Contentment

Discontent is the “if justs” in our life:

• If I just got a higher paying job…
• If I just could get that promotion….
• If my wife would just…
• If I just could get accepted to that school…
• If I could just afford a house….
• If I could just loose a few pounds….

• things would just be so much easier if just….
• I could have more time for ministry if just…
• We could have more children if just….
• I could pay next month’s rent if just….

We know that God wants us to trust him, we know that he wants us to be satisfied in him
but sometimes those things that are really important are so far out of reach, and we think we could have peace if just….

Discontent can start small, but over time it grows, it becomes restlessness, dissatisfaction, and unhappiness.  The “if justs” can consume our thoughts, make sleep difficult, and remove any peace in our lives.

Certainly this is not the way God wants us to live, but it’s just so easy to live in these sorts of places.  Just when we think perhaps we’ve found contentment, life brings a new twist or turn and we’re back to “if just…”

So how can we remain content?  Paul has a pretty incredible answer

• First we’re going to see how Paul learned to find contentment in his life
• Then we are going to see why he was content

Let’s turn to Philippians 4

First, how did Paul learn to find contentment?

Learning content without Context 

When Paul wrote the letter, he was in a pretty rough spot.  He was in prison pending a trial, and he knew there was a good chance he would be executed.   Death was just around the corner.  The Philippian church sent him a gift (probably money) to help him

At the end of the letter Paul wanted to thank them for their gift, starting in verse 10

I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity.  Not that I am speaking of being in need….
Paul wanted to make it clear with the church that his joy is in their friendship: they were concerned for him.  But he very quickly adds he’s not saying his joy is because of their gift

Paul uses a very strong negation here: he is saying “most certainly I do not mean…”  Of course the Philippians knew Paul was in poverty and prison and he certainly lacked the basic essentials in life. 

It would be very easy for them to think that his joy was at least in part because their gift had relieved some of the suffering in his life.  Quite the contrary, Paul was saying he was overjoyed only because of their friendship and concern for him.

Paul continues to explain why:

for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. 
I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need.

Contentment learned

It’s interesting that Paul uses learning language 3 times here: he has learned (twice) and he knows (twice).  He’s emphasizing learning through experience.  It’s not as if Paul converted and instantly knew contentment.  Instead, over time and through a wide variety of situations he has been moving towards a place of knowing true contentment.

Paul’s life certainly had a lot of suffering: he had been beaten many times, been arrested, and shipwrecked.  He faced persecution, rejection, and he lived in poverty. 

But for Paul, the contentment he had learned wasn’t “if just” but “now always”.  Contentment wasn’t tied to his context in life.  No matter the situation, he has learned how to be content.  He knew contentment without context

He has been brought low, hungry and in need
This is language of humiliation, poverty, and dire need

But he has also abounded, had plenty, and been in abundance
I’m not really sure when in his life he is referring to, but what’s important is that he was content through any and every circumstance!  No context in life would change the contentment he knew

He’s learned through times of plenty and times of none.  The journey God had taken him on has brought a wide variety of contexts and they have all taught him contentment.  So really, contentment is really a part of the process of following Jesus

So Paul learned contentment through any context.  His relationships, the financial support he received, and any aspect of his context… none of these affected his contentment.  His situation had no bearing on whether he was content or not.  Contentment is “always now” and not “if just”

Paul says he has learned the secret for why he can be content.  What is it?

Contentment in Christ

I can do all things through him

So often this passage is read without its context.  We understand Paul to be saying “I can do anything through Christ”, as in “because of Christ I can accomplish extraordinary feats”.  It’s the slogan of Christian athletes, employees, and students.  In Christ we can accomplish, achieve, and triumph.

The problem is that we are taking this verse out of its context: Paul isn’t saying in a general sense “I can do anything” but rather something specific: “I can be content in all situations”.  “all things” refers to what he’s talking about: being content in every context.

So Paul has something very specific in mind: in Christ we are able to be content in any context.  It’s not a general notion of achievement but a specific notion that we can endure all the contexts of life because of Christ.

It’s interesting because Paul’s word for “contentment” is a word that in his day actually referred to a Greek philosophy known as stoicism.  For stoics, contentment meant exercising reason over emotions so that a person is unaffected by discontent.  A person is “independent” and “self-sufficient” because their peace, serenity, and happiness cannot be affected by others or their context.  

To his audience, Paul’s words would have immediately brought to mind this philosophy.  But Paul’s language of “in Christ” takes a sharp turn away from stoicism.  Contentment isn’t becoming indifferent to one’s circumstance and self-sufficient like a stoic believed.  It’s not about being detached from others or our situation, but attached to Christ.  It’s not about self-sufficiency, but complete dependence.

I think what Paul is painting here is actually a continuum: on the one end we have discontent and the “if justs”, and Paul is saying “no, contentment is not about our context”.   On the other we have detachment (i.e. not caring) like the stoics, and Paul is saying “no, contentment is by being attached to Jesus”.  Real contentment is in between these: it’s being completely dependent on Jesus

It’s this dependence that further moves us away from a triumphant “I can accomplish extraordinary things” to “I can endure extraordinarily difficult situations”.   It’s neither detachment nor “if justs”.  Paul is saying his contentment is without context, it’s “always now” not “if just”, and it’s because of his dependence on Christ. 

Paul has one more key phrase we need to unpack… it’s quite familiar but it really brings into focus what this contentment through dependence means

Power for a purpose

through him who strengthens me.

In Greek Paul’s language is “I am empowered in Christ because of the one who empowers me”.  He is “strong enough” because he is “strengthened” in Christ.  He can be content in any situation he is strengthened with Jesus’ power.

It’s very common for Christians to talk about the strength or power of God in their lives.  I have noticed that often when I pray for God’s strength I really want him to improve my present situation:

• “help me to have a good attitude today”
• “help me to have the strength to be disciplined”
• “help me to meet this deadline”
• “here are specific ways I want your strength to make my life better”

but Paul’s meaning is far more profound and is worth some reflection

The concept of the strength or power of God in our lives is rich and worthy of an entire series.  I just want to offer one brief observation:
God’s power in our lives is for a specific purpose: to be holy and obedient, remaining in him and bearing fruit

• The power to stand strong when the enemy tries to trip us
• The power to resist temptation and sin. 
• The power that works through us in ministry. 
• The power to remind us of God’s promises so that we can have hope

Paul gives us a good example of what this power looks like in our lives in his later letter to the Corinthian church.  They were very frustrated because he appeared so weak to them: he wasn’t a good public speaker, he didn’t perform miracles like other “apostles”, he lived in poverty, and he refused their support (accepting support was a way to honor someone)

To them he said:

Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me.  For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

For Paul, Christ’s strength most vividly manifest when he appeared weak.  Paul certainly had a lot of talent and ability, but it was when his ability faltered, when he looked humiliated, when others had little reason to respect him…. These times are when Christ’s power was strongest in his life.

I think this is where the secret to contentment is for Paul.   He learned that he had to surrender those things he wanted: whether it was his desire for the “thorn” to be removed, or anything else.  The power of God in his life wasn’t about improving his situation, but about God’s power working through his weakness.

This means if we want to experience God’s power then we absolutely must surrender our intentions, desires, and goals.  It’s not that the things we want are bad, often they are good.  But what’s important is that we are surrendering what we want because the power of God in our life is not about improving our situation.

I think this is the real reason why discontent can grow so fiercely because even though we have good intentions, they aren’t actually surrendered to God.  When something we want isn’t surrendered, then it very quickly can turn into discontent because we are not depending on God’s strength.

Really discontent is the desire for things to change.  But if we have this kind of dependence, then really we are also surrendering even our desire for things to change.   So really, being content is being okay with God not taking away hardships.  God’s strength is in our lives because we aren’t waiting on him to improve situations.

Contentment then is surrendering those things we are discontent with
It’s surrendering and being okay with God not taking away tough times
It’s learning that in our weakness we can most experience God’s strength
So we are at peace with present circumstances because we are dependent and surrendered to God’s way
Because Christ’s strength is power for a purpose

And as we can surrender and become more dependent on his strength
We can be content in easy times 
We can be content in hard times
This is ironic because in many ways for me it is harder to recognize our need for dependence when things are easy.  So really, discontent happens more when we have a lot of good things, and we just keep focusing on the “if Just” to move us even further into contentment.

