Ambassador Training International

THE LORD SCATTERED, THE LORD CONFUSED; SOVEREIGNTY, FREE WILL AND LOVE

2012-01-05T07:00:00.000-08:00

In our effort to find the balance in the debate often referred to as Sovereignty and Free Will (a misleading name due to a limited definition of sovereignty), we must endeavor to allow the Biblical text to inform us as opposed to the other way around. In my morning reading, I found the interaction between those working on the tower of Babel project and God quite fascinating (Ge.11:1-9). The project and the motive behind the project appear to be initiated by people and contrary to God’s good pleasure. God responds with a strategy that clearly demonstrates His opposition to the project. Certain definitions and views of sovereignty are forced to see such passages as God playing chess with Himself. But the text, taken in the way we normally read such a text, represents a group of people freely using their God given abilities to do something of which God is not in favor. God responds. Not by removing their freedom or their abilities but by introducing a factor that increases the degree of difficulty involved in the communication needed to pursue the project effectively. This is very interesting providential activity on the part of God but does not, in any way, suggest that man is void of free will or that everything that happens is the will of God. Surely, both camps in this debate must practice textual sensitivity in an effort to avoid proof texting simply to support a preconceived position.

One final reflection. There is a growing contingency within the church who have no place in their perspective for a God who deals with people the way this passage demonstrates. There is a limited, incomplete concept of “love” that suggests that embrace is the only option. There is, in this view, no room for division under any circumstance. This will prove to be quite devastating.

AN ISOLATED SECTION FROM CHAPTER ONE OF "CHANGE YOUR MIND"

2012-01-04T05:51:00.000-08:00

Concerning Moral Good and Moral Evil

Recognizing the distinction between moral law/government and physical law is important on many levels. It is, as well, important to realize how such distinctions affect us in practical ways. The “influence and response” aspect of moral law/government must be kept separate from the “cause and effect” aspect of physical law. This being the case, I would like to promote awareness regarding the concept of producing fruit.

            In the account given of God creating the physical universe, we read in Genesis 1:11-12, “Then God said, ‘Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth’; and it was so. And the earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.” Notice the inbuilt procedure of “bearing fruit after their kind.” On the physical level, plants produce other plants “after their kind”[1], animals produce other animals “after their kind” and the human species produces human species “after their kind.”
            As we carefully consider the moral application of a similar procedure, we find certain interesting insights with which it is worth wrestling. First, we cannot simply say that a righteous man (or woman) will automatically produce righteous offspring “after their kind.” However, a righteous person will exercise an influence that tends to produce “fruit after their kind.” Again, this is not the “cause and effect” procedure seen in the physical realm. We can see this concept referred to and dealt with in a passage as Ezekiel 18.
            The next dimension to consider regarding the moral dynamic of producing “fruit” involves the challenge of cleansing what is impure in comparison to defiling what is pure. Consider the prophetic[2] proclamation found in Haggai 2:11-13, “Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘Ask now the priests for a ruling: If a man carries holy meat in the fold of his garment, and touches bread with this fold, or cooked food, wine, oil, or any other food, will it become holy?’ And the priests answered and said, ‘No.’ Then Haggai said, ‘If one who is unclean from a corpse touches any of these, will the latter become unclean?’ And the priests answered and said, ‘It will become unclean.’” The basic emphasis in this statement is that it is easier to produce defilement than to cleanse and correct defilement. Touching something unclean with something clean does not produce cleansing. Touching something clean with something unclean does produce defilement. This is a physical analogy that, when applied to man’s moral condition, must be handled with appropriate sensitivity and care. Neither the morally defiled nor the morally pure are automatically altered by exposure to one another. However, it appears, by the intention of these words and by practical experience, that, sadly, it is more challenging for the morally pure to produce “fruit after their kind” than for the morally impure to “fruit after their kind.”[3]
            Recognizing this fact, sheds very intense light on God’s reaction in Genesis 6:5-6 where it reads, “Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.” God did not, at all, take the realization of man’s condition and what would be involved in dealing with this great defilement lightly. I am amazed when seeing pockets of people within the church assuming that simply “touching” the unclean with a positive, uplifting message will make them clean. This type of undiscerning, immature underestimation will prove destructive and, even, deadly. Moral defilement must not be taken lightly!

[1] This is not to suggest that, through experimentation and crossbreeding, such arrangements cannot be tampered with and altered.

[2] This use of “prophetic” is simply in reference to spiritually and morally insightful analysis.

[3] This is not an indictment against the morally pure regarding their impotence or inability but rather a commentary on the responses to the efforts and influences of the morally pure as they “touch” the world around them.

SEPARATION AS AN ACT OF LOVE

2012-01-03T04:49:00.000-08:00

A seriously present theme in Scripture is that of "separation." It begins in the creation account involving the separation of light and dark (as well as other elements), continuing by separating Abram from his culture and will culminate by separating "sheep" from "goats." This is quite different from the misguided, pluralistic efforts being propagated by an imbalanced, undiscerning, relativistic concept of "love" that wants a cultural and religious homogenization in the name of tolerance that will prove intolerable and, ultimately, destructive.

"Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, 'I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,' says the Lord. 'And do not touch what is unclean; And I will welcome you. And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,' says the Lord Almighty." (2 Corinthians 6:14-18, NASB)

"And do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret. But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light. For this reason it says, 'Awake, sleeper, And arise from the dead, And Christ will shine on you.'" (Ephesians 5:11-14, NASB)

CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD

2011-12-30T09:20:00.000-08:00

The Scriptural account of man tells us that we have been created in the image of God. The intention of this article is not to give a detailed explanation of the meaning or significance of this but, rather, to encourage the reader to reflect upon the value of man based upon our view of man.

I would like to suggest that the greatest expressed value of man is as he embraces and reflects the character of the God in whose image he has been created. However, whether he expresses this character or not, there is real, intrinsic value in the fact that he has been created in the image of God.

One who has rejected this image and turned from God to other “gods” or idols, is referred to in Scripture as “lost.” Mankind, referred to as “lost”, is still recognized as having been created in the image of God but, as well, having departed from that image. Though lost, man still has great value when acknowledged as a being created in God’s image.

As we depart further, however, we do not simply depart from God’s image but we deny such a God and such an image. An attempt to find man’s place in the universe at this point has represented him as coming into existence in the form of animal. At this point, we have made the value of man even lower than the Biblical idea of lost man. A man who is lost is still a man while viewing man as animal is to remove the uniqueness and value of “manness.”

The devaluation of man has not stopped with viewing him as an animal but has slid deeper into viewing him as an organic machine controlled by deterministic forces above, beyond and before him. We are simply a helpless mechanism with delusions of value.

In response to this and in an attempt to recover from the despair this produces, we cannot simply tell ourselves we have value. We must recover the true nature of our original design, purpose and value and deal honestly, intelligently and maturely with our departure from this reality. There have been many efforts to prop man up with encouraging words of self-esteem, first aside from the church and the gospel and now within the church and the neo-gospel, that will prove to fail and eventually produce even greater despair due to the failure to arrive at the hope promised through such false and deceptive efforts.

Notice the incredible wisdom and insight offered by the apostle Paul when he writes, “This I say therefore, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality, for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness. But you did not learn Christ in this way, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus, that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.” (Ephesians 4:17-24, NASB)

REFLECTION ON EXODUS 32 AND DEUTERONOMY 9 (PART 9)

2011-11-16T07:32:00.000-08:00

Moses Responds to God Response – Characteristics of an Intercessor

The Living, Creator of the universe had delivered people of Israel from Egypt with an overwhelming display of His power and supremacy. The people of Israel, after having the commandments of God spoken to them, quickly turned away and violated what God, in love and for their good, had communicated. God, in response, told Moses to stand aside as He was going to eliminate this people and make of Moses a great nation. Moses intercedes.

There are four characteristics of an intercessor that surface in this passage; humility, compassion, concern for God’s reputation and the expectation that God responds to human intercession. This post is concerned with humility.

It is likely that a correct view of humility is rare. Though we will identify its presence in this passage, it is worth noting that it is clearly stated in Numbers 12:3 that “…Moses was very humble, more than any man who was on the face of the earth.” This verse serves to affirm that Moses was, in fact, humble and to challenge our idea of humility in that the book of Numbers is ascribed to the authorship of Moses. It would seem that a humble man would not state that he is the most humble man on earth.

The word “humble” in the Old Testament text implies being poor (in spirit), afflicted, needy, bowed down and lowly. However, it carries with it an accurate assessment of one’s state, as opposed to thinking more lowly of oneself than is true. In the text, God had just indicated that He would eradicate the current “nation” and begin anew with Moses. Such an offer could easily appeal to one’s sense of, both, importance and convenience. Moses could have been the last man standing and the father of the new branch of God’s people. He would have had the task of simply raising a family. The account of Exodus 32, as it now appears, could have ended. However, he turned down the offer that would have given to him this position of great esteem and opted to engage and appropriately deal with the massive number of rebellious Israelites (estimated in the millions) at the expense of raising a family. This humble response laid the foundation for the intercession that follows.

“…the greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.” (Matthew 23:11-12, NASB)

“You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble. Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time, casting all your anxiety upon Him, because He cares for you.” (1 Peter 5:5-7, NASB)

REFLECTIONS ON EXODUS 32 AND DEUTERONOMY 9 (PART 8)

2011-11-09T05:24:00.000-08:00

Moses Responds to God Response

I recently taught in a Discipleship Training School in which we considered the idea that love, in order to be love, in certain circumstances must respond in varying measures of severity. While considering certain Old Testament accounts, such as the one in Exodus 32, where large numbers of people lost their lives, one of the students responded with a significant degree of emotion, verging on strong anger (largely toward God), stating that it is not right that innocent children should suffer when God judges a nation or city in severity. Without considering the entire interchange, I would like to make a simple point that was later made to the student in a private conversation. I said, “I noticed that you expressed your concern for those who suffer because of the wrong actions and rebellion of others with quite a bit of passion. Either you can turn that passion into hatred toward God or you can recognize that God is truly attempting to rid the world of such wickedness and work together with Him to accomplish this. There are many ways you can work to alleviate such suffering.”

Notice that Moses responds to God’s declaration of judgment with intercession. There are a number of very strong and important implications that accompany such a response. Moses assumed he could alter the course of events that were about to transpire. Though God declared His intention, Moses proceeded according to the idea that he could offer God an alternative to the course revealed. Moses, obviously, had not been to seminary but he did know God. As we proceed, in future posts, to evaluate the intercession that follows, keep in mind that such an account is not simply an irrelevant Bible stories. Hopefully we will be inspired to become alternative channels and influences God can work with in order to avoid judgment that is otherwise appropriate and necessary. Many people can do the easy work of complaining about suffering but few seem to be available to help eliminate it. Will you be found when God looks for someone to stand in the gap? Notice in the passage below from Ezekiel that prophets, priests and princes, who should have been protecting and leading the people, were part of the problem as opposed to the solution. Who will rise up?

“For the eyes of the Lord move to and fro throughout the earth that He may strongly support those whose heart is completely His.” (2 Chronicles 16:9, NASB)

“And the word of the Lord came to me saying, ‘Son of man, say to her, “You are a land that is not cleansed or rained on in the day of indignation.” ‘There is a conspiracy of her prophets in her midst, like a roaring lion tearing the prey. They have devoured lives; they have taken treasure and precious things; they have made many widows in the midst of her. Her priests have done violence to My law and have profaned My holy things; they have made no distinction between the holy and the profane, and they have not taught the difference between the unclean and the clean; and they hide their eyes from My sabbaths, and I am profaned among them. Her princes within her are like wolves tearing the prey, by shedding blood and destroying lives in order to get dishonest gain. And her prophets have smeared whitewash for them, seeing false visions and divining lies for them, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord God,’ when the Lord has not spoken. “The people of the land have practiced oppression and committed robbery, and they have wronged the poor and needy and have oppressed the sojourner without justice. And I searched for a man among them who should build up the wall and stand in the gap before Me for the land, that I should not destroy it; but I found no one. Thus I have poured out My indignation on them; I have consumed them with the fire of My wrath; their way I have brought upon their heads,” declares the Lord God.’” (Ezekiel 22:23-31, NASB)

REFELECTIONS ON EXODUS 32 AND DEUTERONOMY (Part 7)

2011-11-03T08:16:00.000-07:00

God Responds

After communicating to Moses that He (God) viewed the people of Israel as corrupt and obstinate, having quickly turned aside from the commandments given to them, having made, worshipped and sacrificed to this idol, He reveals His response.

Was it right for God to declare, “Now then let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them, and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation”? (Exodus 32:10) Does this imply an uncontrolled emotional outburst? Could this be understood as an expression of love? Is Richard Dawkins correct when he claims that, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” In preparation to resolve such concerns, let’s first consider God’s purpose for raising up the nation of Israel.

In Genesis 12:1-3 we read, “Now the Lord said to Abram, ‘Go forth from your country, And from your relatives And from your father’s house, To the land which I will show you; And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."

The Old Testament account of God’s interaction with the nation of Israel describes His effort to prepare a people who can reflect the fruit that we produce when honoring and obeying God’s design for personal and corporate life and who can, consequently, bless all nations with instruction regarding God’s redemptive provisions. Such redemptive provisions ultimately include the work of the Messiah that allows pardon to be righteously and wisely extended to all and any guilty party. Consider the following two passages: “And in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.” (Genesis 22:18, NASB) “And I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.” (Genesis 26:4-5, NASB)

The role and responsibility of the nation of Israel in regard to redemptive history was tremendously important and, as stated regarding Moses, obedience was crucial in the effective unfolding of this project.

The account we are considering in Exodus 32 is, in great measure, a defining moment, the significance of which we have likely underestimated as we approach such Scriptural accounts with a shallow, Sunday school mentality. In my next post, we will continue to reflect upon this defining moment and its connection with God’s severe, but I believe appropriate, response.

REFLECTIONS ON EXODUS 32 AND DEUTERONOMY 9 (PART 6)

2011-11-02T05:21:00.000-07:00

God Responds

The response we are about to explore is, to a great degree, no longer viewed by many professing Christians as a response God is “allowed” to have. Largely due to confusion about the purpose and result of the atonement, some have created a God who is wholly tolerant, passive and “gentle.” In response to the conduct of those recently delivered from Egypt God says, “Now then let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them, and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation.” (Exodus 32:10)

A number of observations, to be presented in separate blog entries, are worth developing. In this post I will address the issue of God and emotion. Contrary to Greek, Perfect Being Philosophy and its impact on Classical Christian Theology, God does experience emotion. The verse quoted above is a solid example. I would suggest, however, that a careful, well developed understanding of Scriptural revelation leads to the conclusion that God is not governed by His emotion but, in love, God subjects His emotional responses to an analysis of the highest good in the situation in question. The best option in some circumstances, the current case being an example, is to bring some form of judgment. We will probe ideas about why judgment was the best initial option in upcoming posts, but the point of this entry is to highlight the fact that God does experience emotion, is not governed by emotion and that a severe response to human sin and rebellion is, often, a completely legitimate response on the part of God. Though God is not controlled by His emotional reactions, it is quite possible that, after subjecting His emotional response to analysis, the most appropriate course of action will be consistent with the emotional response.

“But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. “And all the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.”

“And these (the goats) will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous (the sheep) into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:31-33, 46)

REFLECTIONS ON EXODUS 32 AND DEUTERONOMY 9 (Part 5)

2011-10-31T04:43:00.000-07:00

God Reveals His view of the People (Part 2)

As Moses is on Mt. Sinai in the presence of God, the Israelites recruited Aaron to make for them a golden calf to “go before” them. They then “offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.” As God was aware of this behavior, He reported to Moses His perspective of the people. He first stated that, “…your people, whom you brought up from the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves.” In Deuteronomy 9:12 God is recorded as saying, “…your people whom you brought out of Egypt have acted corruptly.”

I would, in this entry, like to refer to the second of two points of interest from this passage. This point relates to the statement, “…your people…have corrupted themselves.” The question is sometimes asked, “Do people sin because they are sinners or are they sinners because they sin?” In an attempt to avoid the entanglements of probing this issue in all of its technicalities (as if I actually could), I would like to state, in a simple and straightforward manner, that we establish our own moral character as individuals and, strangely enough (little understood in our age, as a nation (a corporate people). In this passage, as God had been laboring to prepare the people of Israel for a significant purpose in redemptive history, God observes that their choice to quickly violate the commandments delivered to them has spoiled them. They have proven to be unfit for the task for which He has been preparing them. Their choice to pursue idolatry was the watershed moment of proof. Though the church has been great at doing theological gymnastics to explain away such God / man interaction because of preconceived views of God and man it is significant to note that the text indicates that God had certain hopes that were, at that moment, dashed. They willingly, decisively corrupted themselves. Later in the continued history of this people God will state, “What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it? Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones?” (Isaiah 5:4, NASB) To those of our current age we must sound the warning of Hebrews 2:1-3, “For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?”

NOTE: The pictures I could have used to inspire concern about whether we, as a nation, have corrupted ourselves, are much more shocking then the one I chose. (click at your own risk)

UNDERSTAND AND KNOW

2011-10-28T05:18:00.000-07:00

“Thus says the Lord, ‘Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his might, let not a rich man boast of his riches; but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the Lord who exercises lovingkindness, justice, and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things,’ declares the Lord.” (Jeremiah 9:23-24, NASB)

What we have above is one of many Biblical statements that is jammed full of valuable insights. As a starting point for gleaning truth from this passage I would like to consider the phrase, “he understands and knows Me.”

Someone (who, I cannot recall) once said that we will generally find God in the radical middle. I have found that people too often swing in extremes. I use the word “radical” here to mean, “Pertaining to the root or origin; original” as opposed to a common usage indicating “outrageous” or “extreme.” In reference to religious movements we can swing from a fundamentalist perspective which emphasizes agreeing with information to a charismatic perspective which emphasizes experience. God is not accurately represented in either extreme but will be found in a perfect and beautiful balance that corrects and blends the extremes. This is likely why many are turned away from God when looking at such extremes.

The passage above reveals that God wants us to understand and know Him. The usage of two different words is significant. “Understand” would encourage a circumspect, intellectual, academic pondering of truth that allows one to construct an accurate view of God. “Know” would imply a relational, experiential dimension of knowledge. God is not looking for an either / or arrangement as much as a both / and arrangement. Some religious movements gather information and pass it along but shy away from (if not fear) actual encounter with the Living God, while others seek after experience but nearly refuse to engage their minds in any form of serious intellectual activity. Then there are those religious circles that do neither; stay away from them. When we manage to find a healthy balance in reference to understanding and knowing, we will more effectively approach that place where we will truly encounter and become equipped to please and to represent the Eternal, Personal, Creator Who is supreme and yet present, transcendent and immanent. We are not to remain little children who are tossed back and forth between extremes, but we are to grow up “until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God.”

REFLECTIONS ON EXODUS 32 AND DEUTERONOMY 9 (Part 4)

2011-10-19T13:05:00.000-07:00

God Reveals His View of the People (Part One)

As Moses is on Mt. Sinai in the presence of God, the Israelites recruited Aaron to make for them a golden calf to “go before” them. They then “offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.” As God was aware of this behavior, He reported to Moses His perspective of the people. He first stated that, “…your people, whom you brought up from the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves.” In Deuteronomy 9:12 God is recorded as saying, “…your people whom you brought out of Egypt have acted corruptly.”

I would like to refer to two points of interest. The first point I will deal with in this entry and the next point in the upcoming entry. The first is that God does not refer to the people, as they engage in this behavior, as His people. They are “your people whom you brought up.” It is appropriate to take recognize how “sin in the camp” affects God and our relationship with Him, both, individually and corporately. Later, in the history of the nation of Israel, God speaks through the Prophet Isaiah to say, “…your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He does not hear.” (Isaiah 59:2, NASB) I have heard people attempt to justify the practice of sin in our current age by referring to this as “the age of grace.” Man has always, in some measure, to some degree, on some level, been recipients of God’s grace, but this is not to be understood as a justification for sin. Titus 2:11-15 reads, “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus; who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds. These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.”

God is calling to Himself “a people for His own possession,” a people who deny ungodliness and worldly desire and who live sensibly, righteously and godly. To be His people, we must purpose and pursue a life reflective of the truth and purity of the principles of His kingdom. I am amazed at the number of people who assume that God must accept (in fact He’s pathetically longing for) whatever scrap we toss Him. We’ve turned the love of God into a weakness because we know neither God nor love.

“For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And if it is with difficulty that the righteous is saved, what will become of the godless man and the sinner? Therefore, let those also who suffer according to the will of God entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right.” (1 Peter 4:17-19, NASB)

HOW MANY MEN ARE BOLD ENOUGH TO BE GENUINE FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST?

2011-10-15T08:10:00.000-07:00

ClickHere

It was Wednesday morning as twenty-five or thirty men came streaming into the second floor “chapel” of the county prison. Along with the throng of inmates was a young man who had been attending classes for a number of months. He purposely used his hefty, semi-muscular physique for its intimidation factor. This young man had likely done, as well as experienced, significant damage. Over the months, we had established a decent rapport that involved verbal exchanges that ranged from humorous to aggressive. One day, in apparent resignation, he raised his hand during class in order to say, “I’ve come the conclusion that I am just naturally disobedient.” I looked at him with, likely, a bit of perplexed disappointment verging on annoyance before I said, “I don’t care.” This was, quite obviously, not the response he, nor the other students, anticipated. I continued, “Think about it this way. Every time you’re disobedient to something, you’re obedient to something else. What you’re really telling me is that you're being obedient to the impulses of your flesh. You’re being obedient to the principles of the kingdom of darkness and selfishness, to Satan. So, while you’re being obedient to this, you're also being disobedient to God and His kingdom of light and righteousness. So, you’re into disobedience? Just switch who you’re being obedient to and who you’re being disobedient to. You see, it doesn’t take a man to live according to the impulses of his flesh. Animals do this. But, it does take a man to stand up for justice and righteousness. If you like a good fight, try being disobedient to Satan. Try fighting for truth and morality and against deception and immorality.”

