be a Republican. I think it's now hip to be Democrat. My guess is that it is probably less ideologically driven than it is culturally driven. Young people overwhelmingly voted form Barack Obama, so the number speak for themselves. I guess if you really want to be anti-establishment these days you swing conservative. We can also probably all agree that some amount of political involvement is proper as Christians. But how much?

Is it possible to become so involved politically that we become distracted from the real goal of the Christian life, bringing glory to God in all things? Is it possible to become so politically aggressive that we begin to believe that all of our political beliefs are somehow justified in the Bible (small government, social programs, free market economy, pre-emptive war, etc...)? Is it possible to become so politically ignorant that we are totally unaware of the arena of ideas that we need to be entering? Is picketing bad? Is pacifism good?

Here's some principles that might be helpful in order to guide our discussion. 1. Jesus knew nothing of the Republican, Democrat, Whig, or Tea-Parties. That is not to say that He didn't care about politics but there is no way to claim that "Jesus was a Democrat" - Everclear. 2. It is not close minded, as a Christian, to oppose certain political stances because of what you read in Scripture. We, as Christians, need to allow the Truth of Scripture to inform all of life, even our political views. Christ is the Lord of every true believer and He even needs to affect every thought, action, and political view. 3. It's okay for Christians to affiliate with a political party but that affiliation should never be at the expense of conversation, fellowship, and worship with believers who think differently. True fellowship does not come from uniformity of political beliefs but agreement about the person and work of Jesus Christ. We need to be people who can converse, agree, or disagree about peripheral things while we maintain agreement about the Gospel of Christ. 4. It's okay for Christians to affiliate with a political party but guard against it being the first thing you always want or need to talk about. Jesus said that "out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks". If politics, fantasy football, YouTube clips etc are the first things that we must talk about then there may be a problem with our priorities. We can easily make politics or any other thing the ultimate thing. Even something good, like being politically informed can become an idol. 5. Demonstration, as a political activist, is not itself sinful but we must guard that it does not become sinful. Deep conviction can turn to pride in a second (I should know). Standing up for truth can quickly become standing up for 'me' and my hatred of being wrong. 6. Some believers are called to devote their entire vocational life to politics. Early 20th century Christian Fundamentalism was a large movement had very strong moral convictions but the movement had very little affect on the direction of the country because the group leaned towards separatism. Many times, they developed their own school systems (Church Schools, Bible Colleges, Seminaries) and even developed their own vacation spots (Christian Conference Centers). Their separation made it almost impossible for them to have political influence. Their best and their brightest were separated from the political scene. Is it possible that because a large group of Christians in this country separated from the culture at large, Christians were not engaged with the inner workings of America's political system the way we should have been? I'm encouraging the best from our church to make Christian impact in whatever field they find themselves in. Hopefully, some of them will go into politics and be advocates for change from within the system.

I've just given 6 simple principles. If you think about some other principles that may be helpful for the discussion or your disagree with these principles please feel free to write back. I'd love to hear your additional comments on this issue.

Do Evangelical Churches pick on the Homosexual Lifestyle?

To those who read my blog. Thank you. I promise I will eventually finish my last blog which asked the question of whether or not your "personal relationship with God is destroying your spiritual vitality?" I'm going to need your help over the next few weeks. I'm currently taking a class at Biblical Theological Seminary. One assignment is for me to write a blog post that speaks about a controversial issue. The syllabus says that "The blog entry should frame an issue responsibly, winsomely and yet provocatively enough to encourage readership and engagement. This assignment is designed to assess how well the student is able to frame controversial issues in a way that is both responsible and encourages further conversation and dialogue." Well you all know my incredible propensity for 'winsomeness' so this will be a true exercise for me. Here's where you come in. The blogs need to be around 1000 words. That's a bit long for a blog but that's the assignment. If you are so led, please write any comments that you have on the website instead of sending them to me directly, so that my professor can see that there are people actually reading these posts. There are 23 of you that are subscribers and receive the posts right to you r email. If you have a friend who may be interested in what I've written please forward it on to them because we want to get as much discussion going as possible. Now, what controversial subject can we talk about????