But the truth is, in either circumstance, if we are surrendered completely to his power we can know contentment
It’s not detachment and giving up, but being attached to Jesus
It’s not on our terms, but his
And it’s a process

Being content is not because things are good or will get good, but contentment is being at peace with present circumstances, even if they don’t change!  It’s ironic because we need to equally depend on Christ in the easy times of abundance, but in some ways those are the hardest.

God wants us to learn to be content in every context,
He wants us to depend on Christ,
and He wants his power to work in our lives for his purpose, so that our “just ifs” became “now always”


Discussion Questions

• What kind of situations have helped teach you contentment?
• What things are you discontent with?
• Is disengaging true contentment?
• Which is harder: to be content when things are easy or when they are hard?  When things are easy or hard, do you find yourself in more of detachment or “if just”?
• How do you normally pursue contentment?
• How do you normally experience the strength of God?
• What does it look like to be in Christ in those areas you are discontent with?
• What do you think about the idea of being content even if things won’t improve?

Prayer topics

• Pray that God will focus our minds on his will and not our own
• Surrender those areas where you struggle with discontent
• Surrender those areas where your contentment really is “waiting on God to fix them”
• Surrender those areas where you are content because things are “okay” or “good”
• Pray for God’s strength to focus us on his Kingdom and his Will
• Pray for God’s strength to be holy and obedient children
• Pray for God’s strength to be seen where we are weak
• Pray for God’s strength to trust him and be content even if things don’t change
• Praise God for the many blessings he has shown us
• Praise God for the strength he has given us
• Praise God that he is the reason for our hope, not our circumstances

Read more...

What is God’s love like?

Romans 8:38-39 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, or things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

This is an amazing pair of verses at the end of Romans 8. But what exactly does this pair of verses say about God’s love?


I get rather confused whenever I hear these verses used to describe a love that cannot be resisted. A love that is so compelling that “nothing I do can separate me from God”. On the one hand, this phrase might only mean something like “no matter what I do, God will still love me”. To this I can absolutely agree, so long as we agree that God loves everyone. God doesn't love the lost any less, so while that truth might give us comfort at times, it really doesn't say anything about our relationship with God. But instead, I think this phrase often betrays something else, something more like “no matter what I do, there aren’t consequences to my relationship with God”. This often is backed up with an appeal to God’s love being unconditional. I believe this interpretation reflects a diminished view of God’s love.

To this I think we have to first look at the story of Israel wandering in the desert. God made a covenant with Israel that he would be there God, he would rescue them from Egypt and make them into a nation. But right after being saved from Egypt, Israel began to quickly rebel and reject God. Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 10:1-11 that many in Israel missed out on the benefits of a covenant relationship with God because of their rejection of God’s love and persistence in rebellion. Hebrews 3:7-19 expresses the same warning: because of their consistent disobedience, rebellion, and unbelief, they failed to enter the Promised Land. Was God any less loving to these individuals? Clearly that is not the case. But it also reveals that there are consequences in God’s love. God’s love isn’t a compelling love that we cannot
reject. If we take what Luke 14 (or even John 3:16) says about the extent of God's love seriously (everyone, even sinners), then people reject God’s love all of the time! If God's love truly is for all people, then it cannot be irresistible because people all over the world don't know God's love (these two truths are incompatible). I
would argue that Scripture regularly shows God sovereingly allowing for his creation to freely reject him.

So God's love can be resisted. But the real question that the above attitude raises is about relationship: for those who know God, does God's love hold them so that we cannot reject it? The story of Israel says a lot about this, but I believe even some of our basic notions of human relationships can begin to answer this. I cautiously submit an analogy from marriage: I've been married for 6 years now, and I know
that I fail my wife regularly, yet she still loves me. But let's say I decided to move out, regularly call her tell her I hate her, and I started dating another woman. It would be foolish not to think that our relationship would undergo significant change. She might still love me, but our relationship would be severed. It would be a rather odd notion to expect that if one day I decided “never mind, I do love you” that things would be instantly restored.

My point is that the whole notion of any kind of relationship assumes some degree of mutuality. This gets very muddy when we talk about our relationship with God because it's a different type of relationship, and we do fail him very regularly. But there is an important distinction here: there is a difference between a relationship that is
temporarily broken and a relationship where one party no longer has interest in the relationship. The latter isn’t really a relationship at all. In other words, Christians daily battle ("struggle") temptation and sin, and might even have seasons of darkness. This is a very different quality of relationship though than an individual who not only is in sin and unrepentant, but has no desire whatsoever for
truly knowing God. Individual Jews in the desert seemed to fall in the later category. Because of their actions, their relationship with God was severed enough that they missed out on the experience and blessings of this relationship.

This distinction is further important because it really gets at the heart of what loving God looks like. God doesn’t want us to love him just with an emotion, a set of accomplishments, or a religion (acting a certain way, obeying certain rules, following certain traditions, or practicing certain ceremonies). More than that, God doesn't want us to love him as a means to an end (whether it be eternal life or the promised land). Like the prodigal son in Luke 15, all that God wants is for us to turn to him in repentance. The Bible makes clear that for us to love God means continuing to remain in Christ (John 15:9-10), it means living by faith (e.g. Gal. 5:6), it means in repentance (the primary imperative of Jesus' ministry). I think it is important to
remember that this condition of experiencing God’s love isn’t entirely on our shoulders (Eph. 2:8 teaches that the work of salvation is God’s), and Jesus is always there willing to help us through the difficult times (e.g. 1 Cor. 10:13). Further, there is real security when we remain in Christ (John 10:28). But God’s sustaining power and the security we have in Christ are never emphasized at the expense of our need to continually remain in him (John 15).

And this is really where I see the heart of God’s love: he desires to redeem the lost and restore people to relationship with him, but he also desires that people continue to choose him and continue in repentance and faith. God always accepts the repenting sinner, and his love, mercy, and grace are inexhaustible. God lovingly (and sovereignly) respects his creation’s free will. God loves us unconditionally and more profoundly than we ever could know, yet he does want a loving response of faith and repentance. Some refer to this with the metaphor of a journey: salvation isn’t just a past tense event, but rather something that in Christ and the power of the Spirit we are moving towards. In Galatians Paul argues that when we try to accomplish anything more than faith we really are surrender to slavery. It’s like a train getting derailed; it’s no longer on the path towards its destination. He uses very harsh language for this person, describing them as severed from Christ (Gal. 5:4). Instead,
he contrasts this effort with being led by the Spirit (Gal. 5:18), and argued that we are alive in Christ because of the Spirit, and as a result we should allow him to continue to lead us (Gal. 5:22). While this may be through the narrow gate (Matt. 7:13-14), it is the way to salvation and it is the way to knowing God’s love. This last point is rather controversial within the church, but I believe the New Testament is very clear that failing to remain in Christ, failing to trust him and live in repentance means the hardening of one's heart. It's a form of rebellion, and there is at least the possibility that persisting in rebellion and unrepentance eventually can lead to a severed relationship with God (e.g. Heb. 3:12-14; Heb. 6:4-6; Heb. 10:26-27; John 15:6; Gal. 5:3-4; Luke 8:11-13; 1 Tim. 4:1; etc.). Some may say these are only hypothetical warnings, but at the very least I think we cannot escape the reality that these are real warnings addressed to Christians to encourage continued faith.

This continual faith and continual repentance is necessary because so much of our circumstances challenge this attitude. We are neck deep in a world with values opposite of God’s, a world that wants to make the case that God’s way isn’t the best way. Many Christians face ridicule, pressure, or even persecution for this love. More than that, we experience the allure of sin, many of us have sinful habits and desires, and above all everyone has an insatiable pride that likes to substitute ourselves for God. This is why the only two options are rebellion or repentance: it’s either we align with God’s way or try to make another. God’s love is always available to those who repent, but repentance is necessary for relationship.

This is why Paul says what he says in Romans 8: in Christ we are children of God, we are free from sin, we are alive and led by the Spirit, and we know the love of God. Our present circumstances pale when compared to the joy of knowing God, and we know that God is victorious, even when victory is a word not even mentioned in the story of our lives. But no matter how much the forces around us might try to push a wedge between us and God, no matter how often failure challenges hope, God’s love us is always bigger. I think it's missing the beauty of Paul's hope here to make Romans 8:38-39 about our inability to resist God's love, especially when Scripture speaks so clearly to the contrary. Paul's point is the surpassing power of God's love, that no matter the circumstance his love can prevail. No power is able to overcome it, and as long as we are abiding in him, nothing, absolutely nothing, can separate us from God’s love.