Is this why Jesus, quite clearly, warned His disciples of the hatred and persecution that was to come their way as devoted followers? There is a battle raging. The only question is, “What side are we fighting for, what kingdom are we advancing?” Paul stated, “And indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.” (2 Timothy 3:12)

Often, I have opportunity to tell the men in the prison class I offer, “A real man is not one who can drink the most, fornicate the most, lie and steal the most. A true man is one who can stand up for truth in the midst of lies and deception, fight for righteousness and justice in the midst of corruption, who can defend the defenseless against the abusive immorality of a society full of selfishness, greed and darkened minds.”

Where are our men, men with chests? C. S. Lewis wrote, “We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.” Many are held up in prison and many held up in a false, passive concept of love. I often look at my prison class and see potential leaders robbed of their impact by directing their strength in the wrong direction. I often look at congregations gathered in churches and see men robbed of their impact for truth, righteousness and justice in a perverse world due to a wrong, passive, wimpy concept of love.

William Booth, founder of the Salvation Army, is credited with the following two quotations:

"Our war is to fight devils, lies, fleshly indulgence, hardship, disappointment, and everything that sets itself against God and His kingdom and living a holy life. We must stand up to defend the powerless. Make your stand against that which persecutes, puts down and perverts. We must fight to help people; to make them believe victory is possible – that God can, that God is able. You must never give up! You never get what you really want in God without loss, suffering and resistance. The best things cost the most. Little of real warfare is the actual battle. Do your homework. Laziness will make you afraid. You cannot be useful, significant and successful without uninteresting, out of sight work, and plenty of it."

"While women weep, as they do now, I'll fight; while little children go hungry, as they do now, I'll fight; while men go to prison, in and out, in and out, as they do now, I'll fight; while there is a drunkard left, while there is a poor lost girl upon the streets, while there remains one dark soul without the light of God, I'll fight-I'll fight to the very end!"

“Who will stand up for me against evildoers? Who will take his stand for me against those who do wickedness?” (Psalm 94:16)

REFLECTIONS ON EXODUS 32 AND DEUTERONOMY 9 (Part 3)

2011-10-14T06:23:00.000-07:00

THE ABSENCE OF GODLY LEADERSHIP (Part Three) – People Sacrifice to / for Their Idol’s

As Moses, under the guidance of God, led the people out of Egypt and into the wilderness (a very, very difficult place to be), he then entered the presence of God on Mount Sinai, resulting in his absence from the people for forty days and nights. In the absence of his godly leadership we’ve seen the people establish an idol as a supposed solution to the void of his leadership (vs.1) and we’ve seen that they assigned to this idol accomplishments that ultimately belonged to the hand of God (vs.4). Verse 6 reads, “So the next day they rose early and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.” With just a minor amount of reflection, we can quickly and easily see that people will sacrifice to and for their idols. If your idol is money, you will sacrifice for it. You will evaluate the use of your time and energy, you will compromise your moral character, you will sacrifice relationships for the sake of financial gain. This is true regardless of what one’s idol takes on. It might be one’s reputation, success or “happiness.” It might be sports, food or sex. It might be religious in nature, anti-religious in nature or non-religious in nature. It might be drugs (legal or illegal) and/or alcohol. It might be humanitarian aid or Christian ministry. Idols come in all forms and will always exact sacrifice from their worshippers. Satan knows this very well. Jesus understood this also. “…the devil took Him to a very high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory; and he said to Him, ‘All these things will I give You, if You fall down and worship me.’ Then Jesus said to him, ‘Begone, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.’’” (Matthew 4:8-10, NASB) Jesus also taught that a man cannot serve two masters. Are you serving and sacrificing to a useless, deadly idol or are you serving, honoring, worshipping, loving and, yes, sacrificing, to and for the Living God?

REFLECTIONS ON EXODUS 32 AND DEUTERONOMY 9 (Part 2)

2011-10-12T02:48:00.000-07:00

“Now when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people assembled about Aaron, and said to him, ‘Come, make us a god who will go before us; as for this Moses, the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.’ And Aaron said to them, ‘Tear off the gold rings which are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me.’ Then all the people tore off the gold rings which were in their ears, and brought them to Aaron. And he took this from their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, and made it into a molten calf; and they said, “This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.’ Now when Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made a proclamation and said, ‘Tomorrow shall be a feast to the Lord.’ So the next day they rose early and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play. Then the Lord spoke to Moses, ‘Go down at once, for your people, whom you brought up from the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves. ‘They have quickly turned aside from the way which I commanded them. They have made for themselves a molten calf, and have worshiped it, and have sacrificed to it, and said, ‘This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt!’’ And the Lord said to Moses, ‘I have seen this people, and behold, they are an obstinate people. Now then let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them, and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation.’” (Exodus 32:1-10, NASB)

THE ABSENCE OF GODLY LEADERSHIP (Part Two) – Our Idol’s Steal the Glory of the Lord

In this account, the people of Israel, recently delivered from bondage in the land of Egypt, make a request of Aaron in the absence of the godly leadership of Moses who is spending time on Mount Sinai in the presence of God. The request is that he make them a god who will go before them. Aaron gathered their gold jewelry and skillfully crafted a calf of gold. In presenting this wonderfully crafted manmade god to the people he declares, “This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.” In our last reflection upon this passage, we stated that in the absence of godly leadership, people establish for themselves an idol. Now we see that our idols steal the glory of the Lord!! It would seem beyond ludicrous to ascribe to a calf recently crafted from the melted gold jewelry the feat of delivering the people from bondage in the land of Egypt, but that’s exactly the proclamation being made. How often do we look to our idols of money, man, fame, sex, drugs, alcohol, material possessions, relationships, music, etc., etc., etc. for that which they cannot deliver and ascribe to them that for which they never provided? Do your idols blind you to the reality of the provisions that can only be made by the Living God?

REFLECTIONS ON EXODUS 32 AND DEUTERONOMY 9 (Part 1)

2011-10-11T05:26:00.000-07:00

THE ABSENCE OF GODLY LEADERSHIP (Part One) – The People Establish an Idol

In this account, Moses, who had been commissioned by God to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, had been on Mount Sinai for forty days and nights (Dt.9:9). During this time, the massive throng of people (numbered in the millions) he had led into the wilderness became distraught. In the absence of this one powerful, godly leader, the people approached Aaron, making a request. “Make us a god who will go before us.” Void of godly influence and leadership the people revert to a cultural practice characteristic of the place from which God was providing deliverance. They will make a god who will get them out of this jam. Instead of looking to the God who had called and empowered Moses, they look to an idol fashioned by human imagination and skill. It’s nearly inconceivable that there was not another individual or group of individuals who would oppose this pursuit. It’s even more disturbing to see the response of the “leader” to whom they appeal as he quickly assents. This, however, is not uncommon in our age as people often allow someone to “lead” if they take them where they want to go and let them do what they want to do. What idols do we follow in the absence of godly leadership?

PREVIEW: INTRODUCTION TO "CHANGE YOUR MIND" (the current book I am writing)

2011-09-29T09:13:00.000-07:00

In this book, we will consider the importance of understanding. In Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary, he defines understanding as “The faculty of the human mind by which it apprehends the real state of things presented to it, or by which it receives or comprehends the ideas which others express and intend to communicate.” If we, as human beings, are to operate properly and cooperate with the God who created us in His image, we must attempt to understand God and His design for life on planet earth.

In the first volume, Change Your Heart, of this series, Equipping the Saints, the topic was repentance. Repentance is a climactic point when a human being who had been living in supreme self-interest resolves that he/she will cease living for Self and begin to live for the Supreme Being supremely. Repentance is a change of purpose. Sin is characterized as choosing, either consciously or by “default”, the ultimate purpose of pleasing, honoring, satisfying, serving and worshipping Self supremely. This is not necessarily a bold, verbal declaration but, rather, a way of life. Repentance involves firmly establishing as one’s new and ultimate purpose that of pleasing, honoring, serving and worshipping God supremely. Many people allow God to possess a little corner of their lives if it serves their interest. In such cases, people use God rather than serve God, rather than love Him with all their heart. They might give God permission to bless them, serve them, benefit them or take them to heaven when they die but the heart of this arrangement is Them. Repentance strikes at the heart of this wrong arrangement and leads to relating to God in His rightful position of supremacy. The individual no longer views God simply as a means to their own personal happiness but resolves that living to please, honor, serve and worship God is the end to which they strive. This is done, not because of what they get out of it, though there is enormous benefit in the long run (not always in the immediate) but because it is right. This is the most fundamental step back into reality and entrance into the kingdom of God. All of this is initiated by God and is done in response to the calling and drawing of the self-sacrificial love and kindness of our great God and Savior who desires that none should perish but that all should come to repentance. Repentance is a change of why one does what he does not just a change of what one does. It is an internal resolve and purpose of pleasing God supremely. This internal “why” naturally affects all of the external “whats”.

This volume is entitled Change Your Mind. Once a person has the purpose of pleasing God the question becomes, “What pleases Him and how do I do it?” This necessitates gaining understanding. Understanding is associated with our mental function and is a word that relates to a proper perception of information and of truth. Understanding is a crucial step in the process of fulfilling one’s purpose of pleasing God. This book is an investigation of certain areas of understanding that are instrumental in one’s attempt to fulfill the purpose of pleasing God.[1]

A very important parable given by Jesus is the parable of the seed, the sower and the soil found in Matthew 13:18-23. Though we will consider this more thoroughly in a later chapter, a brief reference to it here should prove beneficial. It is a parable that emphasizes the absolute necessity of understanding if we are to produce new and good fruit. Without entering into a detailed evaluation of the text, I will simply highlight the fact that there are many ways that we might respond to truth that keep us from arriving at the understanding needed to be productive (productivity and fruit having to do with pleasing God). Very clearly, however, one will not be fruitful until having gained understanding. The passage indicates that this parable was given to those who had eyes to see and ears to hear and yet did not see, hear or understand (Mt.13:13). Jesus stated that those who had (understanding) would be given more, but those without (understanding) would lose even what they had (Mt.13:12). This is not only an aspect of His explanation about why He taught in parable but was, as well, part of the parable itself as we see those who do not understand have that which was sown taken away by Satan (Mt.13:19). Finally, it is only “the man who hears the word and understands it” (Mt.13:23) who bears fruit.

Paul recognizes that the only way we can have a change of life is by having a renewal of the mind. We are transformed by the renewing of the mind (Ro.12:2). If we have the purpose of pleasing God and we get information and understanding about what pleases Him, we can then act upon this understanding and fulfill our purpose. This is the process in which we must engage or we will produce no new fruit.

Chapter One will consider an overview of God’s governmental relationship with various spheres of His creation. Special emphasis will be upon the mode of government He practices with the human race. In the second chapter, we will consider the relationship between hearing truth, understanding truth and acting upon truth. The third chapter deals with the relationship between the mind, the emotions and the will. Chapter Four contains information about the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, the pride of life and Satan’s attempt to use these areas to pervert and defeat us. In the fifth chapter, we consider the importance of growth and “increase” in God’s redemption of man. The final chapter revisits the parable of the seed, sower and soil in an effort to gain deeper insight than was offered in this introduction.

Another very important area of understanding is our view of God. This point is made, in a powerful way, by the prophet Jeremiah. He spoke on behalf of the Lord by saying, "Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his might, let not a rich man boast of his riches; but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things". In a future book, we will specifically look into this area of understanding.

It is my hope that the limited information contained in the small volume will contribute to the process of growing in your ability to please God.

[1] In the introduction of Change Your Heart there was emphasis placed upon Design, Function / Purpose and Process. If we are to produce new and good fruit we must honor the design for doing so which involves engaging in the right process. This process relates to having a change of heart (purpose) and then a change of mind (understanding) so we can have a change of life (choices, action and behavior). Too often, it is assumed that we can experience a change of life directly, without engaging in this process. Many people want to bypass understanding and simply act upon feelings, impulses and instinct. In some significant way, this is part of the problem, not the solution.

DON’T BORROW FROM MY VIEW TO DISCREDIT MY VIEW

2011-09-28T04:28:00.000-07:00

A number of years ago I oversaw a discipleship class for the seniors of a local Christian school. The academic success of the school was very impressive and I was honored to contribute to the educational process. I began the discipleship process by explaining that the Biblical term “heart” referred to that to which an individual is committed supremely. I then emphasized that it resolves to one of two ultimate options; Self (in some manifestation) or God. This was followed by an explanation of the nature of genuine repentance. Repentance involves abandoning Self-supremacy (living to serve and please Self supremely) and resolving to live for the purpose of loving, pleasing, honoring, worshipping and serving God supremely. I then challenged the students to reflect personally and individually upon the supreme purpose of their own hearts. At this point, one of the students raised his hand and declared that we have no ability to repent and that God and God alone was in charge of who would and would not be saved. This single comment was the result of seventeen years of poor theological influence. This comment also ignited very significant, ongoing discussion about the nature of the relationship between God and man. In short, I explained that Scripture clearly commands us (sinner and saint) to respond to God the way we should with whatever measure of understanding and ability we possess. This is the reasonable requirement of God and He would not command us to do that which we could not do. This implied the presence of, either, natural or gracious ability. I went on to emphasize that, together with God (or in some cases in rebellion to God) we are actually involved in deciding the nature of the future we enter into in some significant measure. This involves genuine freedom and voluntary interaction on our part.

Three students demonstrated real interest in discussing these ideas though they were not necessarily receptive to them. I purchased and gave them copies of The God Who Risks by John Sanders and The God of the Possible by Greg Boyd. In response to possessing such books, the father of one of the students contacted the school and complained that they had hired someone who taught what I was teaching. Through a series of emails to me and the school, he emphasized that he was disturbed that I did not believe that God is sovereign (I do believe He is but define the idea differently than this father) and that God was in absolute control of everything that happens (his concept of sovereignty). He wanted the school to dismiss me.

Here is the dilemma. According to the view I was suggesting, human beings can actually choose to resist God or cooperate with God. According to his view, everything (including the behavior of man) happens just the way God ordained or actively causes it to happen. Therefore, in an email response to this concerned father I stated, “In order to be upset with the school for hiring me and in order to be upset with me for my beliefs and the teaching of such beliefs, you must borrow from my belief system. According to your view, why did the school hire me? According to your view, why do I believe what I believe? You see, according to your view, the school hired me and I believe what I believe because God has ordained it as such. So, my conclusion is, you do not have a problem with the school or with me, you have a problem with God. According to your view, the school could do nothing other than what it did and I can believe nothing other than what I believe. You need to borrow from my view to assume otherwise."

I never heard from him again. I finished the school year and graciously resigned. What do you believe?

HOW LOVE WINS - Thank you Mr. Charles Finney

2011-09-01T05:21:00.000-07:00

God desires and purposes that all (1 Ti.2:4, 2 Pe.3:9) should repent, be forgiven, transformed and filled with the knowledge of the truth. This is clearly and certainly what God is working toward. Whether or not individuals respond appropriately is another issue. But, GOD IS WORKING TOWARD THE SALVATION OF ALL. Regarding love we can say that love is to purpose and pursue the highest good identifiable. It is universal good-will, or willing the highest good in general. As difficult as it is for human beings, with their distorted minds, to comprehend, love does everything for one reason or ultimate end; the highest good of being in general. Within this context, however, we must realize that there are expressions of love that we would categorize as “kindness” but there are also expressions which fit under the category of “severity.” Both kindness and “severity” are attributes of love (Ro.11:22). Another word, sometimes, used for “kindness” is “gentleness.” Severity is not cruelty, it is love shown in strictness, rigor and purity. In order to bring a dimension of clarity, I often refer to severity as severe kindness. Love always shows a regard for the well-being of others and will be gentle and kind toward all, except in those cases where either the good of the individual, or of the public, requires a different approach. It is a mistake to suppose that love is all softness under all circumstances. It will be gentle or severe, depending upon which is required to pursue the highest good. It is important to understand that kindness is the rule and severity is the exception but it is just as important to realize that though kindness is the rule, it might not be possible to express it most often in light of outward circumstances such as the character and conduct of the individual(s) with which God (or you) are dealing. If kindness is appropriate and severity is shown, this is not love. In the same way, if severity is require, for the highest well being of the individual and/or the public interest, and kindness is shown, this is not love. Both, however, are equally and necessarily attributes of love. Let me emphasize that the general approach of love is to treat others kindly and gently, unless circumstances and/or the character of the one loved requires a different treatment. When a person or persons conduct themselves so as to endanger the public good, severity is just as natural, and as necessary to love, as kindness and forbearance are under other circumstances. WITH GOD, IT IS LOVE THAT LEADS TO THE APPROACH HE TAKES. However, “It is one of the most shallow of dreams, that the Divine character is all softness and sweetness, in all its manifestations and in all circumstances.” “It is impossible that love to the whole should not manifest severity and indignation to the part which rebels against the interests of the whole.”

IN THIS IS LOVE (A Meditational Thought)

2011-08-16T06:14:00.000-07:00

“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has beheld God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us. By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. And we have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this, love is perfected with us, that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. We love, because He first loved us. If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.” (1 John 4:7-21, NASB)

Though I am focusing on verse 10, and not planning to exegete the entire passage, the impression the surrounding verses create will prove helpful.

John, one who was personally close to the incarnate Son of God, reflects upon the significance of love. Three expressions of love surface; the love God has for human beings, the love human beings have for God and the love human beings have for one another. The words recorded in verse 10 can be read in a flat, monotonous manner, as we too often read Scripture, or with the reflective awe that was likely stirring in the author as he pondered, with great experiential background, the magnificence of God and His manifestation of love toward us.

“In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” As we attempt to appreciate what John says, let’s consider that one emphasis in the passage concerns the reality that this love which God has shown toward us impacts those who receive it in such a way that it becomes the source of our perfecting the love that we express toward God and others. Having been created in the image of God, we are to reflect His character by using our finite abilities as He uses His infinite abilities. Love requires that we, possessing appropriate abilities, use the abilities we possess as they were intending to be used. It should be plain to see that if we suppose that the nature of sin involves the loss of all ability, we cannot express love at all. In fact, under such a scenario, it is actually impossible to sin as sin involves a wrong use of our abilities, not the lack of ability.

John marvels at the love of God because, though there is a natural tendency to be drawn toward and express love for that which is pure, beautiful, majestic and impressive, it is difficult to love those who are insulting, rebellious and selfish. God, having been grieved and hurt by the unfaithful idolatry of mankind (Ge.6:5-7, Eze.6:9 among others), has risen above personal animosity and pursued a path and plan of redemption at His own expense and suffering. Such a display of moral character in the face of such adversity is far more impressive than any love manifested toward one who is perfectly pure and appealing, from whom one believes they will gain much benefit.

Jesus understood this perspective as evidenced in His words are recorded in Matthew 5:43-48. Notice how He concludes His thought. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax-gatherers do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:43-48, NASB)

The “perfection” spoken of is as stated above, using our limited, finite abilities (whatever capacity we possess in whatever form they exist) to live up to the light we possess (however bright or dim it might be). Relegating love to the nature of God, similar to His power, eternality, omnipresence, authority, etc. robs Him of the praise due for the glorious Self-government exercised toward the literally despicable race of man. It also, places this love in a realm that eliminates it from any possibility of our emulating such character.

God is our model, our inspiration and our help. Let us grow in our understanding, appreciation and love.

“But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back. And just as you want people to treat you, treat them in the same way. And if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, in order to receive back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” (Luke 6:27-36, NASB)

SHOULD WE ABANDON WILLIAM BLACKSTONE

2011-08-11T05:19:00.000-07:00

Several foundational principles are expressed in both the Judeo-Christian worldview and Blackstone’s Commentaries. These principles, summarized below, reveal the extent to which American law has repudiated Blackstone.

A. There are different types of law in the universe. Blackstone’s classification of law into six types is foundational to the rest of his philosophy and is consistent with the Judeo-Christian system of law:

1. Law as the order of the universe. “Thus when the Supreme Being formed the universe, and created matter out of nothing, He impressed certain principles upon that matter, from which it can never depart, and without which it would cease to be. When he put the matter into motion, He established certain laws of motion, to which all movable bodies must conform . . . .”

2. Law as a rule of human action. “. . . the precepts by which man, the noblest of all sublunary beings, a creature endowed with both reason and free will, is commanded to make use of those faculties in the general regulation of his behavior.”

3. Law of nature. “These are the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the Creator Himself in all His dispensations conforms; and which He has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions.”

4. Revealed law. “The doctrines . . . delivered [by an immediate and direct revelation] we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures . . . . Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.”

5. Law of nations. [A]s it is impossible for the whole race of mankind to be united in one great society, they must necessarily divide into many . . . . [the regulation of their interaction] is the law of nations . . . [it] depends entirely upon the rules of natural law, or upon mutual compacts, treaties, leagues, and agreements . . . .”

6. Municipal law. “[This is] a rule of civil conduct, prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong. But no human authority can act without limits.”

B. God is the Creator of the universe, man, the very concept of law, and several universal laws; and his original Creation was ex nihilo (“out of nothing”). Blackstone was certainly not an evolutionist! But the evolutionistic fervor of later legal scholars was a major force in America’s abandonment of Judeo-Christian/Blackstonian jurisprudence in the Twentieth Century.

C. God has built into the universe fundamental laws that are fixed, immutable, and must be obeyed.

D. Man is a dependent creature who is not to disobey God’s fixed laws but is given free will and reason to discover and choose his actions within the limits of God’s laws.