Do Evangelical churches pick on the homosexual lifestyle?
Have you ever noticed how often homosexuality comes up in conversations that Christians have? Maybe you've noticed it coming up a lot in sermons or Bible Studies that you've been listening to. Do you find it coming up more often than the Bible mentions it or more often than the other sins that God lists alongside homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6? What do you hear more about homosexuality, adultery, thievery, greediness, drunkenness, or swindling? Well all of our experiences are different and I can't speak to what you experience but I can say that because of the young Christians that I hang around with there are probably more conversations concerning homosexuality than many of the others that I've listed. But I'll also say that I've had many conversations with young people concerning drunkenness. I've also had a lot of conversation with young people concerning the validity of swindling (to obtain fraudulently) music or movies off of the internet without paying for them.

There may be some churches who have been entirely unfair and decidedly unwelcoming to people who describe themselves as homosexuals. There may be individuals or groups of Christians that have a lot of fear concerning interaction with gays. But it is important to remember that this is not an issue that is solely present in the church. I've had many conversations with non-Christians who would be perfectly open to having gays as co-workers but shiver at the thought that their son or daughter would describe themselves as a homosexual. In other words,' it's perfectly okay for it to take place theoretically but the idea of having to interact with it on a day to day basis scares me to death.' All of this, when it manifests itself in the life of the church is fear driven rather than Scripture driven.

It may be, however, that homosexuality comes up more often in Christian contexts because out of all of the sins listed in 1 Corinthians 6 it is the one sin that (by my guess) is no longer considered sinful in mass American culture. Would a majority of people in America believe that drunkenness is bad? It's not just people in AA, most people believe it's bad. Would a majority of people believe that adultery is bad? Some might call it risky but almost no one would call it good. But if you asked a group of American's about homosexuality, we seem to have been programmed to say that it might not be to our liking or to our preference but could we call it wrong or sinful? I don't think we're willing to go there.

Christ was so confident in the character of His Father that no interaction, with those perceived as unclean, bothered Him. He knew what it meant to understand and do the will of His Father. He was not confused as to whether or not the woman at the well (John 4) had a major sin issue but His understanding of her sin did not cause Him to fear her or distance Himself from her. At the same time, He didn't allow the call to relate to her keep Him from talking to her about her need for a Savior that manifested itself in a sinful lifestyle. Her sin did not cause Him to fear her but to draw near to her. I'm absolutely convinced that a whole life of homosexuality activity is on consistent with faith in Christ. When Christ comes into a life he will begin to eradicated heterosexual and homosexual sin. 1 Corinthians 6 says that the believers in Corinth, before their conversion were living sinful lives of many types but God saved and sanctified them. But that belief should not keep me from ministering to people that have real sexual struggles.

Will future generations of Christians cave on the sin issue of homosexuality? Many Christian groups already have. Is it really that important? Why is it important? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
-Mark Evans

Is your “personal relationship” with God destroying your spiritual vitality?

The other day Bruce Ellingson (an elder at my church) explained to me his understanding of the origins of the term "personal relationship" with God. He believed that the term was a response to theological liberalism from the first half of the 20th century. The issue as he explained it was that the liberal church of the early 1900's was creeping towards a universalism (the belief that all people will be justified through Jesus). The evangelical/fundamentalists countered this belief by saying that a person must believe that Jesus Christ died for them personally. In other words, by using the term "personal relationship" they were implying that a person must actually understand Christ's death and resurrection in a real way. They must have personal faith and exhibit personal repentance. The phrase seems to have been popularized by 20th century evangelists like Billy Graham and others.

Well that sounds good to me but 80 years later; What does the term "personal relationship" with Jesus mean today? I never use the term because I sense a poverty in it. My mentor once said that he believed that when people use the term "personal relationship" today, they are thinking they are somehow doing what is right merely because they use the term. They somehow believe that using the term is the proper way to witness Christ to people because that is what they have been taught. Their belief, as he understands it, is that the use of the term "personal relationship" will awaken people to a need for Christ they never knew existed. In other words, they use it without any regards for its origin, implications, or propensity for misuse.