Read more...

How do I know that I’m a Christian?

Most believers, if honest, struggle with this question from time to time. It’s not always an easy question to satisfy, because behind it are many emotions related to doubt, and sometimes intellectual problems / frustrations.

How can we be assured that we are a Christian?




A first problem relates to understanding of “being in”. Do we view our salvation as something that happened entirely in the past? Something that defines us positionally? There certainly are themes in Scripture that fit this description, but there are a lot of passages that describe out salvation as present and future. The present sense is the ongoing work of the Spirit in our lives, molding and shaping our character to be more like God’s. This is something that is a daily part of the Christian life, and it won’t be completed until Christ returns.

The future tense though (I believe) occupies the majority of passages talking about salvation. Even though we experience regeneration, justification, and sonship today, we haven’t been completely saved from sin. We’re free from sin, alive and not dead, but we still fight sin. We have to struggle against the powers of this world to abide in Christ daily… and we look forward to the completion of our salvation when He returns.

This is an important theme to understand when we think of our own salvation. Our understanding should be less of “I became saved”, and more of “I’m journeying towards salvation”. We know Christ, we can experience his love and salvation, but we are on a path towards his completed salvation. I think this can not only alleviate the frustration when we see failure in our lives (I’m a work in progress), but also can bring clarity to oversimplifications (here are 10 signs you are not saved, and 15 signs you are).

With this in mind, what does Scripture offer as identifications of those in Christ, his disciples, his church?

First, our Actions. This one is simple enough, do our lives demonstrate evidence of the Spirit working in our lives? Are we abiding in Christ, and allowing his love, grace, and mercy to poor through us to others? Are we remaining in the Vine, and bearing lots of fruit?

This isn’t the only test, scripture offers a second: Beliefs. Do we believe the right things about who God is? There certainly are “secondary” and “primary” beliefs (these terms bother me, but I cannot think of a better way of describing it). Both matter and are important, but only one category is especially vital to being a Christian. For example, if we believed God liked to eat kittens for breakfast and puppies for lunch, that would be a significant difference from the Bible’s presentation of God. If we believe that Jesus isn’t the only way to God, this would be a significant departure. However, whatever we believe (from Scripture!) about the end times, it doesn’t affect the center of our Faith (which should be Christ!).

But even those who do great miracles and have effective ministries, those who know a lot about God from his Word, might hear the painful news on that day “depart from me, for I never knew you”. Scripture offers a final test: have we had an encounter with Christ? This isn’t as easy to quantify or prescribe, because no encounter is the same. Some of us have an instant, life changing encounter like Paul did on the road to Damascus, others have a slow, but progressively unfolding encounter where their eyes are slowly opened (like a newborn getting the first glimpses of the world) and their lives are progressively changed, sort of like the disciples had.

I’ve been reflecting a lot on this latter category: what has my own encounter with Christ looked like? I can rest assured in my salvation based on the first two (though less of the first than I’d like), but sometimes it’s very easy to forget who Christ has been in my life. That I know that he is concerned for me, that he loves me and wants me to grow. That has been faithful countless times, even when I had no faith. That I know and can trust that his ways are better than mine, even though my emotions regularly steer me in a different direction. That his ways are true, that he is always there forgiving me when I’ve fallen, and that his Kingdom is real.

I don’t know if this is the best description of it… but these aren’t just mere words or reciting church formula. I think it’s healthy to regularly reflect on how we’ve personally encountered Christ in our lives, not only in generalizations, but in specific times and places. Sometimes it’s very easy to forget when we pray that we’re praying to the almighty, sovereign, creator of the universe. Sometimes I think I have the mental image of Santa Clause or a parent, and not the person of Jesus. The more we can remember who Christ has been in our lives, I think the closer we can grow to him and the greater assurance we can have of our salvation, not as something we have, but as someone we know.

Read more...

Why Isn't Life More Like a Good Story?

Good stories are driven by similar attributes.
Good stories have a lifelike character to them.
Stories are very important to us.

We are surrounded with enough stories that I think sometimes we can be tempted to judge real life by the lifelike. Sometimes we might try to compare our story by the attributes of good storytelling.



For example:

• Are there interesting things happening to our main character?
• Is there interesting character development?
• Are there unexpected turns that "change everything"?
• Is there enough drama and action?
  

TV & Movies are great examples of stories, but with these stories come even more attributes:

• What (normal) attractive people look like
• How interesting people interact with one another
• How interesting people respond in different situations, crises, and dramatic moments
  

Maybe our life might not make the greatest story, but that's not a bad thing. The more interesting stories are interesting because they are bigger than life, they transcend reality yet are still life like. If they weren't, then they would be so life like that they might not be as interesting. Stories can give us insight into life, but they shouldn't define our lives. Stories can take us emotionally and intellectually to other worlds, but like waking up from a good dream real life "sets in".

It's really interesting how good story telling is derived by pulling familiar elements from contemporary life, but in that portrayal many people find definition (whether to a greater or lesser degree). I think movies and TV and stories in general really are a large source of influence in our lives, more than some of us realize. It's really fascinating how there is a cyclical pattern to stories, as they are based on people's experience in life, but then change people's lives. This certainly can be negative, but also can be positive.

I'm not sure why, but sometimes it feels like contemporary stories impact my life more than His story of Good News. His story is certainly more than a story, but also the greatest story ever told. If any story should change our lives in significant ways, if any story is worth emulating and striving to be a character in, His story certainly stands far above the rest.

Read more...

Faith that moves mountains

Faith is a nice buzzword in our culture, often synonymous with “religion” or “religious”, but not always. It can mean a lot of different things to people in different contexts. Some examples:

- Faith is Blind, opposed to knowledge
“There are those who scoff at the school boy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the school boy who said, 'Faith is believing what you know ain't so'.” – Mark Twain
- Foolish, leading to disaster (see picture to the left)
- Useful for being a whole person, but it doesn’t
matter what you believe in (see Shepherd Book)

But what is biblical faith? What is Christian faith?

For the Christian, faith is pretty essential. Scripture makes clear faith is not only the foundation of our salvation (e.g. Eph. 2:8; Rom. 4:5; etc.), but the early followers of Christ called themselves simply those “of the faith”. Faith is the primary expression of our relationship with God, and we can’t really know God in any real way without it.

Jesus describes faith as able to “move mountains” (Matt. 17:20). This is a rather remarkable notion of faith! After all, how many of us can say with honesty that we see our faith accomplishing such things? Now Jesus isn’t speaking of literally moving mountains, but is instead using language that Rabbi’s used to describe accomplishing “exceptional, extraordinary, or impossible” feats. While we don’t expect to move mountains, Jesus’ point is that even with a little faith we can accomplish what seems impossible. After all, right after this he adds “nothing will be impossible for you”. This still sounds rather out of character with our own experience of faith, and it certainly seems to be a bit out of character with a lot of Christians around us.

So the question for this blog is: how does faith accomplish this?

I want to begin by briefly outlining what the Bible has to say about faith. I think three basic concepts seem to capture the biblical notion of faith (not because 3 is a magic number, but because that's all I could come up with).

Faith is Turning
The first is Turning. Throughout the Bible faith and repentance are tied together. You cannot have faith without repentance, and true repentance leads to faith. Repentance is turning away from something, in this case sin. But turning away from sin by itself is no more effective than repairing a broken car is by simply removing t the defective parts. For the repair to actually be a repair, the broken parts need to be replaced or fixed. We aren't "fixed" to just turn away from sin, there has to be something (or someone) to replace that. Faith is the expression of this turning to God, so that we are turning away from sin (Paul calls this dying to sin (Rom. 6:6), being freed from slavery to sin(Rom 6:7)) and turning to God (offering ourselves as instruments of righteousness(Rom.6:13), being raised with Christ for new life(Rom. 6:4)).

In scripture, turning to God entails several things:
• Accepting Jesus as Lord over your whole life (after all, you cannot serve two masters Matt 6:24)
• Freely submitting your will to God’s
• In dying to sin, dying to your self in order to live for God (Mark 8:34-35; Rom. 6:6; etc.)
• Committing to a life of obedience -- faith isn't just passive, it's active and revealed in it's fruit (e.g. John 15, James 1, etc.).