E. Man’s reason is corrupt and cannot, by itself, discover and apply God’s law.

F. God is not only the Creator, but a Being of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness.

G. God created man and His fundamental laws in such a way that man can be happy only when he is obeying God’s law.

H. Revealed law, natural law, and human law exist in a clear and inseparable relationship to one another.

I. The purpose of human law is to “command what is right, prohibiting what is wrong.”

J. Human law is not to violate God’s law, but is to decide what are right and wrong in regard to “things in themselves indifferent” (i.e., actions that are not intrinsically right or wrong but are declared so by human lawmakers).

K. Human law’s most effectual tool for producing right conduct and preventing wrong conduct is sanctions – punishment.

L. At the time of Creation, God gave man dominion over all the earth, but changes in society ultimately necessitated the emergence of individual property ownership.

M. There are three primary personal rights:

- Personal security. The right …consists in a person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation.

- Personal liberty. This personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one’s person to whatsoever place one’s own inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law.

- Right of private property: law of the land. [This right] consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal [by man] of all his acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the laws of the land.

N. Human judges are empowered to interpret the will of the legislature by certain distinct standards, including:

- The usual meaning of words;

- Context of the words being interpreted;

- Subject matter of the law;

- Effect of the interpretation—absurd meanings must be avoided;

- The reason for the law—why it was promulgated

http://www.blackstoneinstitute.org/sirwilliamblackstone.html

EDIFICATION

2011-08-09T08:12:00.000-07:00

A statement made by the Apostle Paul in a wonderful passage written to the Ephesians says, "Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, that it may give grace to those who hear" (Ephesians 4:29, NASB). From this passage we might conclude that our ultimate goal, when it comes to the power of the spoken word, is to edify. To edify means to build up and/or move toward the highest possible good. A mistake that is often made is to assume that edifying words are always and only positive words. However, building up and moving toward the highest good is not accomplished with positive words alone. In fact, in a fallen world that has been greatly impacted by sin, breaking up the fallow ground that has resulted from our departure from God’s design requires a great amount of words that will not fit into the category of positive words.

If the above statement is true, why does Paul say “let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth?” Unwholesome words are words that tear down or destroy as an end, in and of itself. I am not suggesting that we become negative as opposed to positive. I am suggesting that we know what it means to edify which involves both negative and positive words balanced in the right place and right proportion to accomplish this challenging goal.

Timothy remained in Ephesus to prevent certain men from teaching certain unedifying things (Ep.1:3). Paul wrote to instruct Timothy in this pastoral responsibility. Notice the speech oriented words in the following passages as we consider what is involved in real edification. "…preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction" (2 Timothy 4:2, NASB).

The first command given is to “preach” the word. To preach is to proclaim or herald before and audience. The following words are descriptive of preaching. As we work through this list, it is important to emphasize that the goal of preaching in this manner is ultimately to edify, move people away from their current departure from moral reality and from displaying God’s character toward honoring God’s design for all of life.

Preaching involves reproof. To “reprove” means to convict or convince (generally with a suggestion of shame of the person convicted), refute, expose, reprehend severely, chide and/or admonish. This is not generally place under the category of “positive” words. As a side note, I have often heard individuals (many of whom I greatly respect) say that only the Holy Spirit can convict people. Here, Paul uses the same word found in John 16:8, to command Timothy to reprove (convict people of their departures).

Next, he says to rebuke. This is an interesting word which has to do with placing value or honor on someone. A rebuke involves pointing out where we have departed from our real value or honor as those created in the image of God.

He then uses the word “exhort.” This means to encourage people to recapture their real value and honor from which they have departed. It is important to emphasize that this is, in great measure based upon the recognition that we have departed from God’s intentions for us and that redemption/reconciliation/salvation refers to the process of returning to God’s original design for man. Consequently, reproof, rebuke and exhortation are very important to this process. In a commentary on this passage, Thomas C. Oden states, “Good counsel involves simultaneously convincing the intellect, rebuking the disordered passions, and encouraging the will. Each phase of counsel needs the other. An ungentle rebuke may hurt too much to hear. A rebuke that lacks convincing evidence is implausible. An encouragement that lacks realism will not help.”

Finally, Paul uses the term “instruction.” Instruction involves a detailed explanation about how something is designed to fit together or to work. Having convinced someone that their (our, in the corporate areas of life) current approach is contrary to God’s design, they need to be informed and instructed about the proper approach. This, again, is intended to edify, build up.

I close with the following reference and brief commentary: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, NASB).

To recognize someone’s highest good and therefore verbally encourage edification requires that we understand God’s design for human life as revealed in Scripture. We must be cautious of simply instructing people to line up with our own personal preference or opinion. If people are departing from God’s design for individual character and responsibility or relational spheres such as family, church, etc. we are to call them back by teaching, reproving, correcting and training. This takes patience and wisdom. The trend to simply provide people with “self-affirmation” without addressing the issue of departure will not edify. Reproof and rebuke without instruction and patience will not edify. Resistance toward this process will not edify.

“The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man is he who listens to counsel.” (Proverbs 12:15, NASB)

DO YOU HATE CHRISTIANS?

2011-08-02T08:35:00.000-07:00

I have observed that a segment of the Christian community has taken up the practice of rejecting the term Christian, criticizing Christians / Christianity and attempting to distance themselves from that which is associated with the terms Christian or Christianity. In part, I understand what they are doing and why they are doing it. It has been the case that those calling themselves Christians (maybe they are, maybe they aren’t) have, at times, acted inconsistent with the character of which the term represents. This can result in creating a bad name for Christians / Christianity. This can actually be the case with any group identified by a particular term. In the case of some groups, acting consistent with what they believe should give them a bad name. This is not so with Christianity. However, this being the case, I think it’s important to realize that we face two basic options. One is to trash the name and the other is to recapture a proper representation of the name. I would suggest that the second of the two is the most reasonable and courageous option, promoting the best long-term results. Having said this, I qualify the previous statement by clarifying that in certain cultures (possibly an Islamic culture for example) missionary efforts might be enhanced by avoiding an insistence on the usage of such a term. This, however, is quite different from the, somewhat, antagonistic efforts to ridicule instead of edify. A further clarification is the recognition that there are surely times to criticize if we are aiming at edification. This brings me back to the second option referred to above. When Christians act inconsistent with Biblical Christianity (a real problem), they should be called to account. They should be confronted and corrected. This is Biblical. Second Timothy 3:16-17 states, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” James 5:19-20 reads, “My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth, and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death, and will cover a multitude of sins.” My concern is not over the term in question, my concern is that discarding the term does nothing to correct the departure. In fact, by failing to confront the departure we indicate that Christians act in this despicable way and therefore, “Don’t refer to me as a Christian, I’m just a lover of Jesus.” It all sounds so wonderful but it is all so wrong. As we attempt to identify, support and promote Biblical Christianity (not just in doctrine but in practice) we will face our challenges, we will have our clashes. Consider, “…preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths. But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry” (2 Ti.4:2-5). Our task is to do the hard, sometimes unpleasant, work of correcting / renewing the mind and encouraging / urging Christians to live lives worthy of the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (Ep.4:1, Phil.1:27, Col.1:10 & 1 Thes.2:12).

HOW LOVE WINS - Part Seven

2011-07-29T05:49:00.000-07:00

God’s Love, Governmental Responsibilities and the Atonement

Does God want to forgive sinners? Consider, Psalm 86:5 which reads, "For Thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive, and abundant in lovingkindness to all who call upon Thee." It’s interesting that the Psalmist states that God is ready to forgive. There is an internal willingness of God to extend forgiveness to the guilty. The atonement, then, is not an influence upon God that convinces or prepares Him to be forgiving. God is ready to forgive. There must be something which prevents His readiness, His willingness from becoming actual forgiveness. I would suggest that the love of God inclines Him to promote the improvement of His creation while leading Him to resist its detriment. Therefore, mercy and forgiveness must be exercised wisely to guard against conditions in a given situation getting worse as opposed to better. In many discussions that I’ve had with students upon the topic of the atonement and its relationship to forgiveness, I have noticed a tendency toward careless thinking. An essential concern here relates to the question, “In God’s plan of redemption, do you think He wants to improve or worsen conditions on planet earth and in our lives?” The atonement is a governmental strategy designed to make it possible for God to wisely and righteously pardon the guilty upon the conditions of their repentance and faith without injuring His character or kingdom. Without in depth discussion about Commutative, Retributive and Public Justice, I suggest that God is interested in Public Justice. The love and wisdom of God leads Him to seek means of forgiveness that protects the citizens of His kingdom. I conclude this brief entry with a representation of the difference between Personal Offense and Forgiveness and Governmental Offense and Forgiveness (Pardon).

On a personal level God has overcome the insult and offense (sin) committed against Him. However, as a moral ruler of a moral kingdom, God must deal with the issue of pardon in a wise and responsible manner. Let me illustrate by using a human parallel.

A thief is caught after breaking into a house. He is then brought before a judge for trial. During the proceedings it surfaces that the house he had broken into belonged to the judge he stood before. The judge, being a merciful, just and reasonable man, considered the thief’s situation carefully. Recognizing that the man was driven by desperation to feed his family the judge chose, on the personal level, to forgive the offense committed against him, expressing no bitterness, resentment or vengeance toward the criminal. With the complete dismissal of internal, personal turmoil and resentment the judge handed down a verdict consistent with the laws of the land for, at least, three closely connected reasons. All three reasons rotate around his governmental responsibility to promote public justice. First, as a public servant he had a duty to honor the law for the sake of public interest, knowing that others who were contemplating crime needed to realize that negative consequences do follow illegal activity. Second, it was important to protect his character due to his responsibilities as a judge, communicating to his constituents that he is just. Third, the well-being and protection of those under his care must not be endangered by his merciful disposition or practices. In this example, the judge exercised personal forgiveness but could not extend governmental pardon since there was no way to accomplish the three concerns above. As God faces this dilemma as the Governor and Judge of the human race, the atonement becomes that governmental strategy designed to resolve these challenges.

Ecclesiates 8:11 - "Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil. "

HOW LOVE WINS - Part Six

2011-07-22T05:16:00.000-07:00

Understanding the Governmental Responsibilities of God

Love must not be reduced to a simple, emotional, sentimental thought about or reaction toward another. Love, at times (not always), might inspire certain emotions of this sort but, let’s be clear, the emotions themselves are not love and will not always be present when love exists. Let me emphasize, we must not reduce (or redefine) love in this way. A great disservice is done to God and His kingdom (not to mention the vast number of deceived humans) when we carelessly promote the idea that forgiveness of sin and “acceptance” of sinners is based on a sentimental pity God experiences toward the guilty. The love of God that is in operation behind the plan of redemption is a willful resolve to purpose and promote the highest good possible. This involves the well-being of those created in His image and the universe of created and non-created entities. Love, when addressing the issue of providing a way to pardon the guilty, involves great complexity. Inspired by love, God devised a plan of redemption that had to consider and give attention to various governmental complexities. Such governmental complexities and responsibilities are the reason for the necessity of the atonement and requirement of the guilty to exercise genuine repentance toward God and faith in the Person and atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. In the series articles to come, we will consider the governmental complexities and responsibilities referred to above. We will, as well, consider why love necessitates atonement, repentance and faith. Beware, these are weighty issues that the Christian community (especially Christian spokesmen, leaders, pastors, teachers, etc.) must be able to communicate if we are to avoid reducing the gospel to an impotent declaration of Christianized religious humanism.

TRULY DISCIPLES

2011-07-21T05:51:00.000-07:00

There is a very serious need for Christians to wake up and realize that there is such a thing as truth and we are either standing for it or against it. There are far too many unhelpful attempts to employ some misguided form of diplomacy that is supported by an incomplete, lopsided idea of love and representation of Jesus. Truth is being mutilated in the process. Christianity is being redefined and diluted to an impotent solution for nothing. There is a disconnect between referring to oneself as a Christian and understanding Biblical principles, truth and/or lifestyle. Everything is acceptable except saying that certain things are unacceptable. With a massive amount of word parades and information forums, the Christian message is being camouflaged as just another opinion among many as opposed to the transforming truth of the Living God. Surely, there is a need to interpret truth but engaging in the business of interpreting Biblical text and playing at the game of tolerantly sharing pluralistic opinions are considerably different. Are people free to share their opinions? Absolutely! I would never support eliminating this freedom. Are there right and wrong opinions? Absolutely! I would never support eliminating this reality. The problem is that too many Christian voices have accepted the idea that it is improper, if not unacceptable, to state that some ideas are wrong and some are right. Let me modify this previous statement slightly. They are willing to say that the person who says someone is wrong is wrong for saying someone is wrong. Who will set us free from this body of lies? Who will rise up…against the wicked? Who will take a stand…against evildoers? But, of course, there is no such thing as wicked people or evildoers, just unfortunately misguided victims that justifiably act in such a manner due to internal or external causation. God forbid that anyone should judge them or hold them accountable. We need, desperately, to be set free from this road to nowhere. “If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (Jn.8:31-32)

New York Approves Gay Marriage

2011-06-25T06:22:00.000-07:00

Read Article from Christianity Today

Romans 1:25-27 "For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

Watch FrancisSchaeffer video

HOW LOVE WINS - Part Five

2011-06-20T12:31:00.000-07:00

Love Will Separate Sheep from Goats

Imagine being gathered in a room with ten or twelve friends. As you have their attention, you begin to make slanderous and insulting statements about a common acquaintance as a form of humor. Each jocular statement promotes a roar of laughter from the audience. Upon delivering your fourth quip, the crowd sheepishly glances at you, immediately diverting their attention to the shoelaces of the person beside them. Finding this response bizarre, you slowly peek over your shoulder with a peripheral glance. An involuntary wave of panic flushes over your body as you find the target of your humor standing behind you. Anxiety sets the stage making eye contact uncomfortable if not impossible. You shrink in humiliation and desire to be removed far from the situation and from the presence of your victim.

The above scene is a very mild example of the reality associated with the way foolish, insulting behavior affects relationships. Following, I will attempt to develop a representation that captures the reality of the experience of a human being who has not been honoring God as God (Ro.1:21), whether through active, aggressive rebellion or mild mannered, passive disobedience and apathy, as they step into the unveiled presence of the most overwhelmingly intense being in the universe.

As developed in the first paragraph, being in the presence of a person one has dishonored is, to say the least, uncomfortable if not overwhelmingly excruciating. This is a very natural and realistic aspect of our moral constitution. I would like to suggest that people have a tendency assume that moral reality ceases to operate as we are translated from this life into the “hereafter.” It is assumed that, somehow, the reality of one’s relationship with God and the emotional and moral consequences of one’s behavior are no longer functioning factors in one’s experience when stepping into the unveiled presence of the most overwhelming majestic and intense being in the universe. This is what I call Lucky Charms Christianity (magically delicious - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rge4eU00aNM). We seriously need to rethink and reverse this assumption!

I suggest that for a person who has not truly reconciled to God, the experience of standing in His presence will not prove pleasant. The unpleasant dimension of this encounter will not be due to anything God does to make it unpleasant. If He is guilty of making it unpleasant, it is only because the sympathy and compassion radiating from His being will add to the shame and humiliation that overwhelms the individual in question. Let’s attempt to envision the scene.

An individual who has been pursuing some form of self-supremacy (sin) and has never responded to the self-sacrificial, loving redemptive provisions of God, dies in this condition. The next conscious moment is in the presence of the Creator of the universe. God is the supreme, righteous governor of all moral beings. Governing in righteousness and wisdom places parameters upon how mercy and forgiveness can be exercised (great amounts of careful thinking upon this issue is tremendously important but cannot take place in this mini-article). What does the sinner find as he/she stands before God? The most overwhelmingly appealing, beautiful, intense and attractive Being possible. Made to be in His presence there is a deep longing to be so. However, guilt, shame and anxiety fill his/her being as a natural consequence of violating moral reality. The sinner, though longing to be in God’s presence, is utterly unfit for and uncomfortable in His presence. The overwhelming nature of this experience is beyond description. It is this experience that produces the statement, “I never knew you, depart from me, you who practice lawlessness”, from the mouth of God. It seems as though many assume this statement is made with some sort of anger and retaliatory satisfaction. I believe it is a statement of brokenness, sorrow and regret. With moral reality functioning as it does, the guilty sinner is ushered away from the presence of God in order to diminish the anxiety and guilt. However, when out of His presence, the desire to be in His presence continues to be a source of regretful longing, producing its own form of anxiety and regret. When in His presence, he/she wants out of His presence and when out of His presence, he/she wants to be in His presence. This is a “fire” that cannot be extinguished and a “worm” that never dies, constantly eating at the soul of a moral, immortal being. Consistent with moral reality, God opts for the most merciful of the two options, considering both the sinner who is not fit for His presence and the well-being of the reconciled who are invited to live where righteousness dwells.

I would encourage us to make an effort to rise above shallow, wishful thinking regarding these complex moral issues and realize the challenge the supreme moral governor of the universe faces that eventually require a separation of the sheep from the goats.

HEARING, UNDERSTANDING & OBEYING

2011-06-17T07:30:00.000-07:00

As we enter into right relationship with God, through repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ and as we receive the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit, we become members of the family and kingdom of God. Throughout the gospels, there is much emphasis on the kingdom of God. I will refer to the content of two passages in the gospel of Matthew to highlight the importance of hearing the word of the kingdom, understanding the word of the kingdom and obeying the word of the kingdom.

“…everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock.” (Matthew 7:24, NASB)

“And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who indeed bears fruit, and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty.” (Matthew 13:23, NASB)

In the two verses quoted above we see a good representation of the place for hearing truth (the word of the kingdom – Mt.13:19), understanding truth and obeying the truth one hears and understands. When it comes to being a fruitful member of the kingdom, the basic process is, on one level, very simple. Expose yourself to truth, prayerfully and diligently labor to understand the truth you have been exposed to and obey the truth you understand.

The truth in question is truth about the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God has reference to the structure and design God has for individuals and for the various corporate relationships individuals form. In other words, when we use the relational term “father”, it refers to a specific relational role accompanied by responsibilities that are to contribute to the well-being of specific individuals and society-at-large. The role and boundaries of a father is distinct from that of a husband. If we blur and confuse the two, we will create confusion, conflict and turmoil. We could proceed through a list of personal and corporate terms that reflect the point just made; mother, wife, son, daughter, family, church, civil government, friend, enemy, pastor, etc. There are roles, functions, principles, purposes for each of these in the kingdom of God as they contribute to the balance and well-being of the community. Of course, there are ways we can violate each of these designations as well. Truth, understanding and obedience play an important part in redeeming us from the ravages of such violation.

The training of the disciples, as recorded in Matthew 13, was training designed to help them understand the mysteries of the kingdom (Mt.13:11). The potentially confusing statement, “For whoever has, to him shall more be given, and he shall have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him”, found in Matthew 13:12 is, in its context, a statement about understanding, and specifically understanding about the kingdom of God. Those who have a certain level of understanding about the nature of the kingdom are in position to receive more truth and, therefore, will have more given to them. Those who do not understand will slip back into increased levels of darkness and confusion.

In closing, I offer an observation. It is easy to lose track of our goal and become involved in intellectual gymnastics and practical shenanigans that have nothing to do with advancing the kingdom of God. Often, we are more interested in promoting ourselves, our ministries, our churches or who knows what. Consider Paul’s instructions to Timothy as recorded in 1 Timothy 1:3-4. “As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus, in order that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.” Let’s make a sincere effort to insure that our lives are “furthering the administration of God.”

HOW LOVE WINS - Part Four

2011-06-16T05:11:00.000-07:00

LOVE REQUIRES WISDOM

The challenge of developing an honorable picture of love largely rests on having a Biblical picture of God. Some aspects of popular theological assumption have encouraged a static view of God. This is a view resulting from certain influences that have come from Greek philosophy. Not intending to go into depth on that idea, I suggest that the Bible reflects a very dynamic view of God. God interacts with the human race, allowing people, in a very significant manner, to exercise the use of their abilities and freedom even when they do so foolishly, selfishly, destructively and contrary to God’s guidance.

In a previous article, I stated that love is a resolve to purpose, pursue and promote the highest good one can identify. This, in a world where there is a massive network of personal and corporate relationships involving various levels and large numbers of choices, is a tremendously challenging resolve to express in practical terms. I once again refer to the statement by Charles Finney, “It is one of the most shallow of dreams, that the Divine character is all softness and sweetness, in all its manifestations and in all circumstances.” In the midst of the dynamic, complex realities of life, wisdom is required to arrive at a conclusion about what promotes the highest good, all things considered. It is shallow and wishful thinking to assume that, somehow, every individual will receive a personally beneficial outcome in this process. Again, from Charles Finney, “It is impossible that love to the whole should not manifest severity and indignation to the part which rebels against the interests of the whole.”

I close with an attempt to help the reader appreciate this dynamic. Engaging forces that are actively working against the highest ultimate good of society-at-large, certain tactics that are designed to disrupt their destructive goals might become necessary. Wishful thinking assumes everyone magically wins. To assume that this is what “love wins” means is, in fact, “the most shallow of dreams.” Imagine a battle in which the employment of wisdom requires a misdirection of the enemies understanding of one’s approach (battle strategy, course of action, intentions). This misdirection is employed in light of the ongoing persistence of the enemy (“the part”) to accomplish an agenda that will enslave and harm society-at-large (“the whole”). Let’s take this brief scenario and consider it in light of a statement the apostle Paul makes regarding climactic moments in the clash between good and evil (not as abstract, obscure imagery but as personal choices of living beings).

"Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to Him, that you may not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he may be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. And then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. And for this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness." (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, NASB)

Let’s be done with our “Lucky Charms” (magically delicious) Christianity that distorts reality based upon shallow concepts of love, peace and understanding.