In 1948 a great writer named Richard Weaver wrote a book entitled Ideas Have Consequences (can't figure out how to underline). In the introduction Weaver points out the philosophy's of 19th and 20th century destroyed the intellectual vitality of the western world. He identified philosophy's like nominalism (no truth independent of man), materialism (only what is seen is real), psychological behavioralism, had left man in a state of "abysmality". One of his conclusions was that 20th century man was "in the deep and dark abysm, and he has nothing with which to raise himself. His life is practice without theory." Weaver described 20th century man as one who had a practice but no underlying theory to uphold him. He groped around for words and behaviors but nothing gave meaning to what he had done.

The same could be said about the church's practice today. We have our catch phrases like "personal relationship" and I am convinced that we are following a practice that has no current theoretical underpinning. We're wasting words but we believe that we are saying something poignant, life changing, and meaningful.
In part 2 I'd like examine the consequences that the idea of "personal relationship" with God has had on us and how we are spiritually poorer because of it.

Why must I be committed to my local Church in membership? Part 2

I must be a member of my local church because....

1. the Scriptures imply that every believer must be committed to a local church. The epistles were written to churches/groups of churches. The epistle writers were utterly focused on the function of the local church. They believed that the church was instituted to represent Christ and display His glory to the world. They believed the church was the fullness of God. The writers of the New Testament had no thought of church hopping. They would have been disgusted by the idea of a "Christian" who had loose affiliations with a number of churches. They viewed the local church as the absolute center of the spiritual experience of the Christian. They viewed the local church as the physical representation of Christ on earth and separation from the local body meant separation from Jesus.
2. the Scriptures teach that the early congregations knew who was in and out of their particular fellowship. The first century church was an organized church. Sometimes they are painted to be a group of Neanderthals who were making up church life as they went along. No, even the Corinthian church knew who was in and out of their congregation beyond attendance and baptism. Paul commands the church in the 5th chapter of 1 Corinthians to "expel" from the congregation a man who is living in unrepentant sexual sin with his step mother. I don't believe that Paul was commanding that the man be shunned from every interaction with believers but rather that He be removed from the life of the church. In 2 Corinthians 2 a man is restored to the life of the church who had previously been removed. Many commentators believe this is the same man. 1 and 2 Corinthians give a grand picture of how restoration can take place in a Christian's life if individuals are committed to membership and repentance and their church is committed to follow the Scriptures directives on membership and discipline. (other pertinent Scriptures on membership Matt 18, Hebrew 10)
3. If I'm not a church member the leaders of my church have (most likely) never formally stated that they believe I am a Christian. It is possible that you have been examined by church leaders prior to your baptism but many churches (traditional and non) are less than aggressive when it comes to examination prior to baptism. At its core church membership is the leaders of your church examining your beliefs and your life and judging whether or not they believe that you evidence faith which is accompanied by new life by the grace of God.
4. if not I've never given anyone permission to lovingly discipline me. Elders are given a Scriptural mandate to "keep watch over (the) souls" of their people as those who will give and account. Church members are given the Scriptural mandate to "obey their leaders and submit to them" (Heb 13:17). I sense that these things are impossible to do without church membership. Without church membership elders cannot know who's souls they will give an account for. Will they give an account for every person who visits their church? Will they give an account for every person who calls themselves a believer? Will they give an account for those that they've decided to give an account for? No, they will give an account for those who have committed themselves to membership/commitment/accountability in the local church. Church members will give an account for how they have obeyed their leaders and leaders will give an account for the way in which they led their people. Were they faithful to the Scriptures in their leadership or did they allow the fear of man and the predominant culture to consume their leadership style?
5. those who don't practice church membership deny the sinful propensity of their own hearts. Without church membership we are convincing ourselves that we would probably never get off track spiritually. We're basically saying 'I'll never have need to be confronted by the members/leaders of my congregation.' 'I can't see myself going down a sinful track.' By forsaking church membership we may be setting ourselves up to never be corrected, disciplined, or truly loved by anyone. Real discipline is conducted out of love. "The Lord disciplines those He loves as a father the son he delights in."