Faith is Trusting
The second concept of faith is Trusting. Trust is a rather familiar concept involving reliance and confidence. Biblical trust begins by responding to Jesus’ invitation positively. John describes this as the thirsty coming to Jesus for a drink (John 7:37), Matthew describes it as the weary coming to Jesus for rest (Matt. 11:28), and Hebrews describes us as confidently approaching his throne of grace (Heb. 4:16). We can't begin to trust God without first approaching him. This concept of approach is rather radical as it reveals mere sinful humans approaching God, coming into his holy presence. Biblical trust begins with this unique relationship of nearness with God.

In addition to this positive response, trusting includes several other aspects of our relationship with him:
• Trust involves being led by God. In Heb. 11:8-9 Abraham trusted God to lead him, even though he didn’t know where he was going. This kind of trust means we shouldn’t be worry about things God will provide (Matt. 6:26ff), but trusting in God’s wisdom and power in his plan for our lives, either in specific works he wants us to do today, or the bigger life choices he would prefer we take.
• Trust involves being grounded in God. James describes faith as producing steadfastness (James 1:3), which is opposite of doubt “For the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind”, (James 1:6). When we trust in God we are grounded and find assurance only in him and his proven faithfulness. We aren’t swayed by mere doubt, and when doubt does creep in we quickly fall back on our foundation of trust in who God is.
• Trust involves confident in God’s ability to do great things. The Centurion believed in Jesus’ healing power, in contrast with the majority of Jews at that time. Jesus described future believers as “blessed” when they believe in him even though they were not witnesses to his miracles (John 20:29). This confidence is in manifest when we act when God leads. We cannot say we really trust God if we don’t believe he’s able and will do the things he says he will.
• Trust also involves hope. Biblical hope is centered on the future realization of our salvation. The Christian hope is that this world and this life are not all that there is to living. Instead, we trust in God’s promises to bring salvation and restoration. This hope drives us to trusting that God will act in the future in ways consistent with how he’s acted in the past.

Faith is Knowing
The third concept of faith is Knowing. Faith is a form of knowledge that we all recognize, even if some argue it is in contradiction with fact. Most religious people would consider themselves as having faith of some sort. The common thread here is an understanding that faith involves an experience of God or the divine in some way. For the Christian, this experience is not just an emotional / spiritual experience, but an encounter with the living and risen savior, knowing the real, personal, sovereign, immanent, and transcendent creator of the universe. Further, this encounter changes who we are. Jesus is an active participant in the strengthening and growth of our faith, (Heb. 12:2).

But what is more unique to the Christian faith is that knowledge isn’t just an experience of God. It is also knowledge of something factual, historical, and true. Hebrews begins this knowledge with simply acknowledging that God exists (Heb. 11:6). Paul argues that we cannot call on God without first hearing the good news about God (Rom. 10:14). Paul continues in 1 Cor. 15:14 that without the real, historical resurrection of Jesus our faith is empty and in vain. This means that in order to experience God, we have to know something about him, (which is a good reason why Christians should read their Bible: over 1,500 years of reliable stories about our God and how he is faithful!)

More importantly, the Christian faith isn’t just “faith in something”, but faith in the person of Christ. John describes this as “whoever believes in”, which he doesn’t use the normal preposition for “in”, but the preposition eis which means “into”. The notion here is not just a mental ascent to a fact, but the activity of knowing and being united with the person of Christ. "Believing in" Jesus is more than just knowing about Jesus, or having an experience of Jesus, but is trans-formative and points to a deep and unique relationship.

A final aspect of knowing faith is endurance. Faith that involves a real experience of Jesus and includes knowledge about him must endure. Throughout the Christian life our faith will face temptation, persecution, and challenges against hope. Paul describes faith as a shield against these challenges, against the “the fiery darts of the enemy” (Eph. 6:16). Hebrews makes clear that we can endure, because we are surrounded by a “great cloud of witnesses”, we can endure by focusing on Christ, who for the joy of our salvation endured far worse (Heb. 12:1-4). Not only that, but we can have confidence in enduring because Jesus will be faithful to help us along the way (1 Cor. 10:13; Heb. 10:23).

So what it is about this faith that enables us to move mountains?
1) Faith means being close to the heart of God. We can accomplish the impossible when we seek and know things that are in God’s will. This notion of “being close to the heart of God” is grounded in the concept of transformation. Christianity is fundamentally about being “transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect”, (Rom 12:2). This means by having a faith that includes turning, trusting, and knowing God we can grow in our understanding of God and what he wants.

2) Faith means being “in”. John loves the notion of being “in” Christ and “abiding” in him. John uses this language to express our reliance on and trust in God, our being rooted in God, and God using us to bear fruit. One image John likes to use is of a vine that bears fruit (such as John 15). The branch bears the fruit, but without the life giving sustenance provided by the vine the branch is useless and dead. Hebrews describes this concept as a heavenly citizenship, (Heb. 11:14-16). Our citizenship and our identity are rooted in God, so that our goals and desires are oriented towards his kingdom.

3) Faith means “trust and obey” by His power. In Matt. 17:20, Jesus’ promise of “moving mountains” is in the context of responding to the apparent failure of the disciples in exorcizing a demon. The disciples’ failure was not for a lack of power, but a lack of trust and reliance in Jesus. Jesus explains that even if they had a small portion of faith, they would have succeeded. It’s not that faith is a quantity, but that it requires trusting in God and confidence in him. To me, this sounds a lot like the disciples, even though they were trying to be obedient, were trying to act in their own power.

Instead, scripture is full of success stories of people who accomplished amazing things by faith. Hebrews 11 gives us a long list of such examples. What is interesting is that all that they really did was trust God. The power wasn’t from themselves, but instead their faith meant God’s power was expressed through them. All they needed to do was trust him and act in obedience.

How then can we grow in this faith?
Simply put, are turning, trusting, and knowing a reality in our faith? All three are interconnected and necessary for one another, and all three are necessary for knowing God. But are they a part of our faith?

Paul says we should examine our faith (2 Cor. 13:5). We should test whether the faith we have is real by comparing it with these telltale signs of true, living faith:
• Producing the fruit of good work (John 15; James 2:17-18)
• Lives continually marked by trusting God (Matt. 6:25-34)
• Lives marked by love and obedience
• Lives marked by relying on God’s power
These are the marks of a vibrant faith. If we see areas of turning, trusting, or knowing that are failing, then we should confront those areas in prayer (and work through them with other believers).

What is the root of the problem?
Are there other desires, concerns, fears, or emotions getting in the way?
How can I surrender these areas to God?

No Christian this side of eternity is perfect, so even if we’re doing “okay”, we most certainly have a lot of room for improvement. If we really want to know God more and be used by him, we need to regularly be asking ourselves

What area of my life do I need to turn to God more?
What area of my life do I need to trust in God more?
What area of my life do I need to know God more?



Read more...

Three sides of balance

Philosophy usually involves deriving connections or making important distinctions. Bad philosophy is usually over simplifying things or trying to connect unrelated things. Hopefully this will be more of the former than the latter.

It has struck me that the church, in all her beauty, tends to find itself out of balance. Balance is a fun concept, because it presupposes that there is some sort of tension between two or more “poles”, and that it is very easy to teeter towards one or another.

One such area in the church I think is the balance between heart, mind, and action. A phrase that I’ve used a couple of times that I think gets at this is we need more churches with the heart of a charismatic, the mind of a reformed, and the action of an emergent. This is rather simple of a point, but I’ll still unpack it a bit.


A lot of good churches seem to be real strong at one of those three, but rather weak at the others. A really rare church might be strong in one, decent in another, but still weak in the third. I think it is a healthy and biblical goal to pursue a balanced strength in all three.

The heart of a charismatic is pretty straightforward. I naturally am a very reserved and introverted person, but I have experienced a lot of stretching and growth when in the presence of more charismatic corporate worship. There is a sense of passion, love, joy, and desire for God that is so thick and authentic it is almost palpable.

In the same way, the mind of a Reformed is often very developed and biblical. I have always been both humbled and impressed with the amount of biblical literacy in Reformed churches, and how deeply some of the average members can interact on theological discussions. More importantly, and uniquely, it seems that most people in the church have a strong sense of biblical literacy, and a well developed ability to think well within biblical categories.

The latter is an area I’ve experienced the least, but still cannot help but be impressed with and respect. The reality is that a lot of churches don’t “do” very much outside of their 2-3 services a week and a few small ministries. It is the younger, more emergent churches that seem to more often emphasize missional living. They often are the ones with a deep passionate heart for suffering, the poor, and social injustice in the world.