HOW LOVE WINS - Part Three

2011-05-27T05:38:00.000-07:00

Illustration #2

This illustration expresses an important perspective on the complex nature of love. In a world where sin and evil are very real, love must express something more than universal tolerance, a softhearted hug or a grandmotherly frown of disapproval. Consider the following statement from Charles Finney as you read the illustration below. “It is impossible that love to the whole should not manifest severity and indignation to the part which rebels against the interests of the whole.”

Imagine having a recurring sore on your leg. It heals but soon returns. Upon visiting a doctor, you are told that it is a manifestation of a very aggressive, fast-growing form of cancer located in your leg. You are then told that if something is not done soon, it will spread into the major organs of your body and you will likely die within three to six months. At this point, the doctor tells you that he has a reputation for being the most loving man in his profession. Therefore, he tells you that he will be very gentle and respond by inflicting little to no pain or discomfort upon your diseased limb. He explains that he will simply place a Band-Aid on the sore, tells you to have a wonderful day and instructs you to come back in one year. Would this gentle, painless treatment be an act of love? We should quickly see that such behavior on his/her part would be overwhelmingly irresponsible. On the other hand, would it not be reasonable to expect that love would lead the doctor to arrange the severe operation of removing the diseased leg in an attempt to prevent the rest of the body from becoming diseased? A doctor motivated by love would not do so because he is mad at the leg or seeking to satisfy his bloodthirsty desires, taking great pleasure in chopping off limbs. This severe procedure is pursued as an act of love for the whole. At times, love demands that we engaged in appropriate, severe treatment of the part that threatens the wellbeing of the whole in order to promote the highest good of the whole.

Love is such a central aspect of the character of God, the kingdom of God and the ministry of the church that we cannot afford to embrace a distorted view of love. Many people rightly struggle with certain severe details revealed in Old Testament text. Such accounts look like the behavior of an emotionally controlled and anger driven being. Often, in response, some reject God and others simply ignore the presence of such accounts. It is the case that the concept of Hell creates similar challenges to our human minds[1]. A well-rounded view of the kindness and severity of love can help put things in their proper place.

"It is impossible that love to the whole should not manifest severity and indignation to the part which rebels against the interests of the whole." These concepts are tremendously important if we are to understand and represent God effectively and if we are to love others the way we are suppose to. We must understand and help others understand that God continually operates in love.

[1] I will offer an illustration regarding Hell in an upcoming entry.

Paul, the Confused Apostle?

2011-05-26T08:10:00.000-07:00

How do we become “all things to all men” without becoming useless to God? Unplugging little phrases from Scripture and building upon them can be dangerous. An attempt to honor the immediate context of the specific situation under address and then the larger context of other Scriptural truths (in their context) serves to help us stay within a healthy, productive mode of ministry.

"For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow partaker of it." (1 Corinthians 9:19-23, NASB)

"I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect." (Romans 12:1-2, NASB)

What Has Inspired This Article?

Admittedly, this article is to provide caution about certain unhealthy extremes some have and others potentially embrace of which we should all be concerned. Every age faces its challenges. For my part, I have come to see a difference between discussing the best way to understand the Biblical text and subjecting the Biblical text to the scrutiny of philosophical, cultural or psychological trends. For the sake of brevity, I will site two things that serve as inspiration for this article. First, there are certain ways of understanding and applying the idea of being all things to all men that lead to becoming conformed to the world, which allows the culture to rewrite Scripture in a sense. Second, I recently heard a young, professing believer respond to the question, “If there is one thing you would like to be remembered as, what would it be?” by answering, “A non-conformist.” This led me to ask the question, “Isn’t God’s goal in our lives to conform us to the image of Christ and His death (Ro.8:29, Phil.3:10)? It is true that we are not to conform to this world, which stands in tension against conforming to the image of Christ but aiming to be a non-conformist does not allow one to give due attention to this tension. We should be able to see that the simple desire to be known as a non-conformist is a shortsighted focus, totally unable to capture a healthy balance regarding this issue. This is an issue of what we are driven by. It is my contention that an extreme view of Paul’s statement about becoming all things to all men not only fails to capture a healthy balance but also encourages certain unhealthy approaches toward ministry that will eventually produce bitter fruit.

Though my goal is not to be negative and merely “tear down”, part of the process of finding balance involves being “negative” and tearing down in preparation for building up as opposed to merely being an end in and of itself. I hope to present a positive, constructive perspective that avoids the bitter fruit, referred to above, from maturing. Consider God’s commission to Jeremiah in Jeremiah 1:10. “See, I have appointed you this day over the nations and over the kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant."

Commending, Cautioning and Considering

I would like to continue by commending all of those who properly recognize the importance of understanding their “mission field” and who have done the necessary homework to gain an appropriate measure of understanding. Along with commending those who gain understanding of the culture within which they “minister”, or which they study, I suggest that there is a fine line between understanding the culture (religion, philosophy, ideology, worldview, etc.) and reflecting or assimilating the culture.

A brief reference to the missionary ministry of William Carey might prove enlightening at this point. Gaining understanding of one’s “mission field” does not equate to conforming to or reflecting the culture when encountering a practice such as sati. Surely, efforts to eliminate such a cultural / religious practice potentially meets with violent resistance from certain sectors of society but being culturally aware and engaged does not justify tolerating practices that are contrary to moral parameters revealed in the Word of God.

As I prepare to consider the two texts around which this article is written, I would like to, again, quote from the apostle Paul as he wrote to the Corinthians on two occasions, “Be imitators (followers, mimic) of me ….” The quotation found in 1 Co.11:1 is, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.” To begin with, we have an occasion in which Paul is urging them to follow his example, to do what he is doing, act like he is acting, be what he is being. His doing, acting and being is shaped by his understanding of what it means to follow, imitate or mimic Christ. The following two passages have further instruction about doing, acting and being that broaden the discussion.

All Things, All Men, All Means

“I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some.” What are we to understand the limits of this concept to be? How is this statement made to the Corinthians, in its context, affected by the statement, “…do not be conformed to this world…,” made to Christians in Rome?” How can we “…imitate me (Paul)…”, “…become all things to all men…” and “…not be conformed to this world…?” Was Paul, by becoming all things, conforming to the world? If so, if we imitate him, will we not become conformed to the world?

What Paul Does Not Mean

Every Wednesday I offer a class to men incarcerated because of legal (and moral) problems associated with the abuse of alcohol and drugs. I would love to “win”, “reach” or “save” some (all) of them consistent with the intention Paul expressed to the Corinthians. What then does it mean to become all things to all men in this context? It seems safe to say that Paul’s statement about becoming all things to all men does not require that I be incarcerated for legal problems associated with drugs and alcohol abuse in order to be fit to engage or connect with this “people group.” To assume such a view would surely be extreme and prove to be counterproductive on a number of levels. Ministering to murderers does not require one to be a murderer nor does ministering and attempting to reach/save basketball players require being a basketball player. All of this represents an, obviously and purposely, extreme view of the statement Paul made. We could continue to create the list – liars, homosexuals, thieves, Muslims, Mormons, politicians, rich people, homeless people, etc. Is it appropriate to intend and work toward the salvation of homosexuals? Surely, we would agree that it is. Does Paul intend that we must become homosexuals in order to do so? Surely, he does not. It is not my intention to insult anyone’s intelligence by using such an extreme example but we must be aware of the potential for a misinterpretation that moves in the direction of this extreme. Consequently, I would suggest that, avoidance of conformity to the world stands as a modifier to becoming all things to all men.

Similarly, to “win”, “reach” or “save” a particular segment of society does not require that we condone the practice or lifestyle of those in question. Whether we condone (or even accept) someone’s lifestyle must be based on the moral principles communicated through Scriptural revelation. For example, involvement in ministry to the “gay” community would include assisting them in understanding and forsaking this sexual aberration. It is understood as a departure from proper sexual behavior based on information the Designer of mankind communicates about our design, not on personal opinion and preference. In a morally neutral realm such as, for example, ministering to professional athletes, considerations of this sort are not a factor. As well, we should realize that we do not “win” people simply by accepting them or becoming their friend. This is not what it means to be all things to all men. There is a need for them to turn from that which is the source of their bondage or separation from God and turn to the source of their deliverance. Part of the process necessary for this to happen is proclamation regarding the difference between their current, inappropriate status and the condition God requires for their pardon, deliverance and salvation. A wrong or shortsighted idea of salvation and the mission / ministry of the Christian community, simply assuming that engaging a particular people is our goal, having no further strategy for genuine conversion, will prove unproductive.

We must also consider cultural practices that are not directly addressed in Scripture. Certain internal dispositions and external practices are clearly condemned in God’s word. When dealing with issues that are not spoken of directly, we must learn to identify and apply principles from Scripture. Two comments are in order regarding this idea. First, an imbalanced emphasis on the narrative reading of Scripture can potentially lead to a rejection of the propositional or principle dimension of Scripture. I believe it is best to take a both/and approach as opposed to an either/or approach. We gain much by appreciating the narrative aspect to the Biblical text. It is also true that there are significant propositional teachings and foundational principles in the Biblical text. Second, as we indentify principles, our ultimate goal must be to please God, not appeal to people. This point is of greater importance than might be initially realized. In 1 Thessalonians 2:4 Paul states, "…we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not as pleasing men but God, who examines our hearts." Within the context of aiming to please God supremely, Paul sought to be “pleasing” to people in order to win some from conformity to the world to conformity to the likeness of God and the principles of His kingdom. Consequently, Paul expresses this idea in such a statement as, "Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved." (1 Co.10:31-33, NASB)

Please allow me to emphasize the challenge we are considering. First, try to ruminate upon becoming all things to all people, giving offense to no one. My experience is that what pleases person/group A, offends person/group B. Considering the context of our main text, those offended by eating meat would be upset if one did so while those who concluded it was okay to do so would potentially become upset with one who abstained, considering it hypocritical to abandon one’s freedom under the pressure of “legalists.” Such situations, in real-life, tend to be a “lose-lose” arrangement. Second, consider the difficult balance between pleasing God and being non-offensive to all people. A simple reading of the Gospels or the book of Acts will show that Jesus and the disciples/apostles were often offensive to someone! It is not that they intended to be offensive but it is often the case that practicing moral convictions will produce such a response. Is the answer to this dilemma the abandonment of moral conviction, as is the tendency of some?

Regarding the issue of identifying and applying principles (as suggested above), I will offer two examples. Scripture does not make a direct statement about the appropriate length of a woman’s dress. In the cultural and historical context of Scripture, such a consideration was unnecessary. However, as one resolves to please God supremely, one must take into consideration the importance of Scriptural teaching on being chaste, reverent and modest. This, obviously, is not the “rule-book” approach some look for and, on the other hand, some resist, it is a “principle approach” which involves humility and a willingness to avoid being governed by personal preference and mere self-interest, doing one’s best to operate in wisdom and self-sacrifice for the ultimate purpose of pleasing God and advancing His kingdom. Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 2:9-10 has application to his context/culture and to ours as he writes, “…I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments; but rather by means of good works, as befits women making a claim to godliness.” What we see in such a statement and in the main text we currently consider is the need to govern our liberties for the highest good we can identify. Another example is that of drinking alcohol. Scripture does not say, “Drinking alcohol is a sin.” Consider the dilemma. In dealing with those who have legal and moral problems associated with the abuse of alcohol, it would be quite unwise and unloving for me to exercise my liberty to drink wine at dinner because of the influence it would have on the ministry of encouraging their deliverance. My point is simply this; principle, based on Scriptural data, must be our guide. This requires a sincere effort to set aside personal preference and mere self-interest, identify parameters consistent with that which is pleasing to God, taking into consideration cultural factors in light of Scriptural data and acting upon one’s conclusions.

What Does He Mean?

It is often the case that the Biblical truth Christians possess and practice, in word and deed, never benefit those in need because of the distance between the Christian and those in need[1]. Without reservation, I state that as we gain an understanding of our culture we must also find means to engage our culture, our “mission field” – those we aiming to “win” or “save”, to use Paul’s language from the text. However, we must also have safeguards that prevent us from erasing the line of distinction between “us” and “them.” This statement is tantamount to a central concern, increasingly in the form of urgency, that has gripped my mind, not simply in a sterile, “armchair theologian” perspective but as I interact with living beings, especially within the “youth” culture. I believe the spirit of what Paul is communicating in the Corinthian passage is that we need to understand and connect with our “audience.” To reemphasize and contrast the point I made above, we are not to become our audience, we are to find a way to understand what makes them “tick” and gain a hearing associated with personal contact and interaction. To put it into terms that might even push the envelope further, we must be able to relate to our audience, our culture, those we are aiming to “win” without losing sight of their need for God and His truth. We could do a detailed grammatical study of each word and phrase in the aforementioned passage (which is a very good thing to do) but I am certain that we will not arrive at anything that contradicts what I’ve just suggested. In an attitude of love for God and love (love not being a sloppy agape) for our “neighbor” (the people-group in question) we are to govern our liberties based upon a wise and righteous approach designed to engage those in question for the purpose of helping them turn from that which prevents proper relationship with God and turn toward that which restores and delivers. Paul’s point in the passage is that though there is freedom to eat meat sold in the marketplace that had previously been used in pagan religious rituals, abstain from this freedom if it hinders the process of encouraging the Christian conversion or growth of others. This context has nothing to do with engaging in questionable or unacceptable cultural practices in order to gain acceptance by the culture! This passage has nothing to do with rejecting Christian standards because the culture has trouble with them. The instruction in the passage pertains to setting aside that which is acceptable for Christians in order to reach the lost or weak. Please ponder the previous three statements carefully.

As we turn our attention to the passage quoted from the letter to the Romans, we see Paul comparing two possibilities. Of course, we understand that he is addressing slightly different concerns in a slightly different context, which is always important to factor in. However, the point I hope to make is not drastically affected by this consideration. Paul contrasts being conformed to being transformed. The conforming of which he speaks is conformation to “the world.” The transformation of which he speaks is transformation of “the mind.” I suggest that both of these ideas, separately and, particularly, in relation to one another, are pertinent to the issue of our exposure to and influence by “postmodern” philosophy and culture in our current age. “The world” is an overarching term that refers to any and all groups of people that live by and/or encourage a philosophy, ideology, worldview or lifestyle that is inconsistent with the principles (a very important word) of God’s design for life on planet earth. We might recall that John says, “Do not love the world nor the things in the world”. There will always be, in every generation, ideas offered by various individuals and groups about fundamental “truths” and the way life on planet earth is to be carried out. “The world” would have reference to ideas contrary to those of the kingdom of God. We could go through a list such as Nihilism, Marxism, humanism, pragmatism, Buddhism, etc. In making such distinction we run the risk of being perceived as and accused of being arrogant and divisive. It is interesting how Paul, in this passage, suggests that we avoid being conformed to the world and successfully “prove” what the will of God is. It is by way of transformation of the mind. It has something to do with the way we think and what we think. Is this statement addressed only to intellectuals, college graduates and university professors? No, it is addressed to “common” people who possess a mind that has been designed in the image of the mind of God. The call is to use our minds in a manner consistent with its design and the Designer. This involves resisting the mental influences that are not “from the Father” (1 Jn.2:16) and filling one’s mind with something we have traditionally called “truth.”

It is quite easy to recognize that Scripture makes many references to truth. Truth plays a very central role in things pertaining to God and His kingdom. I have noticed that some people seem to assume that truth plays no factor in salvation. It seems as though there is often an assumption that correcting one’s relationship with God is one thing and accumulating truth is another thing and they are completely separate and distinct with no overlap. I find such a position hard to reconcile with statements like that in 2 Thessalonians 2:8-10 that reads, “And then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved." Another passage that has impressed me in this way (though it does not use the word “truth”, it emphasizes the importance of what we teach) is, “Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things; for as you do this you will insure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.” (1 Timothy 4:16, NASB)

With the above brief emphasis on truth, it is reasonable to conclude that this is something Satan will target. His means of attack are often counterfeit and if, for example, you are to counterfeit money, you don’t want the end product to look like monopoly money, you want it to be as close to the real thing as possible while not having the value of the genuine. Much Marxist literature sounds quite Christian (which, by the way, is a not a completely dead issue). As we follow the shifts in the trends characteristic of three huge ages (pre-modernism, modernism and postmodernism) I am convinced that a concern we must not take lightly is the inroads “postmodern” philosophers have made when it comes to eroding and discrediting the concept of truth. This is largely in response to certain failures of the modern age but, nonetheless, it becomes a concern because truth is so central to Biblical Christianity. Is it a good thing to understand what the “postmodern” is saying? Yes, but we must proceed with, not only caution but also much wisdom and discernment. I have personally had experiences with professing Christians when a sort of antagonism is launched toward those who speak of truth or of knowing truth and a defense is raised in support of the “postmodern” philosopher.

Conclusion

Becoming all things to all people does not involve abandoning truth, Scriptural principle, moral convictions or Christianity (properly defined). In its context, the phrase refers to modifying one’s freedom in order to remove obstacles that could potentially hinder one’s ability to be a positive influence on those we are aiming to “reach”, “win” or “save”, those who are in one state but need to move beyond that state to another – to help the unconverted become converted and the weak become strong.

[1] As a side-note, I have become aware of the fact that the “us / them” language has become quite offensive to both “us” and “them.” I will return to and address this in due time.

HOW LOVE WINS - Part Two

2011-05-25T14:10:00.000-07:00

Illustration #1

The following illustrations are to help clarify the idea that love can be manifest in both “kindness” and “severity”, as expressed in article #1 of this series.

The previous church of which I was pastor met in the gymnasium of a local Christian school. Each Sunday we would arrive early and prepare the empty room for the upcoming church service. Imagine if I were to arrive early, enter the gymnasium and find a five-year-old boy standing in the middle of the room. Realizing I had never seen him before, I concluded that he and his parents were visiting. I, consequently, approached him in a slow, very mild and gentle fashion, cautiously extending my hand to greet him and introduce myself. “Good morning, I’m Pastor Mick. It’s nice to have you here”, I say in a welcoming manner. According to my experience, I find that most people view such behavior as a demonstration of kindness. If, on the other hand, upon seeing this young boy, I were to get as far away from him as the room allows, run toward him as fast as I can and, when six or seven feet away, dive through the air, crashing into him, sending both of us sliding across the floor and into the block wall on the other side of the gym, would you consider this an act of kindness? The answer I generally receive upon asking this question is that this would not fit under the category of kindness. Would you, on the other hand, consider this to be severe? This scenario helps us see that the use of the word “kindness” generally refers to loving, gentle and reasonable behavior while “severity” is thought of as mean, erratic, unreasonable behavior. There is, therefore, a tendency to associate kindness with love while viewing severity with a sense of disdain. This is an error that needs to be avoided. Let me demonstrate by simply changing the scenario. Imagine that it is Monday morning and I am walking down the sidewalk on my way to buy a morning newspaper. As I walk along, I look to my left, across a field that borders the edge of town. Thereupon I see the same young boy standing on a railroad track with his back to an oncoming train. Upon seeing him I turn and begin across the field, slowly approaching him in a very mild and gentle fashion, cautiously extending my hand to greet him. As I get six or seven feet away, the collision between the speeding train and the young boy brings the scene to an end. Would you consider this approach to be and act of kindness? The very behavior previously viewed as an act of love is now seen to be foolish and unloving. On the other hand, given the same situation, what if I were to see this young boy, begin to run toward him as fast as I can and, when six or seven feet away from him, dive through the air, crashing into him, sending both of us sliding across stones, beaten and bruised, to safety. Would you consider this severe behavior to be an act of kindness? Would you consider this an act of love? The obvious point that we need to be sensitive to is that one’s situation or condition impacts whether appropriate, loving treatment can be gentle (in the gymnasium) or whether appropriate, loving treatment needs to be severe (on the train tracks). Too often, naïve Christians (and people in general) assume that severe treatment is outside the bounds of love. This can be a deadly mistake. We often force a definition upon the word “love” that is shackled with our extremely limited sense of appropriateness, subjecting Scripture to our magnificent human wisdom as opposed to growing in wisdom through the enlightenment gained through Scripture. The goal of love is the highest good identifiable. To arrive at an understanding of the best end (highest good) and to choose the most appropriate means to promote that end requires wisdom. In a sense, that’s the very definition of wisdom. To live a life of love requires wisdom regarding the choice of that which is truly in the best interest of a person or of people. To simply assume that gentle treatment is always and automatically love is simply wrong. Love will always attempt to be as gentle as possible but will move along the scale toward “severe kindness” as the situation demands. We might say that “kindness” is the rule and “severity” the exception but we also might find that “severity”, though the exception, is more often needed with certain people in certain situations. Though love will not treat others more severely than is necessary, neither will it treat them more gently than is needed. Love, consequently, will discipline from the very same motive it forgives. Charles Finney has said, “It is one of the most shallow of dreams, that the Divine character is all softness and sweetness, in all its manifestations and in all circumstances.”

HOW LOVE WINS

2011-05-23T03:17:00.000-07:00

Bell’s book stirred controversy. I’ve not read it and will likely do so, eventually, only out of curiosity. This is not a commentary on Bell or his book. Nevertheless, it has been a longstanding concern of mine that “love”, being a word that describes a foundational dimension of God’s character and the kingdom of God, be defined carefully, seeking to capture the Biblical picture in its fullness. I am of the opinion that Satan will attempt to distort things of such importance and that popular assumptions regarding love are quite deficient. In fact, I observe massive efforts from segments of the Christian community to redefine a great number of aspects regarding Christianity and some of this is based on shallow assumptions about the nature of love. Though we are never above reform and correction, any efforts to reform must be approached with maturity and wisdom or the results will weaken and devastate. The alarm's been sounded, the bell's been rung. Regardless of what Bell sets forth in his best seller, I would like to offer some thoughts about how love wins. I intend to offer a series of short articles that work toward this conclusion.