I need to qualify this last point some. I do not think that a majority of American churches have lost the call of the heart of evangelism or missions. In my limited experience, I haven’t seen evidence to this effect (although I have seen a few churches that invested more time and money into the church “experience” than these). What I am stressing is the deep heart ache for the suffering and injustice in the world. The Gospel isn’t just about spiritual salvation, but Jesus’ kingdom is about a holistic redemption of humanity: spirit and body. Further, the promised kingdom Jesus brought was inaugurated in the context of healing sickness and undoing injustice, both were two key areas of promise in the Old Testament. I think that there is a key aspect of living the Gospel is to have a real concern for these things, certainly Jesus did. Further, I do think many Christians (including myself) have fallen into the trap of thinking missions work is for the missionary, and evangelism is for the evangelist. Even though most of us know that these are both supposed to be regular aspects of every Christian’s daily life, at some sub-conscious level we’ve relegated these roles to the “professionals”.

These three absolutely must be the strength of the church, the biblical evidence should be clear enough. I don’t exactly see them as “in tension” with one another, nor can I think of a good structure to explain why these three seem to be opposed to one another, but in some way at some level I think they are.

Naturally having a lot of one and less of the others can lead to abuse. A lot of charisma and not a lot of action / mind can lead to very subjective notions of truth, to a “pick and choose” theology that has no internal coherence, and can also lead to some of the more sensationalized styles of worship where there is lots of visual/auditory production that has strong emotional impact, but very little substance.

If you know me at all, you know that I am very much not Reformed theologically. There are several strengths to it, but I don’t feel that they capture all of the biblical themes in a balanced way. The danger of only having a developed mind can result in a “dead” spirituality where there is lots of understanding, but little spiritual / practical benefit. It can also lead to a very detached theology, where one’s understanding of scripture and God only stimulates the mind and has no real relation to reality, nor does it really affect change in people. Another danger is that an singularly developed mind might try to impose “grids” of thought to bring exact definition to concepts in scripture that are less defined (such as the triunity of God and the relationship of sovereignty and responsibility).

Finally, only having a developed action can lead to good work without purpose. The social Gospel is a prime example of this. Doing the work of the Gospel as divorced from the Gospel is certainly not a good thing. Praxis is not an end in itself: action is how we can be beacons of light to the world, living the Gospel and seeking God’s kingdom. It is very easy to loose sight of this without the balance of the other two.


I’m not sure if there are other models that this triad can fit over, but in the end I think all churches need to always be undergoing the process of examining ourselves and pursuing growth and strength in all three of these. With a lot of things, balance can be difficult to achieve, but when it is found, not only can one be healthier, but fruitfulness and a more holistic outlook and self can be achieved. In both the corporate body and our individual lives we must certainly glorify God in the areas we are strong at, but I think we also glorify God by pursuing him and pursuing growth in those other areas we are week in.

Read more...

Out with the Old

As a culture, we are not too found of old things. Old books, old ideas, and old things have a distinct impression of decay, being out of touch with reality, and disconnected from our lives. First I must say that any criticisms I am making here are directed at myself as much as anyone else. I see these trends in my own thoughts and values, as well as those around me.

In any case, this can be seen in many ways. One prime example of this is technology. Technology is a defining aspect of our lives, it can point to one’s social or economic status, or be a center badge of trends. For example, college students are the ones walking around with ear buds, a small iPod (or knockoff for those with financial constraints), and probably a sleek new cell phone (iPhone anyone?). But technology is only as cool as its age. Devices that are have been out for 6 months are “standard”, not quite as cool as cutting edge toys. After a piece of tech’s 1st birthday, its only okay. After its 2nd it’s all but retired, left only for the poor and un-cool to endure.

I’m speaking with a bit of hyperbole of course, but I notice this “notion” we have about tech all the time. After a couple of years, its history, no longer able to compete with the cutting edge.


This same trend can be seen in our appreciation of movies. Movies that were cutting edge 10 years ago, even 5 years ago, no longer are appealing for no other reason than their “out of date” visual effects. How many have felt that tinge of hesitation when somebody wants to put on a video from so long ago? (Unless it’s a comedy). It is certainly odd that even the ability to act has improved drastically, (or at least our sense of it), despite the fact that the art of acting has been around for much longer than we conceive.

But even more seriously, this can be seen in the world of thought. In an age of “change”, we pay more attention to “progressive” ideas and cutting edge thought. Nobody is terribly concerned with the fact that there truly are very few new ideas because nobody is willing to study the thoughts of our predecessors and their’s. Again, there is this notion I detect of “foreign”, “disconnected”, “decay”, “out of date”, and so on. We seem to be more concerned with making history than studying history, to the end that we’ll more than likely repeat history.

The end of this is that notions such as "passing the test of time" now mean passing consumer review with flying colors over the last few months, as opposed to standing up against rebuttal and being refined in thinking circles over the course of many years. This certainly is wrong, and dangerous to our minds and the worldviews we come up with. We must be humble to the mistakes and corrections that our predecessors can offer insight into. We don't have access to as much new and life altering data as we may think.

Where this is especially damaging to Christians is our love and appreciation for scripture. A book with a beginning many millennia ago, and an end nearly two millennia ago, is the epitamy of “old”. When we open the text, do we fall in love with the beauty, both its literary beauty, its spiritual truth, and the sheer fact that it reveals God to us? Or do we struggle with how ancient and foreign it is? How often when we open the text do we have that same hesitation (or possibly revolt?) as with an old movie?

I know when I was in High school, the Bible was very hard for me to read. I had a good NIV translation, but the language was still very unlike the language I speak. In a way, even the values were very unlike the values I had and saw around me. This is not a criticism of my family, or the church I was raised in. What I mean is that whatever church tradition we stand in, we tend to have our own set of emphases, and we use our own language to describe scriptural truths. Modenr “hot topics” apply here, but even some of our language of worship and gathering is foreign to scripture. The ideas are certainly based out of scripture, but the language is different, (one big example is our language surrounding our “relationship” with God. The concept is clearly in scripture, but our language is different).

So there are lots of barriers that prevent scripture from penetrating our lives in a transformational way. Barriers that hold us back from falling deeply in love with God’s word, and barriers which make it difficult for us to feed off of it the way Christ talked about in John 6.

I myself have an advantage over many because I had the privilege of over 6 years of biblical training, both at the undergrad and graduate level. This has given me many tools to approach the text exegetically, theologically, philosophically, etc. These are all certainly good, and do help break down some of those barriers. But even with my “advantage”, (even though some would call these a disadvantage), I still struggle in allowing the text speak to my life, allowing God to transform my mind through his Word.

Certainly this is a good example of where our knowledge of a problem can make us aware of prejudices and presuppositions, and hopefully this awareness can begin to help us overcome these barriers. Certainly we must try, because if we really believe the truth of scripture, then allowing God to shape and mold us through his Word is one of our highest priorities. And even more, learning to fall in love with God’s word more can and should be an important part of our relationship with Him.

Read more...

Religious

For those (very few) who happen to stop by here, I apologize for not posting anything in a long time. I wrote several blogs and just haven’t posted them because they didn’t seem worth the time. I also started several more, but out of fear of breaking the fear of breaking the patterns in my life, I restrained from finishing them.

What I want to write a note about is our notion of “religion”. I’ve been asked several times “are you religious”, and that term is so weighted with the expectations and assumptions of our society. Religion is something that people cling to in order to bring meaning and order to a chaotic life. Religion is a group of people usually along socio-economic lines who meet together and try to make themselves feel better about themselves. Religious people are ones who bicker over inconsequential details about abstract concepts such as God and faith. But the most important assumption is that religions are all basically the same, even though they package the same basic philosophy in different flavors. Its almost like stopping by to buy ice cream: everyone has their own personal tastes, but we’re all eating ice cream.


I honestly hate this definition. Its impossible to answer, because I know that by the popular definition, I fit into the category of religion (I got to church regularly, I believe these things to be true, I talk about them, etc.) But I do not believe I fit that category because in order to accept it, you are accepting the full load of responsibility for all of these assumptions.

Lets just take a step back and examine these assumptions. First, lets just assume there is some transcendent being God who does in fact exist. If he does exist, then he has to have characteristics, first of these being the fact that he is in some way transcendent. Now whatever other characteristics are true about him, we can at the very least say they are his attributes. In other words, they are true attributes. We cannot just say that everyone’s concept of God is true, because if he really exists then he must have a specific set of attributes. There is no such thing as a being which is the catch all for everyone’s list of qualities.

But lets take it a step further. Lets assume this being God decided he wanted to reveal himself in some way to humanity. If this being has a specific set of attributes, then at the very least we could say it would be odd for him to reveal himself in a variety of ways. It seems odd that he would want one group to think he was white, and another black, when in fact he was truly orange. This means that if he exists, and if he chose to reveal himself, then how he revealed himself would be important to really know who he was.

But even more, if he exists, having a specific set of attributes, and if he chose to reveal himself, then it is likely that he would want some kind of response. Very few people do things just to be seen, they want a response, whether it be acceptance, money, encouragement, love, or whatever. But if all of these assumptions were true, then the response he wanted would be important to know who he is.

All of this is to say that it is impossible for the popular notion of religion to be true. God cannot encompass all of people’s beliefs about him, because each religion has very different beliefs about who God is. It is impossible for all religions to be different avenues to the same God, because each religion has very different definitions of God’s response. And for both of these, it is not just different, but outright contradictions. Is God triune as the Christian says, single as the Jew says, or are there really only many gods as some Asian traditions believe? These can’t all be true. If God exists (or the gods), then only one of these is true.

So “religious” is not fair, because it tries to lump together things that must remain separate. But even more so, “religion” in the popular sense attempts to trivialize the whole notion of believing in God. If he really does exist, and wants to reveal himself to humanity, then this is worth paying attention to. I can’t help but think that if aliens existed and had contacted humanity, most people would be very interested in their expectations and what they have to say. We would want to know the truth of their message and intentions. We could not have a plethora of interpretations, and be satisfied with “well they are all each person’s view” and leave it at that: especially if they had giant space ships that could do serious damage. More than that, we would not just be satisfied with the fact that “aliens do exist and want to talk to us, but each person has his own view”. This news would impact everyone’s lives, we would put everything on hold because of how huge it would be. It would be the most important thing on everyone’s minds, and it would change how we view our universe and how we live our lives.

Part of this is our own fault though. Because many have bought into the lie of pluralism, even though we might not believe it. Whenever we say we believe in God and trivialize it with the pop-psychology / neo-pagan / new age / whatever notions of faith and feeling better about ourselves, we’ve admitted defeat to the notion that God really doesn’t exist, or at the very best, does not matter. If God exists, then religion is not shopping for ice cream: It is the attempt to learn who God is, what his message is, and what he wants, and if this is true, then everything else is secondary: this is the most important thing we can know, and it changes everything.

Read more...

Perversion and Culture

I am utterly amazed at the acceptable perversion in our culture. I get the privilege of listening to kids 8-12 play in the pool and not only use some of the vilest language, but also comfortably navigate all types of sexual innuendo. I know this is no startling revelation, but I have been coming across teenage girls more and more that seem innocent enough, but will match any boy of equivalent age in sexual and coarse joking.

It seems our American culture is at an impasse of sorts. We want to be open and free with all forms of ..I've heard it said in the good tradition of European sexuality). But we still have some remnants of a previous age's morality. There is an invisible line that dictates acceptable standards of content for broadcast material, yet all forms of media are not trying to walk that line, but significantly push it. After all, some of the "best" television is "edgy", "pushing the standards", etc. This might be all in the name of a freer sexuality, but the end result is always a more blatant sexuality.

We could lament our culture and predict that this is the worst humanity has ever gotten, and the parousia must be around the corner. I do not think this is the best line of reasoning. A friend of mine once argued that it is almost better the way things are now, because apparently people still thought the same way 50 years ago, they just were forced to act and think in hiding. It was a sexually repressed culture after all.

I do know whether this is true or not, but I definitely cannot agree that it is better with "everything out in the open". First and foremost, a culture that is so openly vulgar and perverse can only move in one direction. Western civilization has lost any conscience, and all that is left is only the most minimalist morality. It is sad that children are growing up in a society where they experience not only peer pressure to have premarital sex and unheard of young ages, but also that they are quickly conditioned into the mindset of unrestrained freedom and entitlement to acting in the most degraded ways. This "open" and "free" environment might seem ideal because depravity isn't being hidden, but I think it is worse because its not only encouraging, but I think forcing many into bad lifestyle choices. Its like we're trying to socialize ourselves into thinking that whatever we want is okay, kids should be having sex, and if you are a guy with even the slightest bit of effeminacy you should rightly choose a gay lifestyle.

Of course humanity is naturally depraved, and this isn't just about sustaining an empty idealist facade. But it is sad to see a society fall as low as we have, especially one that was built on Christian virtues. Perhaps no society is immune to this, but we certainly have made a lot of progress in falling over the last 50 years. Just because this does not relate to salvation does not mean it is acceptable, it is still a sad state of things, and I think at some level something we should try to reverse.

Christians are called to endure evil societies, and live as lights in them. This does not mean that Christianity is about Christendom, but it does mean that if the church is functioning, one would hope to see a positive effect on society. At some level, it is hard not to wonder if the church has failed rather miserably, and the quick degeneration of Western society is the result. Sinful humanity will always be sinful outside of Christ, but shouldn't we see progress in the church instead of regress? I am no historian, but I can easily think of a few areas where this has been clear.

First, the enlightenment and later modernistic movements brought some terrifying blows on the church. It seems especially in the early 20^th century that many Christians took a defensive stance rather than went on the offensive. We "turtled" up, removed ourselves from society, and did everything we could to protect our children from the world. The more extreme side of the fundamentalist movement clearly demonstrates this, though the original movement was itself a good thing). It is almost as if, as soon as some powerful and dangerous ideas entered society, we quickly gave up and tried to hide.

They tried to kill God, and we surrendered. Again, this is only my impression from a limited knowledge of history, maybe I'm horribly wrong. But it deeply bothers me that some of the most profound thinkers during this same time period were shunned by many Christians (Lewis immediately comes to mind). In all honesty, it seems like the church is only recently beginning to recover from the initial attack of the enlightenment, and only now beginning to get together a counteroffensive. It only took us 200 years.

I think the battle against wrong ideas is important. It won't save people, but it will help affect the world for better, and who knows what kind of seeds this will sow? In the same light, I think we need to fight the battle for American culture. We cannot continue with an attitude of retreat. I doubt we will be able to transform culture, but I think we can at least expect to make an impact. There is no excuse for Christians giving into the cultural peer pressure on issues like morality. As Christians, we should never be ashamed of Paul's words in Phil. 4:8:

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

Christians who are in the film industry should not give in to compromising their morality in order to be "edgy". Nor should we sacrifice ideals of purity and righteousness in the name of not being legalists. Legalism and righteousness are very different things: one is an attitude of doing what's right for credit, another is doing what's right out of love. We need to stop acting like rebellious children who want to act in whatever way they want. We need to spiritually grow up, start being men and women of God who stand up for truth and purity.

I'm speaking as much to myself as to anyone else. I tolerate far too much, and have become desensitized to things that should be revolting. I've bought into the lie that "its not really that big of a deal", I've succumbed to this childish attitude of rebellion against all standards, and trivialized purity.

------

So, a bit of a harsh blog, and a bit random… perhaps I'm randomly connecting things that shouldn't be connected, I dunno.

Read more...

I don’t buy it

I talked a bit in a previous blog about how a Christian's identity in Christ, and the truth about Christ should impact how we think and live our lives. This is something I think about a lot... and I wanted to add one more thought.

As Christians we rightly affirm that truth, and freely proclaim it. But as my preaching professor liked to say, I don't think we "buy it". We say we believe this, but it doesn't always translate to action in our lives the way the biblical authors assume. There is some disconnect at some level, where what we affirm we don't fully buy into. The Biblical truth is supposed to transform our lives, and the process of salvation is supposed to be conforming our minds to God's. But why does it seem like this sometimes fails? Or why do we sometimes forget about it?

I've put a lot of thought into this question, and have yet come up with a conclusion that is satisfying. This is a deeply personal issue to me, because I feel like I have a decent grasp of the basics of scripture, yet I see so much filth in my life. I think there are several different reasons, and here are a few that I have come up with.

1) Christianity isn't what we really want. This is a harsh statement, but what I mean is that God's way of things is not what we want. The process of salvation, the development of faith, and the lifelong pursuit of trusting God in a significant way is opposite of what human nature wants.