God is Love (1 John 4:8, 16)

Love is, indeed, the crowning moral characteristic of God. Love is a moral characteristic. It relates to what one does with the natural capacities one possesses. We should understand all of the other moral attributes of God as attributes of love. God intended that love be the crowning characteristic of the human race. This is true because we are created in the image of God. We possess all of the qualities and capacities needed for this to be our crowning characteristic. The practice or demonstration of love depends upon how one uses the qualities and capacities one possesses. The existence (practice or demonstration) of love requires moral freedom. Love cannot be coerced; one must be free to respond to others in love or refuse to do so. Love is not primarily a feeling, it is an intelligent resolve to purpose and pursue the highest good possible. When such a resolve exists, an intelligent evaluation of all factors associated with specific circumstances under address is in order. Love, therefore, is an extremely complex (not simplistic) action in which to engage. God consistently governs Himself and His kingdom by love. God is love.

A challenge we face is to grow in our understanding of love by navigating and combining ideas that are, in a sense, instinctive and data we gather from Scriptural revelation. Everyone has a sense of what love is. However, we must modify and correct our sense according to the revelation that God has given of Himself and of this issue.

Kindness and Severity (Severe Kindness) (Romans 11:22)

Many people have a very ethereal, fairy tale concept of love. The word “love” conjures up images of an encouraging smile, a supportive wink, a pat on the back and a Hallmark card; all positive, soft and sentimental – an all inclusive hug. This is what some refer to as “warm fuzzies” or sloppy agape. This is a very one-sided (if accurate at all) concept of love. Though 1 Jn.4:8 & 16 clearly state that “God is love”, Ro.11:22 says, “Behold then the kindness and severity of God.” This challenges us to understand that there is potentially a “kind” and a “severe” dimension to love. What does this mean and what does it “look” like? In the immediate context of the passage in question, it refers to being “cut off” or “grafted in” to God’s family. Depending on the circumstances and situations under address, love will take on varying degrees of either kindness or severity (what I often refer to as severe kindness). This is an extremely important perspective with which we must cope. Most people have little trouble relating to the “kindness” aspect of love but stumble quite severely over the severe aspect of love. A failure to consider the balance and range this perspective of love involves will lead to a very imbalanced and harmful concept of love in which “cutting off” is inconceivable. Consider the following visual aid.

In any situation addressed, love involves concluding where, in the range of possibilities, one should “fall” on this scale as all conditions are taken into consideration in order to promote the highest possible good. The upcoming article in this series will offer two illustrations intended to provide a degree of clarification to this consideration.

Severe Kindness

GIANTS IN THE LAND – A REVISITATION

2011-05-04T02:29:00.000-07:00

Before moving on to the next point (modernisms ahistorical universality), I would like to offer a statement of review and clarification. The consideration of postmodernism, in comparison to modernism, is intended to provide perspective regarding the cultural atmosphere in which our current “search” for truth takes place. I increasingly suspect that postmodernism is actually not post anything, it is more like twistmodernism, just a new twist on old thoughts. In the last two entries, we considered the postmodern reaction to foundationalism (certain beliefs are known because of certain prior beliefs or presuppositions – a way of avoiding infinite regress of thought) and the reliance upon method in one’s research or investigation of reality / truth. In a book entitled, Philosophy Without Foundations: Rethinking Hegal, author William Maker writes, “Because the rejection of foundationalism is conjoined with the claim that knowledge is determined by the context in which the knower is located, antifoundationalism generally can be said to endorse holism, that conception of knowledge according to which truth is defined not in terms of correspondence to objects but as the coherence of claims within the frame of reference defined by the tradition, style of discourse, or set of linguistic or social practices in which the knower is located.” Many things could be said at this point but, wanting to make one simple point I would suggest that this is not ultimately post or anti anything as much as it is a redefinition of the foundation upon which knowledge is built and “truth” is sought. The challenge that arises is that it erodes, denies, or attempts to eliminate other foundations upon which others have built. This has a huge, negative impact when it comes to Biblical Christianity. Certainly, I am not suggesting that cultural considerations are of no importance. Any good hermeneutics instruction will clarify this issue. However, making the cultural consideration the foundation for truth is a HUGE mistake that has HUGE implications and ramifications regarding the Biblical text. In a sense, I am shocked that such great numbers of people would “buy into” this concept as suggested by a handful of contemporary philosophers!

Regarding the issue of reliance upon methodological procedure, we run into a similar idea. Method has not actually been abandoned; there has been the replacement of one method for another method. Postmodernism is not actually post-method, it is only a new method of dealing with (in many cases denying) reality. The question to address is whether it is a better, or even good, method. I would suggest that postmodernism has drawn many unto a foundation that will prove worthy of collapse with methods unable to effectively analyze truth claims (a bold, un-validated claim at this point).

“Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock. And everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does not act upon them, will be like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and it fell, and great was its fall.” (Matthew 7:24-27, NASB)

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, NASB)

“Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, ‘If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.’” (John 8:31-32, NASB)

GIANTS IN THE LAND - METHODS & MADNESS

2011-04-26T05:29:00.000-07:00

Modernism…
…focused on method in reference to arriving at truth. As a statement of clarification, I am not attempting to defend modernism against postmodernism. Ultimately, Biblical Theism transcends any and all cultural atmospheres produced by philosophy. There is potential overlapping in regard to specific points but as a “system” of thought or overall perspective, my premise is that Biblical Theism captures the real and true picture. Of course, it takes study and effort to understand and refine this perspective but I maintain that it is, whether we believe or understand it, the TRUTH.

Regarding the issue of method that is characteristic of modernism, this is very much related to its shift toward naturalism and empiricism that comes with the age of science. The main point to be made regarding postmodernism is that the skepticism it has produced assumes that methods are merely efforts employed by specific communities (whites, males, conservatives, etc.) to further their agenda and are therefore simply self-serving. The postmodern conclusion is, therefore, to be done with the illusion that recognized methods employed for arriving at truth are actually objective and neutral and useful for leading one to Truth.

Surely, special interest groups can and have propagandized in subversive ways. However, the conclusion that this is all we have in the search for truth is a very extreme tendency. It must not be thought that every proponent of postmodernism fully embraces this approach in a practical way but it is the detrimental atmosphere of postmodernism which is influential. The fact is, postmoderns use this method to further the agenda of their community.

"Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless, and leads to the ruin of the hearers. Be diligent (study – KJV) to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth. But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness…" (2 Timothy 2:14-16, NASB)

GIANTS IN THE LAND - IF THE FOUNDATIONS ARE DESTROYED

2011-04-18T06:59:00.000-07:00

Modernism emphasized…

3. …foundationalism

Postmodernism is anti-foundational and emphasizes that epistemological foundations are, in a sense, arbitrary structures devised by finite, limited beings that do not aid in the process of arriving at “true truth.” Quoting from Francis Schaeffer (as I had in an earlier entry) in The God Who is There we read, “What were these presuppositions? The basic one was that there really are such things as absolutes. [Modernity or what Schaeffer referred to as the age of reason] accepted the possibility of an absolute in the area of Being (or knowledge), and in the area of morals. Therefore, because they accepted the possibility of absolutes, though people might have disagreed as to what these were, nevertheless they could reason together on the classical basis of antithesis. They took it for granted that if anything was true, the opposite was false. In morality, if one thing was right, its opposite was wrong. This little formula, ‘A is A’ and ‘if you have A, it is not non-A,’ is the first move in classical logic. If you understand the extent to which this no longer holds sway, you will understand our present situation.” It should be easy to see that assuming an anti-foundational position is worse than building upon the sand, it is an effort to build upon nothing, an impossible task. It is one thing to debate the nature of the right foundation but another thing to defend the lack of such. In fact, such a position, as with all false ideologies, is self-refuting in that the denial of a foundation is, in effect, a foundation.

“In the Lord I take refuge; how can you say to my soul, ‘Flee as a bird to your mountain; for, behold, the wicked bend the bow, they make ready their arrow upon the string, to shoot in darkness at the upright in heart. If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?’” (Psalm 11:1-3, NASB)

“According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But let each man be careful how he builds upon it. For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire.” (1 Corinthians 3:10-15, NASB)

“Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.’” (John 14:6, NASB)

GIANTS IN THE LAND - I AM COMMITTED TO NOT BEING COMMITTED TO ANYTHING BUT NON-COMMITMENT

2011-04-11T07:11:00.000-07:00

Modernism…
1. …begins with the finite “I” as opposed to the infinite God.

2. …sees epistemological certainty is both desirable and attainable.

Postmodernism lines up with number one above but, instead of correcting this inappropriate focus, pushes even further in the wrong direction. Modernism was a shift away from grounding the core of reality in the eternal, personal, Creator toward a man-centered perspective. Though it was not a shift that necessarily eliminated God, it surely displaced Him. Jewish philosopher Abraham Joshua Heschel once stated, "God is of no importance unless He is of supreme importance." As well, it was not a shift that eliminated the recognition of objective reality but it turned attention in the direction of subjectivity. Postmodernism, or what some have referred to as “late modernism”, moves further in this direction, leading some to deny the existence of absolute, objective truth or, at least, assume a position that emphasizes the impossibility of knowing absolute, objective truth. Whereas modernism insists that epistemological certainty is both desirable and attainable, postmodernism tends to emphasize that it is neither desirable or attainable. Such certainty is seen as narrow-minded and discriminatory prejudice and, therefore, is to be avoided. Though it is true that there are subjective limitations in dealing with objective reality, postmodern thought allows such limitations to consume any ability to deal with objective reality, claiming that such certainty is arrogant, bigoted, “out of date”, totalizing, manipulative and controlling. It is thought that insisting upon such a thing as THE truth eliminates the richness of diversity and is therefore undesirable.

Philosophic and cultural shifts are surely characteristic realities of life on planet earth. My main concern relates to the impact such thinking has upon the mission of the church. Under the guise of “engaging the culture” (a legitimate and necessary practice within the mission of the church) we run the risk of simply reflecting or becoming the culture. If Christians abandon belief in objective reality and absolutes, we have no mission. If having no mission is seen as preferable due to the desire to avoid being perceived as too narrow in our beliefs (arrogant, bigoted, “out of date”, totalizing, manipulative and controlling) we have simply erased the line of distinction between Christianity and everything/anything else. This obviously eliminates the mission of the church. What we have at this point is placing more value on human/earthly culture than on the kingdom of God. Human culture and opinion transcends Biblical revelation and, therefore, such an emphasis as “our citizenship is in heaven” or “seek first His kingdom and His righteousness” becomes subject to the higher standard of “how will I be perceived if I emphasize such ideas?” There is, therefore, nothing to actually believe in, be committed to or stand for.

GIANTS IN THE LAND - WORDS AIN'T WHAT THEY USED TO BE

2011-04-09T04:49:00.000-07:00

The German, French and Anglo-American academic communities began a trickle-down effect that contributed to major, influential epistemological changes. As we proceed, it is important to realize that there are shards of truth in most of the ideas propounded. Effectively separating the shards of truth from body of lies is an overwhelmingly monstrous challenge.

Out of France we can track movements that emphasize that language eliminates the possibility of objective, absolute understanding of truth. The relationship between words and what they describe are so arbitrary and changed by usage that it’s useless to maintain that we can actually arrive, conclusively, at the intended meaning of the source. Meaning becomes objectively impossible and we are left with pure subjectivism. Michel Foucault suggests that the postmodern motive is to sexually and morally set people free from the bondage of oppression so getting rid of meaning and moral “standards” serves this purpose. Deconstructionists also suggest that what is assumed to be the meaning of a body of writing is merely camouflage for some form of manipulation and control since all cultures are inherently oppressive of some factions within the culture. Language always reflects an underlying effort to engage in sexual, gender, economic, religious, political oppression by using, for example, generic words (signifiers) like “he” to oppress women.

The Anglo-American contribution to this shift is largely seen in the “social sciences.” It is thought that “meaning” is defined in cultural groups or, what is known as, interpretive communities. We only believe what we believe because of the group within which one has been raised. Therefore, no group has the right to tell any other group that one is right and one is wrong, we all simply have our interpretation of “reality.”

For the common person, such ideas likely seem quite foolish, however, this type of thought is quite forcefully and directly propagated in universities that train the next generation of teacher, politicians and, yes, pastors. It is packaged in ways that the young and naïve who meander off to university will ingest like the high sodium content of a cafeteria lunch.

GIANTS IN THE LAND - WINDS OF CHANGE AND SANDS OF TIME

2011-04-04T05:07:00.000-07:00

Modernism…

1. …begins with the finite “I” as opposed to infinite God

2. …assumes epistemological certainty is both desirable and attainable

3. …employs foundationalism

4. …focuses on method

5. …embraces the assumption of “a-historical universality”

6. …encouraged the rise (increase) of philosophical naturalism

With these six prevailing characteristics of modernism identified by D. A. Carson before us, we can consider certain aspects of the epistemological shift toward postmodernism. Knowing that history does not provide sharp edges to its distinctions, we can say, in a general way, that a postmodern epistemology reverses or revises the six points above. As these blog entries are not designed to provide great amounts of detail I will simply say that influences coming from many sources resulted in weakening longstanding claims in the area of ethics, meaning, truth and value. The Romantic Age in literature shifted attention away from placing value in truth and meaning, turning it to beauty and expression. The rise of existentialism shifted attention away from placing value in truth and meaning, validating our human value in experience and decisions (decisions “unhindered” by moral restrictions). The German, French and Anglo-American academic communities began a trickle-down effect that contributed to major, influential epistemological changes. As we proceed, it is important to realize that there are shards of truth in most of the ideas propounded. Effectively separating the shards of truth from body of lies is an overwhelmingly monstrous challenge.

From Germany, we trace changes in hermeneutical considerations. According to this perspective, one’s background, race, past experience, age, etc. change the way we interpret any text, making it nearly impossible to arrive at objectivity. The nature of “self” changes our conclusions in such a way that no one is neutral. I change the text and the text changes me in a spiraling, irresolvable way. This obviously alters assumptions related to foundationalism and the previous emphasis on accepted methods of study. It is no longer simply “text, tools, conclusion.” We can only expect to arrive at our idea of truth. This model erodes or, when pushed far enough, eliminates objective truth.

In my next entry, I’ll consider the contribution to this epistemological shift coming from France.

GIANTS IN THE LAND - PHILOSOPHICAL NATURALISM

2011-03-30T06:18:00.000-07:00

Carson’s sixth point is that the modern age saw an increase of philosophical naturalism. This position assumes that matter, energy, space and time is all there is. Increasingly, it was thought that the study of such would give us answers to age-old human questions. Though this did not immediately result in enmity between Christianity and science, it seems to be linked to an increase in Deism and Atheism. When, finally, Charles Darwin set forth his propositions, a rejection of Theism became, for many, intellectually respectable. That these developments are characteristic of modernism is quite important.

Let us realize that the atmosphere we are raised in influences certain basic assumptions we embrace. Let us also realize, as a bit of a side issue, that an influence is different from a cause. Many people accept elements of naturalism as though there are no alternatives, as though it’s foolish to believe anything else. What needs to be understood is that naturalism has limitations which make it unfit to answer certain questions in certain areas of life. For very good insights about this I refer the reader to the following link: A Matter of Gravity

GIANTS IN THE LAND - AHISTORICAL UNIVERSALITY

2011-03-29T05:38:00.000-07:00

Carson’s fifth point about modernism is that it assumed ahistorical universality. Again, I emphasize that the factors we are currently considering are intended to provide a backdrop for understanding factors about postmodernism as it influences our current age. That modernism assumed ahistorical universality means that the truth it sought was seen as objective and universal. There was variation in the approach taken to arrive at such truth but it was seen as something there to be approached. It wasn’t true because we made it true and it was not altered by our approach or other factors related to history, culture, language, race, etc. That’s not to say that such factors have no influence in one’s approach, but the truth being sought is objective and universal, beyond such factors. It was not assumed that such factors possessed the inherent capacity to prevent one from arriving at the objective, universal truth that was present.

By way of a closing commentary, I must allude to the errant assumption of modernism that such truth is to be discovered by purely human reason and scientific method. This is a contrast between Biblical Theism and modernism. Does the failure to arrive at truth by way of human reason and scientific method justify the conclusion that we are to discard objective, universal truth? How much influence does history, culture, language and race have upon our ability to know the truth? The answer to these questions is extremely important.

GIANTS IN THE LAND - ARRIVING AT TRUTH

2011-03-25T03:30:00.000-07:00

Continuing with the observations D. A. Carson makes about the modern age, his fourth point is that it has a focus on method. As we consider these six observations, I think it’s worth noting that it is very often the case that a particular thing, in and of itself, might not be bad or wrong. The problem is (and I’m increasingly convinced that this is where we get ourselves in trouble), once un-tethered from a basic Biblical worldview, we find ourselves placing hope and trust in wrong things, the wrong way, for the wrong reason. This is true in little and big ways. As I’ve said before, our task is to put things in their proper place.

The focus on method characteristic of the modern age assumes the systematic formula of Common foundation + common (agreed upon) methods = knowledge, truth, conclusion. In the academic community, one was to state expectations and assumptions, clarify methods of procedure and produce conclusions. It was often the case that conclusions (good or bad) would be nullified if one’s methods for producing said conclusions were flawed or unacceptable. We can see how this places tremendous trust in method and sets the stage for great expectations from scientific investigation and empiricism.

Returning to the third observation regarding foundationalism, we can see that a change of foundation has a huge impact upon this formula. If the foundation includes God, intelligent design or recognition of reason, the stage is set for one’s methods producing considerably different conclusions than if the foundation excluded the aforementioned. Generally speaking, it is the case that methods will change more often and more easily than will foundations. However, when considering the postmodern age (which is ultimately my intention), we are looking at shifts in the foundation. In the modern age, the error is simply too much trust in human reason, independent of God. Though God was often included, He was often not in His proper place.

I conclude with a caution. It could well be argued that Descartes had good intentions as he attempted to find a way to encourage a common foundation upon which all could agree to proceed. However, minor shifts and “compromises” opened the door to rather unfortunate long-term results. As my ultimate interest relates to advancing the kingdom of God as opposed to advancing scientific or philosophic progress, I am cautiously suspicious that many of the tactics employed by the church in our age to create common ground upon which to engage and reach our postmodern culture will open the door to rather unfortunate long-term results.

Chameleon or Muskoxen

2011-03-24T09:09:00.000-07:00

In a lecture on the need and appropriate place for apologetics within the Christian church, Dick Keyes cautions believers about two unproductive extremes. He illustrates such extremes by using the behavior of two different animals, the chameleon and the muskoxen. Before expounding upon such behavior and drawing the comparison to the church, I would like to offer an observation pertaining to unhealthy extremes. In the process of finding a healthy, balanced, productive response to engaging the world, as we are to be in the world but not of the world, individuals and corporate bodies (applicable to “movements” also) tend to experience, what I refer to as, the pendulum factor. This is a tendency to swing from one extreme to another extreme in reactionary response to the previous extreme (often involving generational factors). Arriving at that healthy, balanced, productive posture is too often allusive. I have been observing this effect in significant measure in our current emerging church, emerging culture, postmodern Machiavellian atmosphere.

Likely characteristic of mainline churches fearfully responding to the threats of modernity is the Muskoxen Factor. The muskoxen have a distinctive defensive behavior that when the herd is threatened, the bulls and cows will face outward with their horns forward to form a stationary ring or semicircle around the calves. Their intention is obviously to keep intruders out in order to prevent their young from being exposed to danger. This behavior has its place in their environment and a similar reaction might have a proper, limited application within the church. However, for the body of Christ to assume such a posture as the rule, as opposed to the exception, proves unacceptable and unproductive. One difference we might mention that is often characteristic of Christians who assume this defensive position is that they are facing inward, not outward. The swing of the pendulum miraculously turns the muskox into a chameleon! The characteristic of a chameleon that is applicable in this illustration is that it undergoes changes that are generated by its environment, adapting and conforming to the surroundings for assumed benefit. This is the tendency of the postmodern pendulum. This is a swing that is taking a segment of the church on a ride to another, careless and unhealthy extreme.

We are to engage the world. We are to reach the world. We are to transform the world. If we are so busy protecting ourselves from the world that we never engage them we have no hope of bringing needed transformation. If we become like them in order to engage them, we have no hope of transforming them. In fact, the only transformation that we can expect is the one that we experience in becoming like the world. The chameleon approach is often justified with a reference to the Apostle Paul’s statement, “I have become all things to all men.” (1 Corinthians 9:22) Of course, in isolation we can make a lot of passages mean a lot of things that are clearly contrary to or beyond the intention of the writer in question. Could Paul be encouraging the chameleon approach? We must remember that this is the same man who said, “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Romans 12:2, NASB) We must recognized that the Apostle Paul is the one who “did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Acts 20:20-21, NASB) When distinctions are lost (as with the chameleon approach), understanding of and the need for repentance is also lost. When this is lost, all is lost.

Post Modern and/or Post Christian (Part 2)

2011-03-22T05:16:00.000-07:00

Having emphasized the need for a true Christian to love and trust God supremely (all of your heart) and love and trust His written revelation, I would like to add another important “component” to this arrangement. Jesus (remember Him) said, “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. After a little while the world will behold Me no more; but you will behold Me; because I live, you shall live also. In that day you shall know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him.”

“Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, ‘Lord, what then has happened that You are going to disclose Yourself to us, and not to the world?’”