For example, suppose a Sunday morning sermon went something like this:

Everyone stand up. Now get out your Bible's. Now open them to the exact middle (the middle of your bible, not the text itself). Now hold your Bible flat in your left hand, hold it out. With your right hand, place your middle finger on the exact middle of the open bible, and position two fingers on each open page, in exactly symmetrical spots. Now, for the next 5 minutes, focus all of your concentration and energy on the tips of your fingers. Feel the page, and as you concentrate, begin to feel the power of God emanate from the page, and channel into your soul through your fingers.

Although this is fiction and superstition, I guarantee church attendance would be up if this actually worked. If Christianity were about a literal infusion of "power" for 5 minutes every Sunday, people would be very excited. The point is not that true Christians do not want God, but that God's process of things is slow and hard, and is not always immediately experienced by our 5 senses. I think part of us deeply wants this, because this is how things appear "real" to us. We experience the world us with our five senses, and this is all that we know of what is "real". God is still real, and he is still experienced, but we don't see, feel, and hear him all the time.

2) We've bout into a lie about salvation.

I recently heard a sermon by Paul Washer that a friend directed me towards (http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=52906154239 ), and I think he might have hit on a significant part of why we don't buy it. We have a very unbiblical (he says heretical) pre-understanding about salvation.

For me, it started when I was a kid. I was told that Jesus lived in heaven, and that after I die I should want to live in heaven with Jesus (and presumably my parents and family). What I needed to do to get into heaven was say a prayer, and Jesus would come into my heart. As a kid, I imagined that when I said this prayer (something like magic words) then this little fairy like Jesus would flutter into my heart and let me into heaven.

Even though I know that this is far from the sum total of what it means to be a Christian, I think when faced with temptation a lot of times, even though I do not consciously think it, at some level there is the thought that "it is okay, because I said the prayer so heaven is not in danger". As I got older, I was taught the doctrine of grace. This meant that all of my sins were forgiven at the cross. This too can compound that unspoken voice when facing temptation, because not only did I say prayer when I was 5, but God will forgive me if I choose to sin.

It is said that the best heresy always has a good deal of truth to it, and just adds just enough falsehood in order to come up with a believable heresy. Paul Washer argues that our understanding of salvation as saying a prayer is such a heresy, because this "say a prayer and get into heaven" attitude removes all responsibility and action. He argues from Matthew 7 that Jesus says the road is narrow and the gate is small that lead to life. Although I do not agree with his strong Calvinist sentiments on the issue, I think he's really hit something here.

The biblical teaching is that the Christian life is tough. It is not about saying a magical formula and getting into heaven. It is about God's kingdom. It is about becoming a part of God's redemptive plan for creation. It is about joining the ranks of God's army and being on the front lines. It is about experiencing the transforming work of his Spirit, and experiencing his new life. But it is also about suffering and difficulty. Nowhere in scripture does it say that the Christian life is easy. In fact, Jesus' teaching of the narrow road points very clearly to the epic struggle that entails Christianity.

Washer says that if we're not living a life like God wants, a life that walks this narrow path, then we are not saved. I think things are far from this simple, because so much of the New Testament is written to assumed believers who are not always walking this path. Instead, I think that salvation is a process. There is a beginning, where the Spirit begins to open our eyes to the truth of God in the context of the preaching of the Gospel. At some point we choose to put our trust in that truth (not going get into the order of salvation issues). And from that point on, our trust is challenged. Walking the narrow path is about suffering, about having to sacrifice the pleasures we want to enjoy in our humanity for the sake of our love for God. It is about suffering at the hands of unbelievers who see these very odd people living weird and intolerant lifestyles. It is about rejecting the old way of life for the new life in Christ.

3) We don't really have faith. Faith is often defined as believing, and we treat evangelism as primarily changing people's beliefs. We must declare Christ as Lord, believe in his Gospel. This is surely important, but this is not the sum total of faith. Biblical faith also (equally if not more) includes trust. No Christian will deny this, after all trusting God is a huge theme in scripture. However, I think that truly developing trust is a long and hard process.

Part of this is the definition of trust. Trust isn't just "hope", nor is it just "probably". I am a person who has grown to not trust very many people, but I can trust that my family will always be there for me when I'm in need, I can trust the sincerity of my wife's love, and I can trust a few of my friends to fight along side me if the need arose. These are rare and special and rare things today. But can I say I trust God in all things? Trust and doubt are complete opposites. I think a significant part of the Christian life is having our doubts proven false, and God proving himself more and more trustworthy. The foundation of trust is knowledge, and we can clearly see that from scripture God is in fact trustworthy. All he asks is that people have faith in him, and he always does what he promises.

One aspect of God's order of things that sometimes causes me to doubt is that his intensions are not the same as mine. I wish I could say I trust God to give me an awesome job in the next month, (because my current one ends in a few weeks). I cannot say this, because I have seen far to many times when God's will is different than mine. However, I am fairly certain I can say that I trust God will provide, because no matter how many times it has seemed like we might not be able to pay next month's rent, he has provided.

Trust is more than just confidence. I think trust must manifest itself in action. You cannot say you trust God will do something, and then sit there idly. There is a delicate balance here, because we can trust God will do something, and then set out to do it in a way different from his plan. But trust also must result in action, because action is where the proverbial "rubber meets the road".

4) We aren't willing. I think this is one of the central defining aspects of Christianity. Are we willing to sacrifice what our natural desires want for God's way? I think initial conversion begins with this question, and the rest of the process of salvation is daily being confronted by this same question. After all, if we are really growing in the Spirit, then we are also regularly being confronted with new areas of our lives that God wants to work on.

This means that for true growth to happen, we need to be working through these issues as they arise. This is part of the danger of habitual sin in the Christian life: habitual sin means that there is awareness of sin, there is recognition that the associated desires need to be sacrificed, and it means that at some level, the person is unwilling to. The danger is also that habitual sin can lead to a hardening of one's heart, and I think this can be very dangerous for a Christian. The story of Israel in the desert is appealed too several of times in this context: they habitually rejected God's way, and ended up missing out on God's blessing in the promised land.

So why don't we always "buy it"? Why do we so easily forget the kingdom perspective, why do we fall into sin so easily, why do people so often fall into the "religion" of Christianity instead of the new life?

1) Its not what we really want. Christianity is a slow and hidden process, and we want to see, hear, and touch the reality of God instead of have faith in his work.

2) We've bought into a lie. At some level, we fall into the trap of thinking that since we said a prayer at 5, we're okay.

3) We don't really have faith. We don't really trust that God will do what he promises, that he has our best interest in mind. Our "trust" doesn't manifest itself in action.

4) We aren't willing. We do not always want to sacrifice the natural desires that God wants us to sacrifice in order to experience growth.

I'm not sure if this entirely answers the question, but I think it is a definite starting place.

God please reveal these wrong attitudes in my heart. Forgive me for not submitting to you. I repent of trying to make you into what I want, instead of letting you make me into what you want. Give me the strength and courage to trust you more, and I know you will continue you to walk with me and help me overcome temptation.

Read more...

Why Harry Potter is Evil

Having grown up in a small town in Georgia, I've heard almost every argument for why things such as Harry Potter are evil. It supports witchcraft, portraying it positively. It encourages kids to want to explore magic. Because of it, youth are flocking to wika cults. Some would go so far as to accuse Harry Potter as pure propaganda for Satan. I remember hearing stories about how witches would pray over certain toys (I believe they were related to the movie Beatlejuice), praying to the goddess (although the stories said it was Satan) to use the toys to influence children's lives. For the churches I grew up in, things like Harry Potter were the front line offensive of the enemy. Therefore, they required the majority of our energies to prohibit, picket, protest, etc. This was pure evil, and our children must be protected from it.

This of course has some major flaws. First and foremost, some of the greatest Christian writers saw no problem with using magic in their stories (viz. Lewis, Tolkein, etc.). One might try to argue that for them magic was always evil, but this certainly is not the case of all. So is this fear of Harry Potter entirely irrational and a result of overzealous fundamentalism?

Probably so, but as a fan of Harry Potter, I want to try and present an argument for why literature / media such as this can be bad. I think Reynolds has made a good case for why good Christian media is important. The stories (especially fiction) paint metaphors and images, and convey themes that are fundamentally Christian. One cannot help but be impressed with Lewis' genius in the Chronicles of Narnia. In an innocent story, he paints a vivid image of the battle of good versus evil, and the characteristics of evil being selfishness, greed, and so on. The characteristics of pure good are seen in Aslan himself. Aslan is a divine figure, but is never overtly described as such. Aslan is powerful, fearful, gentle, loving, and so on. Further, Aslan demonstrates a sacrificial atonement. Aslan's relationship with Narnians and with the children points to aspects of the divine-human relationship, and subtly touches on some complex theological questions such as sovereignty and responsibility in a simple, profound, and understandable way. After all, Lewis wrote for children.

The point is that Lewis did not feel (as many Christian writers) that he had to put the clear Gospel message in every chapter of his Christian fiction. He used fiction to first tell a great story. And this story dealt with metaphors that are fundamentally Christian. Redemption, Messiah, true and pure love, and so on. As Reynolds said, as a child after reading the Narnia books, he had that common emotional feeling of "if only such a world really existed". Such metaphors can strongly impact how we view the world, after all this is one of the great powers of good art. Its not in the literal interpretation, but the themes and metaphors.

This is also where works such as Harry Potter can be dangerous. It is not the presence of magic, but what magic is a metaphor for. Magic is something that the children utilize freely to control the world around them, viz. the force in Star Wars. After reading a Harry Potter book, one has the same feeling of "if only such a world existed", but although this world is a world of good and evil, it is a world where we primarily can control our own destinies by the forces of magic.

Again, it is not magic's fault. It is the metaphor. I believe this control theme strikes at something primal in humanities sinful nature. Eve's temptation was to be like God, to have the power and knowledge of God. I think it is fair to say that all human sin can be summed up in some form or another of pride: a twisted inward focus that places value on self above all else. This is fundamentally contradictory toward the biblical notion of faith.

I believe that metaphors such as the magic of Harry Potter, or the force of Star wars excite us and appeal to us because we want that kind of control. We want to be able to impact and control the forces around us that seem to dominate and master our destinies. We want that super human power. What kid has not wished he could move objects with his mind? Or manipulate people?

What is the solution? Should we shield our children from such evil? Should we hide any influences that might encourage this anti-faith attitude? The reality is nothing we can do will shield our children from it, because they are born with that attitude. And outside of living in a literal bubble, they will encounter this attitude in its plethora of forms in human society. Further, stories such as Harry Potter are good literature, and we certainly don't want to force our children to endure mediocre stories that are "safe", thus encouraging stunted growth in their God given love for art?

I think this metaphor of control is only dangerous when we are not properly developing the foundation of biblical truth, specifically the biblical notion of faith. We cannot help children by shielding them from evil, but by developing the proper world view and understanding of truth that will allow them to grow in the right way, and respond appropriately to wrong metaphors. If children are driven to cults after reading Harry Potter, something was already fundamentally wrong in their developmental processes, and Harry Potter cannot bear the blame for a larger pre-existent problem.

Instead, it seems to me that parents must first examine their own lives. Do they live the life of faith that Paul describes? Is their life a life of submission to the will of God, and to the Holy Spirit? Is their faith the biblical faith? Only when they start to "get it" can they model and develop "it" in their kids. And of course, this is only in the context of the Holy Spirit also working in their lives.

Harry Potter, Star Wars, and all of the other stories that contain mythical powers to control one's destiny should not be a reason for fear for parents. Instead, if they are good art (and this of course can be debated) then they should be celebrated, and used as an opportunity to address some of these fundamental questions and issues that they raise, both intentionally and unintentionally. Good art is hard to come by these days.

It must be noted, when I say "good art", I mean art that is not just appealing, but good, pure, and beautiful. Harry Potter has a lot of redeeming themes in it, and it is a very good, touching story. It might have its flaws, (such as the author's postscript that Dumbledore is in fact gay), but it is still a good story and can be rightly appreciated by Christian families.

Read more...

Biblical literracy, Christian education, and Life Principles

I haven't been blogging much in the last several months.. and since I am presently unemployed and have a decent amount of free time, I am committing to starting up again.

I feel caught in a tension. Christians seem to be stuck in an "all or nothing" mentality when it comes to biblical education. Either we study grand overarching systematic theology, or we reduce the text to mere life principles.

This has been painfully clear to me in my present quest for finding a new job. I've been researching a lot of high schools, and many seem to have no need for somebody with a Masters degree in New Testament. Their Bible curriculums are so basic and simple that it is no accident that they pass out Bible classes to coaches or teachers with specialties in other fields.

In my mind this is very discouraging. If we believe scripture is God's revealed truth, and if we agree with Paul that God's wisdom makes any mere human wisdom appear foolish, then we must start with a solid understanding of scriptural truth before we can really proceed with any other. It would seem that this simply means that if we're trying to educate our kids to actually think critically and well about issues of truth, then why would we want to simplify their biblical education? I have no problem with other subjects being taught at a high level, but my problem is when Bible is seen as the "easy subject". We should NEED more specialized high school Bible teachers, (and I say this with conviction, not self interest).

Instead, a lot of what I have seen is basic Bible survey, and lots of "Life Principles" classes. In my opinion, at least out of the schools I've seen, many have a Bible program that is just a glorified youth group. This content is what I think is appropriate for parents to teach in the home, and also covered (and then some) in the church. What is the point of repeating this material a third time? If being raised in a Christian family and attending a church is not enough to explain why you should not go out and have sex, or what Christian dating looks like, then I doubt a Bible class at high school will really change your mind. Of course no family or church is perfect, but I do not think that then should shift the focus of Bible classes, especially when the classrom is hardly the place for a mentoring relationship. Instead, Bible classes need to suplement the home and church, building a solid Biblical literate basis with the principle of pursuing Christian excellence.

Its been my experience at Biola that a lot of freshmen already have an established opinion on theology, and many are overwhelmed with Biola's Bible classes. This is really sad, because at least those who came from a solid church, and certainly those who went through a Christian High School should find Biola's Bible classes no more of a challenge than Biola's English or History classes. College is the next step up, and when your finding that instead of a step you have a chasm to cross, something is wrong. And I do not believe it is that Biola's standards are too high.



But here is where my tension lies. On the one hand, I feel like we need more and much better Biblical education. On the other hand, I think we must keep this in balance with the intensions and purposes of scripture. When we read a book like Hebrews, and simply want to teach it as "Doctrine about Christ", or worse, after teaching find ourselves with no application at all, then something is wrong. Just like Paul with Romans, the author of Hebrews had a very specific exhortational purpose for the book of Hebrews. He did not write it just so the audience could have a better understanding of Christology. For the author, the truth's he elaborates on about Christ are supposed to directly impact how the people live. This is clearly seen in his repeated exhortation to living faithfully, and persevering through trials and tempatations, (specifically the tempation to return to Judaism). Because of Christ's surpassing greatness, because of his role as high priest, becasue of the culmination of salvation history in Christ, we need to hold on and continue a life of faith, just like so many heroes of the faith did before us.

But this really gets at the problem. Biblical authors give us theology with the intent that it impact how we live our lives, but it seems like in the church we've divided these two. We'll either teach theology (though usually systematic, so its a bit removed from the text), or watered down life principles. This really hit me when I was teaching on 1 Peter a couple of weeks ago. In my mind, it made a lot of sense. The first half of chapter 1 basically says "see what an amazing salvation we have in Christ", and the latter half says "now live faithfully". For the author, the whole reason of talking about the truth of our great salvation was to motivate his readers to live faithfully. But when I taught it, I was not able to convey this. I felt like the kids were not connecting. This is probably because I'm not a great teacher, but still it really hit me that we're so accustomed to either being bored by "truth", or exhorted by "relevant application". And usually (it seems), the more relevant the application, the less it is tied to the passage. But for the Biblical authors, truth is supposed to impact how we live. If we believe the truth, it impacts our identity, and impacts us so deeply that in order to really believe it, we must live differently. Perhaps I am unable to explain this connection better because I have this mentality of separating truth and application so ingrained.

So I am caught in a tension, on the one hand, I think we desperately need greater biblical literacy, but on the other, I think we need less "theology" and more of the intended message. There is certainly an important role that systematic theology plays, and I do not want to undermine that. There are certainly difficult questions that the message of scripture raises, and I do not think we can really and satisfactorly remain agnostic on issues such as sovereingty and responsibility. But these are secondary. We cannot loose the message of the text. But we also should not water it down in the name of relevancy, or worse, to be more interesting. Of course, the greatest hindrance to this is first learning how to "get at" the message. Learning how to actually read a book rightly, learning to pay attention to historical and literary context, and learning to follow an author's logical and thematic developement can be frustrating. But without it, we're in danger of loosing something precious. We have to maintain that delicate balance between the study of scripture and its application.

That's all for now....
Read more...