“Jesus answered and said to him, ‘If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me. These things I have spoken to you, while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.’” (John 14:16-26, NASB)

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, as we exercise responsibility on our level, to read and study the Word of God, the Holy Spirit engages in a ministry designed to teach us and lead us into an understanding of the truth. This could very well be a factor that the average non-Christian deconstructionist has not taken into consideration and of which he/she knows nothing of.

The Word of God is “…inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, NASB)

The Spirit of God will “guide you into all the truth.” (John 16:13)

“I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths.” (2 Timothy 4:1-4, NASB)

Post Modern and/or Post Christian

2011-03-21T11:48:00.000-07:00

I have been expressing a concern about the impact that the cultural atmosphere of postmodernity is having upon the Christian church. When teaching a series called Elements of Evangelism, I have always emphasized that evangelism is a two-way street. The professing Christian is susceptible to intellectual, cultural and moral influence as they interact with the world around them. Some segments of the church respond to this by avoiding significant engagement with the “world.” This is not the answer. On the other side of this picture, there is the tendency to simply embrace everyone and everything as though there is no difference between the world and the church. There seems to be an assumption that if we only accept others, we’ve made positive headway. Both of these approaches will prove unproductive. It is my concern that we have experienced a homogenization that has had strange results for both our culture and the church. The phrase post Christian is likely the best phrase to describe both our culture and much of what is going on in the church. The strange affect that religious and moral relativism has on our culture is that we can use the word Christian to describe things that are not actually Christian. People need not have as their supreme allegiance a love of God in order to be a Christian. They need not have a resolve that the Bible contains (whether they understand them or not) principles by which we are to structure all aspects of individual and corporate life. Portions of the church increasingly shy away from making clear distinctions between a Christian and non-Christian, what is right and wrong, good and bad. For many churches, this is a central tactic in their church-growth formula. Others have rejected the term Christian because it conveys an unfavorable image in the mind of many. Unfortunately, the image of a Christian that replaces this tarnished image is based more on what our culture will be inclined to accept, not what Scripture communicates. In the process of engaging the culture, the two-way street factor has led to the church being shaped by and reflecting the culture instead of transforming the culture. In some cases, the very idea of evangelism is disdained as arrogant and belittling. Important and appropriate distinctions have been rejected in favor of an inappropriate and misguided view of tolerance that is incapable of transforming lives and improving cultural conditions.

The solution? We are in need of people whose love for and trust in God includes a love for and trust in His written revelation to mankind. We can philosophize and engage in various sociological attempts to expand the church but the greatest need we have is for people who are skilled in the use of Scripture to declare and expound upon the truth that sets people free. The church will only be as effective in its efforts to advance the kingdom of God as it is in effectively speaking the truth in love. This being the case, we can anticipate that truth will suffer attack in every age. The most challenging of these attacks is when the church itself, subtly or blatantly, tosses its own explosives into this battle against truth. In this age, the battlefield is covered by the hovering fog of postmodernism. As the church breaths in the haze and fumes floating across the battlefield becoming saturated by this postmodern mist, the battlefield becomes populated with one large homogenized army that fights against itself or fights against no one at all. Truth is compromised and distinctions are impossible to maintain. As those who embrace the reality that the Bible actually contains truth, we recognize the hermeneutical, exegetical and etymological challenges but we have not conceded to the deconstructionist influence that convinces people that it is not possible to arrive at truth. The solution? A genuine, intelligent commitment to the Living God and to His Living Word that produces greater numbers of capable expositors of Biblical truth in season and out of season.

“‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I would that you were cold or hot. ‘So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.” (Revelation 3:15-16, NASB)

GIANTS IN THE LAND - BUILDING ON A FOUNDATION

2011-03-18T03:01:00.000-07:00

I have been considering six basic characteristics of modernity as identified by D. A. Carson. As a point of clarification, I must say that by using these basic conclusions by Carson I do not want the reader to assume I agree with his broader theological perspectives. I have, however, found this effort to summarize the modern and postmodern ages is quite impressive and helpful. This being the case I will briefly address the third feature of modernity which is foundationalism, an epistemological approach that assumes certain self-evident beliefs as opposed to engaging in infinite regress or the need to justify every proposition stated. Though Descartes is known for a process which involved doubting everything or refusing to assume anything to be true, he offered, as a first principle upon which all can proceed, the idea that the fact that he doubted and thought proved that he existed (dubito ergo cogito ergo sum, most commonly stated as simply cogito ergo sum). This has become foundational in western, modern thought. Without imbibing a network of complex ideas, my main interest at this point is to emphasize that in the modern age of reasoning there were certain foundational presuppositions from which answers about life were sought. Quoting from Francis Schaeffer in The God Who is There we read, “What were these presuppositions? The basic one was that there really are such things as absolutes. [Modernity or what Schaeffer referred to as the age of reason] accepted the possibility of an absolute in the area of Being (or knowledge), and in the area of morals. Therefore, because they accepted the possibility of absolutes, though people might have disagreed as to what these were, nevertheless they could reason together on the classical basis of antithesis. They took it for granted that if anything was true, the opposite was false. In morality, if one thing was right, its opposite was wrong. This little formula, ‘A is A’ and ‘if you have A, it is not non-A,’ is the first move in classical logic. If you understand the extent to which this no longer holds sway, you will understand our present situation.” Though people might disagree on many things, they operated from the same foundation as they investigated and discussed such things. The shift that eventually moved away from this perspective Schaeffer referred to as “the line of despair.” This will enter into our thoughts about postmodernism when we begin considering its characteristics.

GIANTS IN THE LAND - THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE

2011-03-16T04:44:00.000-07:00

The second characteristic of the modern age to which Dr. D. A. Carson alludes is that epistemological certainty is both desirable and attainable. In modernism, there is an abiding sense that human beings can and ought to have access to objective truth. The various philosophic structures that modern man has developed are founded on this assumption, that there is objective truth that we can arrive at purely by human reasoning. In the video series, How Should We Then Live, Francis Schaeffer illustrates this by drawing a circle in the sand that is crossed out and replaced by another circle that is crossed out and replaced by another circle, on and on. There are two problems that we should be aware of concerning this issue. First, it is a mistake to start and proceed purely by human reason, unaided by written revelation from the Infinite, Personal Creator. It is not that human reasoning is bad or wrong in and of itself, nor that truth is unattainable; it is simply that without the fixed reference that God, in His love and wisdom provides, man wanders astray too easily. This leads to the second problem which relates to a response that arose due to the failure of arriving at an agreed upon “circle”. Philosophers concluded that reason would not lead us to absolute truth and therefore “abandoned” reason as the pathway to enlightenment. I put abandoned in quotations because man never truly abandoned reason since reason was involved in determining what unreasonable approach we would try next. The aforementioned step produced a wide variety of manifestations both pragmatically and philosophically. This step, as well, contributed to the gradual undoing of the modern age and the rise of the postmodern age. Schaeffer, in the teaching referred to above, speaks of this in terms of The Age of Non Reason and the Age of Fragmentation. In my next entry I will consider the role that foundationalism played in the modern age.

“‘Come now, and let us reason together,’ Says the Lord, ‘Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.’” (Isaiah 1:18, NASB)

GIANTS IN THE LAND - RAIDERS OF THE LOST CAUSE

2011-03-12T07:09:00.000-08:00

In my previous post, I listed six observations that Dr. Don Carson identified about modernity in a lecture on postmodernism. The first of these six is that a modern epistemology begins with the finite “I” as opposed to the pre-modern epistemology that began with the infinite God. Often, this is presented in such a way that it appears to be a very strategic, distinct break from a previous way of thinking. There is good evidence that this shift was much more subtle and much less intended as a rejection of God, Christianity or religion in general. In The Theological Origins of Modernity, Michael Allen Gillespie states, “The argument presented in this book suggests that it is a mistake to imagine that modernity is in its origins and at its core atheistic, antireligious, or even agnostic. Indeed, I will show in what follows that from the very beginning modernity sought not to eliminate religion but to support and develop a new view of religion and its place in human life, and that it did so not out of hostility to religion but in order to sustain certain religious beliefs. As we shall see, modernity is better understood as an attempt to find a new metaphysical/theological answer to the question of the nature and relation of God, man, and the natural world that arose in the late medieval world as a result of a titanic struggle between contradictory elements within Christianity itself.” He goes on to state, “I will argue further that while this metaphysical/theological core of the modern project was concealed over time by the very sciences it produced, it was never far from the surface, and it continues to guide our thinking and action, often in ways we do not perceive or understand.”

Whether or not Gillespie effectively supports his case is up for debate but, personally, I believe there is validity to this perspective. As I see it, the pre-modern perspective that placed God at the center, though this is proper, had other weaknesses that led to the shift in question. Since literature, including the Bible, had limited access to the common person, religious ideas, and therefore faith, took on an increasing air of superstition. Carelessly and foolishly, certain practices were encouraged and embraced that had little or nothing to do with Biblical Christianity. However, for many, these practices began to characterize Christianity. It appears as though the added emphasis on human reason was aimed more at the superstitious elements of religious practice than at the core values and truths of a theistic epistemology. Unfortunately, the imbalance that eventually surfaced pit reason against faith and science against religion. This is an unnecessary and inappropriate imbalance. There is an appropriate relationship between faith and reason and, it is very much the case that science is best founded on a theistic worldview than an atheistic worldview.

I believe it is accurate to say that the epistemology of modernity began with the finite “I” as opposed to the infinite God but I also believe that the original efforts in this change of perspective were not intended to remove, ignore or eliminate God. It was and has proven to be an unfortunate and counterproductive shift. This brings me to a HUGE caution as I evaluate current trends in the church in regard to postmodernity. I am very concerned that many activities and efforts employed among the ranks of the church will prove to be unfortunate and counterproductive. Some of this can be relegated to an immature and thoughtless (or maybe wise in their own eyes) segment of the church but some of it is coming from the intellectual corners. Descartes and Hobbes were huge intellects but it is wrong to assume that intellectuals cannot mislead a generation and a culture. Often, tactics that seem good in the immediate have a terrible backlash.

“Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.” (Proverbs 29:18, KJV)

GIANTS IN THE LAND - LEARNING ABOUT SHIFTING

2011-03-11T13:48:00.000-08:00

The following entries are not designed to be a doctoral thesis, but rather an overview that is intended to aid in our understanding of current cultural trends so we, the church, can navigate tendencies to go astray and prepare to minister effectively to and within the current culture. I will draw from six prevailing characteristics of modernity and the parallels present in postmodernity offered by Dr. Don Carson. Since historical periods blend, overlap and run together, I am not going to attempt to apply specific dates. Neither will I attempt to identify individuals who contributed to shifts that take place.

In order to understand the age in which we live I will refer to basic factors of the pre-modern age, the modern age and the postmodern age. The point of reference, as we consider these ages, will be their basic approach toward epistemology (how we know what we know).

In the pre-modern age, dominate intellectuals operated from the foundation that there is a God who possesses knowledge of all that can be known. As human beings, God created us in such a way that, as He has disclosed His knowledge to us, we are capable of knowing some of what God knows. This disclosure comes through the natural order, written revelation, reason, community, church, etc. Though there was disagreement about how much and what was disclosed, the discussion proceeded from a common epistemological foundation.

It seems that it is generally assumed that this epistemological foundation was determined to be insufficient and strategically discarded but there is good evidence that it did not happen this way. I believe it is important to understand that the way in which the shift from a pre-modern to a modern epistemology took place was as a result of emphasizing the importance of operating from a common foundation. Due, however, to the increased numbers of deists and atheists in the scholastic community who, obviously, could not employ the aforementioned foundation, efforts were made to identify a common foundation from which the theist, deist and atheist could operate. As these efforts were made, a bridge was inadvertently built which led into a significant epistemological shift. The common ground between the theist, deist and atheist was “I”. It appears as though Rene Descartes, a devout Catholic, believed that we could arrive at the same conclusions from either foundation since truth is truth. In order to be inclusive, the foundation was shifted to “I” as expressed in his noted, “I think, therefore I am”. This inadvertently led to a considerable epistemological shift.

Before describing the characteristics of the modern age that emerged, I would like to suggest that certain efforts being made by the church to engage the culture could very likely encourage a further detrimental shift in conjunction with certain postmodern concepts. The problem is not the desire to engage the culture but, rather, potentially careless ways we do so. One final point before I list the six characteristic of the modern age that Don Carson highlights in a lecture on the topic of postmodernism. I believe Christians must be leery of being directly identified by or connected with modernity or postmodernity. Our efforts must be to avoid the trends that weaken our ability to arrive at truth and serve to correct, not identify with, such trends.

Six important characteristics that surfaced as a modern epistemology are as follows:
1. It begins with the finite “I” as opposed to infinite God
2. Epistemological certainty is both desirable and attainable
3. Foundationalism
4. Focus on method
5. The assumption of “a-historical universality”
6. The rise (increase) of philosophical naturalism

In upcoming entries, I will expound upon these six characteristics and then comment on their connection with postmodernity.

GIANTS IN THE LAND - NAVIGATING THE HIGHWAY TO TRUTH (Pr.16:17 & Is.35:8)

2011-03-09T08:34:00.000-08:00

I believe all truth, if it be truth, is God’s truth. In reference to moral and natural law, truth is a constant, an absolute. Let’s not confuse this with the use of the word truth as it applies to such things as, “It is true that I made crab bisque on Sunday”, a reference to an experience that became true once it happened. I believe the Bible contains truth about moral principles for individual and corporate life. In our study of Scripture and of nature we might uncover and, therefore, gain an understanding of truth that we previously did not have, but the truth was there as a constant all along. Truth has a multitude of applications but the application does not alter the truth. In other words, truth about justice will apply to the guilty differently than it will to the innocent. Cultures might have different expressions of truth (as well as expressions that have nothing to do with truth) but culture does not create nor does it alter truth. In other words, different cultures might have different wedding traditions but if they express truth about the necessity of commitment and faithfulness within a marriage relationship, they are simply different ways of recognizing and expressing this truth.

I am in favor of dialogue and yet I would caution that we do not assume that having dialogue is an end, in and of itself, that having dialogue makes everything all right. It can be a step in the right direction but it can lead to a step in the wrong direction. If truth is sacrificed to opinion in service of the gods of pluralism and relativism, we have no reason to expect society to experience improvement. If stating that some things are true and some things are false earns one the label of “arrogant”, than shouldn’t it earn the label-giver the label of “arrogant”? One of my most disturbing observations about postmodernity is that the concept of truth is being impacted in a negative way.

I have stated previously that I am cautious of becoming attached to cultural movements and systems. We all have a tendency to move in that direction because it affords parameters that afford us security and comfort. With that disclaimer, allow me to clarify that I recognize that most movements and systems have both strengths and weaknesses. Postmodernism might produce good art but, in my analysis, history will show that it does little to help us arrive at truth. Modernity is not the answer. Biblical Theism is the answer. The caution I would present at this point is that when the “postmodern mind” (yes, there is some degree of generalization in that term) merges with the “Christian mind”, the issue of truth is challenged in such a way that it makes it more difficult than it already is to identify, clarify and present Biblical Theism.

Finally, as I close with a few passages of Scripture, consider how the above ideas about truth reflect upon these passages and our Christianity / spirituality.

“…when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth…” (John 16:13, NASB)

“Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:31-32, NASB)

GIANTS IN THE LAND - BALLS AND STRIKES

2011-03-08T05:16:00.000-08:00

It was 1999ish when I read The Challenge of Postmodernism: An Evangelical Engagement, a book edited by David S. Dockery consisting of chapters composed by ten other scholars. I had recognized for quite awhile that, on the level of the “common” Christian, truth was not in high demand. People were concerned with feelings and experiences that aided in feeling good and valuable. Both feelings and experiences are valuable, but without truth as the plumb line for measuring one’s feelings and experiences, the narrow path can become wide very quickly. As I read the aforementioned publication, I began to gain a measure of insight about the trend I had personally observed. I had noticed that Christians wanted instruction on practical matters (not bad in and of itself) but they were not very interested in understanding the truth that was foundational to such practical instruction. The problem with this is that it creates a dependent and easily misguided people. The church is not supposed to produce such people; it is to equip people for the task of advancing the kingdom of God. This concern has been at the center of my interest in understanding the issue of postmodernism (along with other cultural considerations). This trend has blossomed and it continues to do so in many different ways. My concern heightens as I observe vast numbers of churches playing into this demise in the name of engaging and “reaching” our culture. Must we engage our culture? Yes. Are we to “reach” our culture? Yes! However, I would tend to agree with Jock McGregor who observes, in a lecture he calls Postmodernism and Evangelism, that much of this effort ends up reflecting the spirit of the age instead of countering it. It is with this concern that I will provide blog entries about postmodernity.

Before closing with a passage of Scripture, I would like to offer a simple, but helpful, illustration given by Winkie Pratney about the shift that spans the pre-modern, modern and postmodern ages. Imagine an umpire standing behind home plate on a baseball field. As the pitches come in, his task is to call balls and strikes. If he called a pitch a strike and the batter were to argue the call, the pre-modern umpire would simply say, “It’s in the strike zone, it’s a strike and that’s how it is.” The modern umpire would say, “That’s how I saw it.” The postmodern umpire would say, “I call it the way I want to, I decide whether it’s a ball or strike and I feel that was a strike.” The first operated according to a set parameter, an absolute, the second was more sensitive to personal observation, vantage point and empirical evidence while the third was more sensitive to personal feelings and relativistic possibilities.

“If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.” (1 Timothy 6:3-5, NASB)

“Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless, and leads to the ruin of the hearers. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth. But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene.” (2 Timothy 2:14-17, NASB)
THE END..........FOR NOW

GIANTS IN THE LAND - WHAT CAUSED ME TO WRITE THIS?

2011-03-07T06:56:00.000-08:00

A quick reminder – my main interest is contributing to the advancement of the kingdom of God. I believe that words like those recorded in Psalm 19:7-11 are actually true. “The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; the judgments of the Lord are true; they are righteous altogether. They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb. Moreover, by them Thy servant is warned; in keeping them there is great reward.” These words convey that the Living God, the Creator and rightful Lord and King of all things is tremendously good and His design for individual and corporate life on planet earth is in the best interest of all. Ideologies that miss this will lead people astray and it is for this reason they must be exposed.

As mentioned, I would like to make a brief comment about determinism and indeterminism, determinism and human freedom. I would like to suggest three categories of determinism – naturalistic determinism, social determinism and theological determinism. Naturalistic determinism suggests that every event in the universe is caused and controlled by natural law, social determinism suggests that human behavior is purely controlled by previous human behavior (this is important when considering Marxism) and theological determinism suggests that every event in the universe is caused and controlled by God. It is common that people carelessly confuse the word “sovereign” with theological determinism. Without going into detail regarding the aforementioned, I would like to suggest that the position one assumes about why things happen as they do must include a significant place for genuine human freedom. We must attempt to avoid extremes. This is neither an absolute form of freedom nor an absence of actually freedom, neither is it an imaginary freedom (as, for example, with certain soft-determinists who say that man is free and God ordains or controls everything). My concern is that determinism will logically lead people to conclude that, “what is, is right” (if the designation “right” has any meaning). There are many political, psychological, theological and sociological “systems” that embrace such fatalism.

Having made the above statement, I offer two thoughts. First, if we are under a system that is purely “cause and effect”, life becomes futile. The reason we are in the condition we are in is due to a chain reaction that is unavoidable and unstoppable. Any “choice” we make to influence or alter anything is simply part of the chain. Things just are and that’s all. In the case of theological determinism, things are just the way God wants them to be. Nothing is a departure from the divine will and plan. Every apparent “evil” is simply part of the plan. This logically leads to a type of resignation that is often confused with or promoted as faith. When we include some genuine dimension of human freedom, we have other alternatives, both regarding the issue of the presence of evil and regarding actions to be taken when defining and addressing evil. Recognizing human freedom is not a statement of pride as some proponents of determinism might suggest. It, on many levels, is an indictment of man (as opposed to God).

Next, and I end with this, this is actually one thread of postmodernity that I can appreciate. The postmodern perspective tends to be dynamic. However, I am not prepared to embrace an entire “system” due to this one thread.

“The works of His hands are truth and justice; all His precepts are sure. They are upheld forever and ever; they are performed in truth and uprightness. He has sent redemption to His people; He has ordained His covenant forever; holy and awesome is His name. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have all those who do His commandments; His praise endures forever. " (Psalm 111:7-10, NASB)

GIANTS IN THE LAND: Writing About What I Am Going to be Writing About

2011-03-05T05:20:00.000-08:00

A few preliminary remarks. There are many reasons why people engage in “intellectual” discourse. My interest is in advancing the kingdom of God. I make no apology for that. I might not be very effective, but that’s my goal.

I recognize Scripture as revelation from the Creator that is intended to provide the human race with accurate information about Him, His kingdom, man, His purposes for man, love, sin, redemption, etc. I, as well, recognize that there are challenges related to interpreting Scripture but reject the spirit of movements such as deconstructionism, which attempt to attack truth at a root level. Along with this, I must say that I make no claim whatsoever and have no delusions about being among the ranks of academia. Though I am not a scholar, I am impressed with, greatly appreciate and make use of good scholarship.

I undertake this series of entries out of concern that when certain ideological threads are woven into a Christian worldview, they diminish the prospect of advancing the kingdom of God. In a book entitled Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity, Nancy Pearcey states, “God is not just the Savior of souls, He is also the Lord of creation. One way we acknowledge His Lordship is by interpreting every aspect of creation in the light of His truth. God’s word becomes a set of glasses offering a new perspective on all our thoughts and actions.” This is one quote among many that could be drawn from a wide variety of sources to emphasize that God is concerned about every aspect and dimension of life on planet earth. Saving individual souls is important but so is transforming society.

The well-worn topic of postmodernism will be the focus of early entries. However, I will, in conjunction with this topic offer preliminary thoughts about the issue of determinism and indeterminism, determinism and human freedom. I see this issue to be central to many ideological and theological structures, not only in the discussion of postmodernism. Though we will seek to gain understanding about various ideologies, this is not an end, in and of itself. My goal is to probe how such ideologies challenge the development of a Biblical worldview. I have observed that many people embrace certain counterproductive, if not destructive, ideas in a rather naïve manner while others knowingly imbibe such views. Both have negative results.

“Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless, and leads to the ruin of the hearers. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth. But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene.” (2 Ti.2:14-17, NASB)

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (2 Ti.3:16-17, NASB)

GIANTS IN THE LAND - ENTRY 1

2011-03-02T07:26:00.000-08:00

There is concern stirring deep in my spirit about a shift that lurks within the shadows of the horizon. The concern assumes a solid presence as it abides within me. Disturbingly, it becomes a nebulous phantom as it travels from my mind, mouth or “pen” to the mind, ears or eyes of the recipient. The shift is evident all around us and takes on many shapes. This concern is not the manifestation of neophobic tendencies. The concern rotates around realizing that changes accompanying this shift will erode our moral footing in catastrophic proportions. Heightening the concern is the fact that speaking of this earns one the label of being “too serious”, “disturbing” or “not a nice guy”. From the mind of God, we have been given a cultural presage in the statement, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; who substitute bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and clever in their own sight! Woe to those who are heroes in drinking wine, and valiant men in mixing strong drink; who justify the wicked for a bribe, and take away the rights of the ones who are in the right!” (Isaiah 5:20-23, NASB). This shift is indicative of a culture that has dropped and broken its moral compass. More disturbing is the fact that we have done so on purpose. This is not the shattered compass of a bumbling, penitent child. This is a strategically manufactured assault on God and the kingdom of God! This is the tirade of a self-willed humanity insisting on a form of freedom that eliminates the boundaries between good and evil, right and wrong. Allow me to introduce you to Dr. Frankenstein. His cures are infamous.

So, what am I saying? We are overwhelmingly departing from the moral parameters that are characteristic of the design of the Designer. So much so that inability to know or identify such a design is endorsed, not only by atheists and secularists, but also by large numbers of people who associate themselves with the ranks of the “redeemed” (if that’s acceptable terminology). This is due to the influence of deconstructionist thinking. Historically, Christians have based their moral framework upon Biblical revelation. If, however, as the deconstructionist emphasizes, words are incapable of genuinely conveying certainty, we have been seriously compromised. I have observed the influence of deconstructionism on the seminary level. We are under assault from without and from within. The use of spies, moles, undercover agents has historically been an effective ploy of enemy forces. This is characteristic of how our ultimate foe sows destruction (Mt.13:25). As the parable referenced indicates, efforts to address the strategic planting of counterfeits can produce further destruction – devious strategy indeed. My hope, therefore, is to present insights about current (and semi-current) influential movements and trends that, if not corrected, will prove to be counterproductive. I must clarify that this effort to encourage a positive future will require presentations that most people will view as negative. This is, unfortunately, the nature of sounding a warning. I have often presented a teaching based on Ezekiel 3:17-21 about the need to warn the wicked of the destiny to which their path will lead. The upcoming series is such an effort. I am not suggesting that every person who embraces the errors to be addressed are wicked in the most hardcore sense of this word and I am not going to attempt “to go and gather” the tare by naming specific individuals that we must reject. I am going to make an effort to describe certain intellectual and ideological trends and point out the dangers of which we must be aware. Certainly, I will appear to be “too serious”. Nevertheless, allow me to remind you that tare was sown in the field “while men were sleeping”. There are significant portions of the church, the pillar and support of the truth (1 Ti.3:15), preoccupied with “sleeping” (metaphorically speaking). On many levels, we need an awakening. I am not interested in controversy, I am interested in advancing the kingdom of God.

“As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus, in order that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions. But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.” (1 Timothy 1:3-11, NASB)

SLAYING GIANTS - FINAL ENTRY

2011-03-01T06:10:00.000-08:00

The reflections upon 1 Samuel 17 were intended to draw our attention to the fact that, as God calls us to work together with Him to bring His kingdom to earth as it is in heaven, we must recognize, engage and defeat ideological giants that capture our culture and, often, paralyze the church in fear. I hoped to encourage the reader that, though we have not always responded as constructively as we should, the possibility of engaging and defeating the giants in the land is very real. As our account in 1 Samuel 17 reveals, such victories can be accomplished by unlikely heroes who actively engage in such battles, trusting in and receiving power from the Living God.

We live in an age in which many people are simply, and at times desperately, seeking affirmation. Ours is an age in which the tendency for the church is to focus only on positive things. In the process, we often pretend such “giants” do not exist and ignore the responsibility of engaging them, comforting ourselves with the poorly developed assumption that “God has everything under control”. Emphasizing positive things is good if we do not ignore the reality of the negative things that must be addressed. In other words, David faced Goliath as he came to terms with the negative realities associated with the prevailing condition he encountered. The positive message in this account is that victory is available when we proceed in faith, empowered by God, to address the negative realities that are destroying lives and paralyzing the church. Seeking only a positive affirmation while ignoring the existing challenges and responsibilities before us will produce nothing but a happily unproductive religious people. Such an opponent the “giants” will tolerate.

With this in mind, I plan to write short entries in this blog, entitled “Giants in the Land”, that look at the nature of the “giants” were currently face in our culture. I will begin by considering challenges we face from the postmodern mind. In closing, I will state that a tendency I’ve observed in the postmodern mind as it has invaded the ranks of Christianty is to pretend there is no differences between the armies involved in the battle. We will find no victory in this approach.

Slaying Giants - Entry 17

2011-02-28T13:16:00.000-08:00

Using the historical account recorded in 1 Samuel 17 as a metaphor for the cultural battles raging in the nations we next read, “Thus David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and he struck the Philistine and killed him; but there was no sword in David’s hand. Then David ran and stood over the Philistine and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him, and cut off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled. And the men of Israel and Judah arose and shouted and pursued the Philistines as far as the valley, and to the gates of Ekron. And the slain Philistines lay along the way to Shaaraim, even to Gath and Ekron. And the sons of Israel returned from chasing the Philistines and plundered their camps. Then David took the Philistine’s head and brought it to Jerusalem, but he put his weapons in his tent.” (1 Samuel 17:50-54)

In this entry, I would like to make a simple point. We have seen that the Philistines, the enemy of the people of God, had managed to taunt and frighten the Israelites into inactivity. The inactivity was a manifestation of fear. There were things they would like to have done to the Philistines but refrained due to fear, uncertainty and insecurity. They needed a true leader, a hero. David assumed that role. Against significant odds, David faced an opponent to whom most people expected him to lose. David prevailed! Not until David had defeated the Philistine champion did the rest of the Israelite army act upon their desire to engage and defeat the foe. Preceding this bold move was ridicule and accompanying this effort was great risk. David’s victory over Goliath served to inspire the rest of the troupes into action and opened the door to further victory. Each generation and culture needs such leaders and heroes, men and women who can see the enemy properly, have a vision for victory and boldness to engage the opposition. We desperately need such men and women today.

“Who will stand up for me against evildoers? Who will take his stand for me against those who do wickedness?” (Psalm 94:16, NASB)

Slaying Giants - Entry 16

2011-02-25T05:15:00.000-08:00

Though it is clear that this is a historical account of a physical encounter between David and Goliath, in approaching this text metaphorically, I would like to emphasize that we are engaged, not in physical battles, but ideological battles, a struggle over ideas that shape and mold life on planet earth. This being said, I would like to assume intellectual liberty in reference to the significance of striking Goliath in the head in the process of defeating him and then, removing his head with his own sword.

There is an interesting relationship between our hearts and our heads. In order to commit oneself to something (heart) we have to have a perspective of it that is appealing, we have to think of it as being valuable or meaningful (head). Those who actively formulate, seek to understand or advocate certain ideological positions in order to influence society, must engage in significant mental activity. There is a reciprocal relationship between the heart and the head. As one gains enough information to resolve the importance of something, they eventually make a commitment of heart that leads to further intellectual activity to better understand that to which one has made a commitment. We then shape our lives around such things and eventually attempt to influence or teach other. We can see this pattern in Ezra 7:10. “For Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the Lord, and to practice it, and to teach His statutes and ordinances in Israel.” Shaping culture becomes a matter of propagating ideas that directly or indirectly impact the lives of individuals and social structures. These are ideas about God, the origin, value and destiny of man, the rights of individuals, the nature of marriage and family, the role of religious institutions, the function of civil government, etc. In regard to such things, there are Biblical principles with which Christians should be familiar and of which the church should be a proponent. It is at this level that we aim for and attempt to remove the “head” of those in opposition to the kingdom of God. As did David, we often use the sword of the opponent to remove their head. This would involve understanding their position well enough to show its weaknesses and inconsistencies. False systems of thought are generally self-refuting, often borrowing from systems they reject and, eventually, collapse upon themselves.

In future entries I plan to address specific ideologies and demonstrate how this is often the case. Unlike David, we do not only use the sword of the opponent but are to be equipped with our own sword as well.

"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." (Ephesians 6:17, NASB)

Slaying Giants - Entry 15

2011-02-23T06:50:00.000-08:00

Using the historical account recorded in 1 Samuel 17 as a metaphor for the cultural battles raging in the nations we next read, “Then David said to the Philistine, ‘You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have taunted. This day the Lord will deliver you up into my hands, and I will strike you down and remove your head from you. And I will give the dead bodies of the army of the Philistines this day to the birds of the sky and the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, and that all this assembly may know that the Lord does not deliver by sword or by spear; for the battle is the Lord’s and He will give you into our hands.’ Then it happened when the Philistine rose and came and drew near to meet David, that David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet the Philistine. And David put his hand into his bag and took from it a stone and slung it, and struck the Philistine on his forehead. And the stone sank into his forehead, so that he fell on his face to the ground. Thus David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and he struck the Philistine and killed him; but there was no sword in David’s hand. Then David ran and stood over the Philistine and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him, and cut off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled.”

Let’s consider the goal God had for the nation of Israel as we put this account into perspective. A central passage for this purpose is Genesis 12, in which we read, “Now the Lord said to Abram, ‘Go forth from your country, and from your relatives and from your father’s house, to the land which I will show you; and I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and so you shall be a blessing; and I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’”

God, through all the obstacles, honoring, as much as possible, human freedom, is working toward the highest good possible. In the process of doing so, certain obstacles must be removed. How and when such removal takes place involves variables and dynamic. Not every situation is the same one-dimensional, cardboard cutout. This is one account, among many, of how God and His people might deal with opposition and obstacles that stand in the way of ultimately providing genuine blessing for all people and all nations. We might consider how the account of Jonah’s visit to Nineveh unfolded (not to be developed here) as a considerably different account. In the Genesis 12 passage (as in Dt.27-28), it is clear that there are two main options, blessing and curse. God clearly states in Jeremiah 18 that He will build up or tear down and that choosing one or the other is a dynamic situation. As people and nations repent of their rebellion and resistance to God’s goal of blessing, He will work to build them up. As people and nations persist in the rebellion and resistance to God’s goal of blessing, He will tear them down, remove the obstacle in some appropriate manner.

It is my observation that people generally want a one-dimensional system in which there is only one easily categorized way of proceeding. Once again, we face the idea of “both/and” and / or “either/or”. We cannot afford to have merely one simplistic approach, always tearing down or always building up. There are times to be merciful and times to be strict, times to be kind and times to be severe.

“There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven — A time to give birth, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to uproot what is planted. A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to tear down, and a time to build up. A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance. A time to throw stones, and a time to gather stones; a time to embrace, and a time to shun embracing. A time to search, and a time to give up as lost; a time to keep, and a time to throw away. A time to tear apart, and a time to sew together; a time to be silent, and a time to speak. A time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace." (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8, NASB)

More on this in my next entry.

Slaying Giants - Entry 14

2011-02-22T12:57:00.000-08:00

“Then the Philistine came on and approached David, with the shield-bearer in front of him. When the Philistine looked and saw David, he disdained him; for he was but a youth, and ruddy, with a handsome appearance. And the Philistine said to David, “Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?” And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. The Philistine also said to David, “Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the sky and the beasts of the field.” Then David said to the Philistine, “You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have taunted. “This day the Lord will deliver you up into my hands, and I will strike you down and remove your head from you. And I will give the dead bodies of the army of the Philistines this day to the birds of the sky and the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, and that all this assembly may know that the Lord does not deliver by sword or by spear; for the battle is the Lord’s and He will give you into our hands.”

Goliath was a formidable enemy. Add to this impressive figure a shield-bearer and the odds of victory would seem to diminish. There are people in “high places” with impressive resources, seemingly untouchable, working contrary to the kingdom of God. Such people might tend to follow the example of Goliath as they look with disdain upon the pitiful little Christian people who have some sort of fairy tale existence and unattainable, backward agenda. There are many people in influential positions who are quite confident that their humanistic, secularized version of advancement will grow into an impervious utopia. I am confident that God’s design for social structure is superior to the manmade ideologies that often prevail for a time. The fact is that those who are resisting the ways of God are fighting against that which is best. Unfortunately, they must be removed, not in an attitude of hatred but out of a motivation of true love, Charles Finney insightfully stated that, “It is impossible that love to the whole should not manifest severity and indignation to the part which rebels against the interests of the whole.” I end with a wonderful Old Testament statement from the prophet Isaiah.

“Now it will come about that in the last days, the mountain of the house of the Lord will be established as the chief of the mountains, and will be raised above the hills; and all the nations will stream to it. And many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that He may teach us concerning His ways, and that we may walk in His paths.” For the law will go forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He will judge between the nations, and will render decisions for many peoples; and they will hammer their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they learn war." (Isaiah 2:2-4, NASB)

Slaying Giants - Entry 13

2011-02-21T06:00:00.000-08:00

“And he took his stick in his hand and chose for himself five smooth stones from the brook, and put them in the shepherd’s bag which he had, even in his pouch, and his sling was in his hand; and he approached the Philistine.”

David chose resources with which he was familiar. These resources would appear unimpressive and insufficient for the task ahead but we must recall that David had placed his trust in the power and presence of the God he served. Here we have another case of “both / and”. We must equip and familiarize ourselves with resources associated with the arena in which we operate while trusting that the God who can feed over five thousand people with five loaves of bread and two fish (Mt.14:17), the God who increases the resources in our possession, will show Himself strong on our behalf (2 Chron.16:9). David then took action by approaching Goliath. This was bold, active, aggressive behavior. I have observed that some Christians foster and assumption that there is something spiritually admirable about being passive, that it is somehow associated with holiness. It is generally confused with the idea of waiting on the Lord. As well, it is fed by certain theological assumptions about the nature of sovereignty (a topic I will not currently approach). I would encourage the approach of actively seeking God’s guidance and actively obeying God’s objective and subjective revelation. This is not to say that there are not times of rest and “inactivity” of sorts. God is a good Father to His children. As we serve Him as an expression of love and trust, we can trust that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. He is a good Father whose servants have “more than enough bread” (Lk.15:17). A final comment on approaching Goliath will position us for y next blog entry. This bold endeavor opened David to considerable slander and insult from his opponent. Are we ready to face the giants of our culture that are holding massive sectors of society in captivity?

Slaying Giants - Entry 12

2011-02-18T03:34:00.000-08:00

My pattern, in these posts, has been to place the passage in reference at the front of the article followed by a small reflection. Today, as I read the passage below, a number of things struck me. Therefore, I will make a few comments and encourage the reader to think about them as they read the passage that follows.

The reality of that which is recorded here is quite shocking. It is not likely that a graphic portrayal prepared by a good moviemaker would be played during the Sunday morning service of most churches. This is extremely aggressive behavior on the part of “ruddy…handsome” David. Not condoning physical violence of this sort and understanding that this is an account of wartime behavior (though David was not a soldier), the type of conviction it takes to proceed in this manner is commendable. Again, I emphasize, this is very aggressive behavior. The focus of this series is the ideological battle we face in our culture as representatives of Biblical Christianity. Do we commonly see, or even support, the type of intensity represented in this passage as we face the ideological giants that destroy nations? I recently read a quote from Martin Luther King, Jr. that read, “Justice at its best...is love correcting everything that stands against love.” A concern, still vague and not totally formulated, that I have about the spirit of postmodernity is that, though there are legitimate features, as in all such “movements”, there is a tendency to weaken conviction in the proponent thereof. It has been said that the problem with a half-truth is that most people get hold of the wrong half. Pluralism and relativism, in the name of love, embraces that which destroys love. What do we stand for? What is truly worth living for? For what are you willing to die? Have we become so homogenized that we can no longer identify what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil? Can we even distinguish and identify the giants we are to battle?

"(David) took his stick in his hand and chose for himself five smooth stones from the brook, and put them in the shepherd’s bag which he had, even in his pouch, and his sling was in his hand; and he approached the Philistine. Then the Philistine came on and approached David, with the shield-bearer in front of him. When the Philistine looked and saw David, he disdained him; for he was but a youth, and ruddy, with a handsome appearance. And the Philistine said to David, 'Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?' And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. The Philistine also said to David, 'Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the sky and the beasts of the field.' Then David said to the Philistine, 'You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have taunted. This day the Lord will deliver you up into my hands, and I will strike you down and remove your head from you. And I will give the dead bodies of the army of the Philistines this day to the birds of the sky and the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, and that all this assembly may know that the Lord does not deliver by sword or by spear; for the battle is the Lord’s and He will give you into our hands.' Then it happened when the Philistine rose and came and drew near to meet David, that David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet the Philistine. And David put his hand into his bag and took from it a stone and slung it, and struck the Philistine on his forehead. And the stone sank into his forehead, so that he fell on his face to the ground. Thus David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and he struck the Philistine and killed him; but there was no sword in David’s hand. Then David ran and stood over the Philistine and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him, and cut off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled. And the men of Israel and Judah arose and shouted and pursued the Philistines as far as the valley, and to the gates of Ekron. And the slain Philistines lay along the way to Shaaraim, even to Gath and Ekron. And the sons of Israel returned from chasing the Philistines and plundered their camps. Then David took the Philistine’s head and brought it to Jerusalem, but he put his weapons in his tent. Now when Saul saw David going out against the Philistine, he said to Abner the commander of the army, 'Abner, whose son is this young man?' And Abner said, 'By your life, O king, I do not know.' And the king said, 'You inquire whose son the youth is.' So when David returned from killing the Philistine, Abner took him and brought him before Saul with the Philistine’s head in his hand. And Saul said to him, 'Whose son are you, young man?' And David answered, 'I am the son of your servant Jesse the Bethlehemite.'"

Slaying Giants - Entry 11

2011-02-17T10:19:00.000-08:00

Using the historical account recorded in 1 Samuel 17 as a metaphor for the cultural battles raging in the nations we next read, “…David said, ‘The Lord who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, He will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine.’ And Saul said to David, ‘Go, and may the Lord be with you.’ Then Saul clothed David with his garments and put a bronze helmet on his head, and he clothed him with armor. And David girded his sword over his armor and tried to walk, for he had not tested them. So David said to Saul, ‘I cannot go with these, for I have not tested them.’ And David took them off. And he took his stick in his hand and chose for himself five smooth stones from the brook, and put them in the shepherd’s bag which he had, even in his pouch, and his sling was in his hand; and he approached the Philistine.”

David recognized the appropriateness of including and relying upon the Lord in this huge endeavor he was about to undertake. Saul, after discouraging David’s decision to face Goliath, yielded by saying, “Go, and may the Lord be with you.” Having the power, presence and provision of the Lord as our source of strength is crucial. As I’ve emphasized previously, this does not exclude employing our God-given human capabilities. We are not faced with an “either/or” situation but are to find the appropriate “both/and” balance. Let me suggest that, though Saul said, “may the Lord be with you”, he was inclined to rely upon his armor. I could take time to formulate a list of things we tend to rely upon over and above the Lord but I’ll allow you to formulate your own. It is often the case that we can say the right thing but operate in a contrary manner. David, however, found Saul’s armor to be too cumbersome. Again, in a previous post I mentioned that Paul encourages us to put on the armor of God consisting of truth, righteousness, taking good news wherever you go, faith, salvation, the Word of God and prayer.

Next, David chooses five smooth stones for his sling. I am not going to speculate on the meaning of smooth stones or the significance of the number five. I will simply say that we should have a plan and preparation for the battle in which we engage. Five stones and a sling seem insufficient for the task David was about to undertake but in his skillful hand, together with the Lord, it proved effective. As we walk by the Spirit, receiving training in righteousness from the Word of God and gain understanding about the opposing army and its strategy, we might not always seem to have the preparation that conforms to the standards of this world but God can multiply our efforts and resources as we exercise faith in Him.

Slaying Giants - Entry 10

2011-02-15T05:21:00.000-08:00

Using the historical account recorded in 1 Samuel 17 as a metaphor for the cultural battles raging in the nations we next read, “…David said, ‘The Lord who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, He will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine.’”

This would seem to be key. Our ultimate reliance must be upon God and His resources. This does not exclude proper training and preparation. This is not to be seen as a passive reliance upon supernatural, miraculous intervention. This is likely another occasion of Both And, and / or, Either Or. We are not moving to an Either Or extreme in either direction. We do not solely rely on human preparation without power from on high, nor do we avoid training, learning, thinking, preparing and obedient action, relying only upon miraculous intervention. In some measure, reliance upon God involves engaging in efforts encouraged or commanded in His Word. As we study and train to become equipped, putting on the armor of God, as we go forth to advance the kingdom of God, we trust that He is present, operating in ways that are greater than our ways but do not purely exclude, overlook or excuse our ways. Notice that David had previously acted to protect the flock entrusted to him from “the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear”. Let’s attempt to appreciate the balance we see in this and similar statements. David did not “sit back” and wait for God to deliver the sheep from the lion and the bear, he did not anticipate God defeating Goliath, he trusted that as he went forth to do what was needed and what was right, God would deliver him from the lion, the bear and from Goliath.

"But the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me, in order that through me the proclamation might be fully accomplished, and that all the Gentiles might hear; and I was delivered out of the lion’s mouth. The Lord will deliver me from every evil deed, and will bring me safely to His heavenly kingdom; to Him be the glory forever and ever. Amen." (2 Ti.4:17-18)

Slaying Giants - Entry 9

2011-02-14T06:43:00.000-08:00

Using the historical account recorded in 1 Samuel 17 as a metaphor for the cultural battles raging in the nations we next read, “…David said to Saul, ‘Let no man’s heart fail on account of him; your servant will go and fight with this Philistine.’”

David appears to be the most unexpected character to step forth in this manner. Notice, while this account states, on a number of occasions, that the army responded in fear, we read that David responded by saying, “…who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should taunt the armies of the living God?” This has something to do with perspective, the way one screens what one observes. David allowed his concern for God’s reputation and the reputation of His people to set the stage. In the ever present ideological battle that shapes significant dimensions of the world in which we live, we need to learn from David. Too often we allow fear or the question, “who am I?” to set the stage for our approach. In the eyes of those in this account, David was no one. When David’s brother heard of David’s response we read, “…Eliab’s anger burned against David”. Saul responded by saying, “You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him; for you are but a youth while he has been a warrior from his youth.” These are not the eyes with which we should be concerned. Rather, we should realize that, “…the eyes of the Lord move to and fro throughout the earth that He may strongly support those whose heart is completely His.” (2 Chron.16:9) I am not suggesting that we go forth thoughtlessly or unprepared, but we should not allow the above thoughts to prevent us from becoming equipped to engage the "giants".

"Who will rise up for me against the wicked? Who will take a stand for me against evildoers? Unless the LORD had given me help, I would soon have dwelt in the silence of death. When I said, “My foot is slipping,” your love, O LORD, supported me. When anxiety was great within me, your consolation brought joy to my soul." (Psalm 94:16-19, NIV)

Slaying Giants - Entry 8

2011-02-11T07:45:00.000-08:00

Using the historical account recorded in 1 Samuel 17 as a metaphor for the cultural battles raging in the nations we next read, “…the Philistine came forward morning and evening for forty days, and took his stand.”

In this ideological interchange, and especially as our culture has “evolved” into a more heathen mentality, we find an ongoing assault against the Creator, His moral order and those who choose to align themselves with Him. This is especially evident in the slanted, biased reporting of a large percentage of the news media and the influence of the entertainment industry. Both are quite influential in shaping the minds of those inclined to follow their tendency to involuntarily swallow that which they are spoon-fed.

“As he (David) was talking with them, behold, the champion, the Philistine from Gath named Goliath, was coming up from the army of the Philistines, and he spoke these same words; and David heard them. When all the men of Israel saw the man, they fled from him and were greatly afraid.”

Once again, we see the army showing that they are governed by their fear of this “giant”. The worse thing the people of God can do is run and hide from the ideological challenges we face. As I’ve stated in a previous entry, we must be familiar with the principles and truths communicated in Scripture but we are not to “hide behind” Scripture and excuse ourselves from being familiar the thoughts and ideas present in other sources. We must learn to think and analyze as we prepare to be the pillar and support of the truth. To say the least, in the midst of the vast number of ministries we need to engage in as the body of Christ, we must not overlook the importance of equipping, encouraging, supporting and sending forth those, among the ranks, who can function well in such a capacity. Not only can such individuals effectively guard against the attacks being waged against God’s kingdom, but they can help sharpen the and equip each of us to be better able to give a reason for the hope that is within us.

Slaying Giants - Entry 7

2011-02-10T07:45:00.000-08:00

Using the historical account recorded in 1 Samuel 17 as a metaphor for the cultural battles raging in the nations we next read, “When Saul and all Israel heard these words of the Philistine, they were dismayed and greatly afraid.”

The Philistines sent out their “giant” to taunt the army of the Living God, which produced the above response. Could it be that the church has often responded in a similar manner when it comes to facing the “giants” that capture the heart, soul and mind of our culture? I recall Francis Schaeffer stating to a large congregation that prayer was removed from our educational system and abortion was legalized in the lifetime of most of the people present. He went on to ask, “Where were the members of our educational, legal and medical community when these shifts were taking place?” Could it be fear of marring our reputation, fear of losing our jobs, fear of being defeated, fear of losing money, etc. that lies behind an unwillingness to face the “giants” of our age? Surely this is one of the factors and one that leads to inactivity that allows opposing forces to take ground that is not theirs to have. In 1 Peter 5:8 we read, "Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour." A lion roars in order to freeze its prey in fear long enough to pounce. We are also told, in 2 Timothy 1:7 that, "…God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." Yes, it might be costly to step forth, walk in the power of God and, out of love, intelligently face the “giants” of our age. In fact, Jesus indicated that it would be necessary to count the cost if we were to become His followers. “For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost, to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and take counsel whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks terms of peace. So therefore, no one of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions. Therefore, salt is good; but if even salt has become tasteless, with what will it be seasoned? It is useless either for the soil or for the manure pile; it is thrown out. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” (Luke 14:28-35, NASB)

Is it possible that we have redefined Christianity and underestimate our God-given task of being stewards, guardians and watchmen of His world?

Slaying Giants - Entry 6

2011-02-09T04:39:00.000-08:00

Using the historical account recorded in 1 Samuel 17 as a metaphor for the cultural battles raging in the nations we next read, “Then a champion came out from the armies of the Philistines named Goliath, from Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. And he had a bronze helmet on his head, and he was clothed with scale-armor which weighed five thousand shekels of bronze. He also had bronze greaves on his legs and a bronze javelin slung between his shoulders. And the shaft of his spear was like a weaver’s beam, and the head of his spear weighed six hundred shekels of iron; his shield-carrier also walked before him. And he stood and shouted to the ranks of Israel, and said to them, ‘Why do you come out to draw up in battle array? Am I not the Philistine and you servants of Saul? Choose a man for yourselves and let him come down to me. If he is able to fight with me and kill me, then we will become your servants; but if I prevail against him and kill him, then you shall become our servants and serve us.’ Again the Philistine said, ‘I defy the ranks of Israel this day; give me a man that we may fight together.’”

In the previous entry, I emphasized that there are “sides”, there is a battle raging over what actually and ultimately belongs to God. In the passage above, as we see Goliath step forth, we can reflect upon the fact that each ideology sends forth its “giants” to represent it. These giants are clad in their necessary and appropriate “armor”, toting their necessary offensive and defensive equipment. Paul instructs the people of God to do the same. He compares the armor with such things as truth, righteousness, taking good news wherever you go, faith, salvation, the Word of God and prayer. Recently 111,000,000 people watch two teams clad in football armor attempt to move a little leather ball back and forth on a field. I can guarantee you that each of these teams and the coaching staff had watched something throughout the two week period between their previous game and Super Bowl XLV; they watched film of the opposing team. This is done in order to be as thoroughly familiar as possible with their opponent’s strategy, techniques, strengths and weaknesses. In contrast, it is often said that those training to spot counterfeit money spend most of their time studying real money. Both points are significant. A well-rounded approach involves understanding one’s own belief system as thoroughly as possible. Surely, we need to study the revelation God has given us, the playbook that reveals the principles by which we are to approach the “game”. Sadly, it is often the case that professing Christians do not do so. It is also important to identify the “giants” being sent forth and the ideology they represent. This, I would say, is rarely given attention to within the armies of the Living God. It is not as though it has been totally neglected, there are those who have studied such topics and make the information available. However, for individuals or congregations to benefit from such works, pastors, teachers and leaders must gather the troupes, emphasize the importance of equipping the saints in this fashion and encourage as many as possible to do the hard work of thinking through such information.

Slaying Giants - Entry 5

2011-02-08T04:32:00.000-08:00

Using the historical account recorded in 1 Samuel 17 as a metaphor for the cultural battles raging in the nations we next read, “…the Philistines stood on the mountain on one side while Israel stood on the mountain on the other side, with the valley between them.”

Various brands of pluralism and relativism are quite dominant in our age. The appeal for peace through ignorance appears quite inviting. It will not work. Jesus clearly teaches that there will be conflict involved in birthing the kingdom of God (Mt.10:34-36, 24:4-14; Lk.6:22-23; Jn.15:18). Please understand that I am not advocating physical violence. We do not advance God’s kingdom through physical death or defeat. I am, however, emphasizing that we cannot afford to pretend that we all mystically and euphorically stand on the same mountain. There are “sides” in this ideological battle. There is right and wrong, truth and falsehood, good and bad. Francis Schaeffer emphasized the importance of maintaining thesis and antithesis. I would encourage everyone to become familiar with his teaching on this issue. There are opposing ideas. A is not non-A. I realize that most people do not care. That’s part of the problem. I also realize that there is something shy of a movement among the youth culture that is erasing the lines of distinction, that is simply attempting to fill in “the valley between them”. Homogenization might be good for milk (and that’s even questionable) but it is not the answer to the ideological battles that are raging. Mahatma Gandhi seemed to think this was the answer as he is reported to have said, “I am a Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim and a Jew.” Before I finish with a quotation from the book of Isaiah I want to point out that God, who has revealed Himself in Scripture, is, has and will share that which is genuine, real and true while the very effective ploy of Satan is to cleverly disguise a counterfeit in a very appealing costume for the naïve to don. Ignoring of distinctions, homogenizing, embracing pluralism, leveling mountains or filling in valleys might seem like the way to produce peace but this is a counterfeit. There is a mountain that is distinct from all mountains and if we take the aforementioned approach (the increasingly popular erasing of lines of distinction) there is no mountain to invite others to live upon.

“Now it will come about that in the last days, the mountain of the house of the Lord will be established as the chief of the mountains, and will be raised above the hills; and all the nations will stream to it. And many peoples will come and say, ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that He may teach us concerning His ways, and that we may walk in His paths.’ For the law will go forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He will judge between the nations, and will render decisions for many peoples; and they will hammer their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they learn war.” (Isaiah 2:2-4, NASB)

Slaying Giants - Entry 4

2011-02-07T06:58:00.001-08:00

Using the historical account recorded in 1 Samuel 17 as a metaphor for the cultural battles raging in the nations we next read, “…Saul and the men of Israel were gathered, and camped in the valley of Elah, and drew up in battle array to encounter the Philistines.”

Saul and his army looked the part, they had the right outward appearance, coming out to meet the Philistines in “battle array”. As the account unfolds, however, we are told that with all of their military appearance, “they were dismayed and greatly afraid” as they were taunted by one huge opponent.

Could it be that the people of God today, the church, looks the part but is all too often unprepared to face the giants of our culture? Could it be that with all of the impressive appearance, we are often unaware of the damage the giants who taunt the people of God are doing in our culture and in the nations? Could it be that the arenas in which thousands gather for self-satisfying, emotionally uplifting experiences are not fully equipping the saints for the work of ministry, to battle the giants? The mission of the church is multi-faceted. Different people will focus on different types and levels of ministry. There are those who do what they do well. Many important things get accomplished. The question I raise concerns the ability of the church to recognize and defeat the giants who are effectively instrumental in shaping our culture. Giants who, at times, manage to sculpt out a culture that is simply contrary to Biblical principle and, at times, more aggressively promote an anti-Christian agenda. Do I anticipate that every Christian will be equipped to fight this battle? I do not. But, as the corporate body of believers, I do believe we need to give greater and more effective attention to raising up, supporting and sending those who can go forth to be effective in this extremely important ministry. Unfortunately, the need for and importance of such ministry seems to be nearly unrecognized in the “popular” church. I recently asked a group of about fifty Christian men and women if they had ever heard of Jacques Derrida or Michel Foucault. None had ever heard of them. My only point is to question why, in the thousands of sermons and teachings to which they have been exposed, was there not one reference to the influence such men are having upon our society. Darrow Miller has stated that we are ruled by dead men. The influences exercised by Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx and others have significantly shaped the thinking of college professors, politicians, scientists and other important professionals. While the army of God is often “dismayed and greatly afraid”, we desperately need Davids who can declare, “The Lord who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, He will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine” as they actively go forth with the seemingly insufficiant slings and stones that the Lord will use in ways that are beyond popular expectation.

Slaying Giants - Entry 3

2011-02-04T04:28:00.000-08:00

Using the historical account recorded in 1 Samuel 17 as a metaphor for the cultural battles raging in the nations we begin by reading, "Now the Philistines gathered their armies for battle; and they were gathered at Socoh which belongs to Judah…”

Isn’t it interesting that the battles (referring here to ideological battles) that take place are on God’s turf. God is willing to share this turf with His children. He is even secure enough to allow others to make bold efforts to pick fights with Him and His people on His turf. The number of applications available is tremendous. Much like the prodigal son, people take what belongs to the Father and, in a dishonoring, insulting manner, wastefully commence to use it to promote destruction in a variety of creative and not so creative ways. The minds we use to engage in our ideological battles are minds given to us by the Father. How great the number of people who use their God-given minds in a dishonoring, insulting manner, denying His existence, suppressing His truth and formulating strategies for carrying out mutiny. Consider, for example, the statement of the Darwinian Goliath Richard Dawkins as he wrote, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully” (The God Delusion). Consider the “fruit” such a naturalistic-macro-evolutionary ideology will position man to produce. Each person, his or her soul, mind, body, the nations, all the earth and the universe our little planet is part of belongs to God. Incredibly, God is willing to share truth designed to promote life, blessing and prosperity in the nations. This truth we must humbly receive and act upon. Those who “gathered everything and (go) on a journey into a distant country” (Lk.15:13), who take their mental abilities and formulate ideologies contrary to the principles of God’s kingdom, will eventually find themselves (and those who embrace their ideologies) “to be in need” (Lk.15:14). There is a wisdom which makes us fools and beggars (Ro.1:22, 1 Co.1:20; 3:19-20, Lk.15:15) when, in fact, God is willing to share truth and understanding that is only intended to bless us and, in the most beautiful and proper way possible, increase our freedom (Dt.29:29, Amos 3:7, Jn.8:31-32, 2 Ti.3:16-17).

It is time for the church to nurture, equip and send forth our “Davids” into every social sphere and institution, armed with the slings and stones needed to destroy speculations raised up against the knowledge of God.

Slaying Giants - Entry 2

2011-02-03T04:31:00.000-08:00

As we begin to look at the account of David’s encounter with Goliath and use it as a metaphor for facing the “giants” in our age and our culture that “taunt the armies of the living God”, I first emphasize that, unlike the account of David and Goliath, we are not interested in literally killing our enemies. There have been and still are ideologies that encourage such an approach. Christianity is not among them. I will go a step further and suggest that if this endeavor is not accompanied by a spirit (or Spirit) of love, we are not advancing the kingdom of God at all. Though we recognize the need to destroy speculations that are raised up against a knowledge of God, there is no need to hate the individuals that entertain such speculations. It might be appropriate to operate out of an aggressive urgency, but not out of hatred. The “battle” we are engaging in is a battle of ideas. Having emphasized that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood” (as was David’s) but is a struggle of ideas that will produce, either, good “fruit” (the fruit of God’s kingdom) or bad “fruit” in our material world, I next emphasize that the ideas in question have a spiritual foundation. Paul states, “…our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly place.” His solution to this challenge involves such things as truth, righteousness, taking good news wherever you go, faith, salvation, the Word of God (truth again) and prayer. As we proceed to analyze 1 Samuel 17 and consider the task of “slaying giants” I ask that you keep these things in mind.

Slaying Giants - Entry 1

2011-02-02T05:15:00.001-08:00

Over the next number of days / weeks (hopefully not months), I plan to use 1 Samuel 17 as the backdrop to discuss the need for each generation of Christians to be aware of the “giants” we face, the “uncircumcised Philistines” that taunt God, His people and His kingdom. Though I rarely approach Scripture in this manner, I will use this passage as a metaphor for the battle we face as we identify the ideologies, philosophies and worldviews that capture and distort the minds of our culture and of the nations. I am convinced that God wants to bless, not only individuals but also nations (the corporate, social relationships between individuals, the social structures and networks of individuals). As I prepare to refer to a passage penned by the apostle Paul, let me make the point that we have had a tendency, within Christianity, to reduce our thinking to the level of how things apply to us as individuals. Surely, the Good News has tremendous application on this level, but we must be careful that we do not overlook the fact that the truth of God is intended to go beyond individual blessing and transformation and bring restoration and reformation on the level of our social structures and institutions. Consequently, as one example, as we consider the issue of economics we could properly identify Karl Marx and Marxism as a Goliath taunting the people of God. This is a political / economic system contrary to the principles of Scripture. As such, it is incapable of blessing the nations that embrace and employ its ideas. Therefore, when we read Paul’s statement from 2 Corinthians 10:3-7, “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, and we are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete. You are looking at things as they are outwardly. If anyone is confident in himself that he is Christ’s, let him consider this again within himself, that just as he is Christ’s, so also are we”, we should think, not only of the personal application (controlling selfish, greedy, lustful thoughts) but of the corporate, social, national, ideological application. We must be able to identify the “speculations…raised up against the knowledge of God” (Darwinism being a huge one) and strategize ways to destroy them in order to bless the nations and set them free from the bondage created by false ideologies. The mission of the church has, what we can call, an Evangelistic Mandate (to reach, convert and disciple individuals) but also a Cultural Mandate (to transform the social structure that comprise nations). Finally, as I end this entry and prepare for future entries in this series, I draw attention to the commission God gave to the prophet Jeremiah. “See, I have appointed you this day over the nations and over the kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant.” (Jeremiah 1:10)

Nihilism with a Smile

2011-02-01T04:26:00.000-08:00

I have become increasingly, possibly over, concerned with the shift in the ideological paradigm of those growing up in our current techno-age. It is not that technology is bad, evil, wrong or any additional imaginable negative expletive (purely for the poetry). It just seems as though something unidentifiable has been lost with all the gain. I am reminded of two statements that help explain this unexplainable explanation. One is a quote from George MacDonald who writes, “A beast does not know that he is a beast, and the nearer a man gets to being a beast, the less he knows it”. The other is a comment made in retrospect by one who had gone through the great depression, as they reflected on the comforts and conveniences of the present and yet referred to the depression as the good ole days. All of this to say that I believe that the “postmodern lenses” that don the eyes of increased throngs of Facebookers will contribute to the production of cultural cataracts that will blur our present and darken the future of the humanity that was in the mind of God at creation. Consider the following statement from Jock McGregor in Generation X: The ‘Lost’ Generation.

“…Generation X has also been deeply influenced by the massive ideological shift taking place: the shift from Modernism to Postmodernism. Modernism, born at the Enlightenment, with its optimistic faith in progress, built on the foundations of human reason and scientific materialism and pursued through technology and humanistic endeavour, has finally fallen foul of its own arrogant assumptions. In its place we have Postmodernism, defined only by its lack of belief, its anti-ideological scepticism, its thinly veiled nihilism and its cynical use and abuse of arbitrary myths and images. Postmodernism is the product of a radical relativism - a deconstructed world with no fixed points, no absolutes, no givens - in which truth is simply defined by each individual and the ‘community’ of which they are a part. It is a ‘playful indeterminacy’ that embraces unrestrained freedom and pluralism, a limitless flux with no stability, an endless journey with no destination. A suitable outlook for a 'lost' generation.

For postmodern youth, the so-called 'objective' world is merely an arbitrary construct and so in the final analysis you are left with just your own subjective world. Holding fixed beliefs or making firm commitments is then clearly naive, all authorities are inherently corrupt and must be subverted, everything - absolutely everything - is referred to ironically, held at a critical distance in inverted commas. The logical drift of such a mentality is to nihilism and ultimately to solipsism…”.

Both And, And/Or, Either Or Again

2011-01-25T08:32:00.000-08:00

I recently heard a good presentation about the need for Christians to be more actively and obviously led and empowered by the Holy Spirit, for the presence of God to characterize individual Christians and the body of Christ more explicitly. To this presentation, I give a hardy “Amen!” I would like to offer three responses. One is a general idea that formulated as I reflected upon the presentation, another is a response to the presentation itself and the third is a statement about distinguishing between times when as “both and” approach is appropriate and times when an “either or” approach is appropriate.

Having an increased sensitivity to the way cultural ideologies can replace Biblical thinking, my studies have revealed that, what we refer to as, postmodernity is, in great measure, a response to the failures of modernity. I do not intend to expound upon that thought at this point but refer to it in order to say that there is a similar “movement” within the boundaries of the church. Often, one generation of believers will choose a path that is, in some measure, a response to the failings of shortcomings of the previous generation. This is understandable but we must realize that such a response does not automatically result in improvements upon the failings and shortcomings of the previous generation. With that said, I would like to state a concern about the tendency within a portion of the younger generation of professing Christians. A longstanding emphasis on truth and doctrine is being questioned in a way that is likely a “swing of the pendulum” toward another unhealthy extreme to which some future generation will find reason to respond. As a religious postmodern, relativistic, nihilistic, existentialism seeps through the walls of the church, there is a tendency to ride the pendulum in the direction of subjective experience. Surely, there is nothing wrong with subjective experience – unless it is disconnected from objective truth and reality. Imagine a group of bakers in a kitchen with all of the ingredients needed to bake a wonderful cake. One baker wants to pour all of the milk down the drain, one wants to use only flour and butter, one wants to triple the amount of sugar called for, another wants someone else to tell them what to do, while another simply watches cooking shows on TV. What does it take to bake a good cake? All of the ingredients blended in proper proportion and baked for the appropriate amount of time. It seems like the church has never gotten the cake in the oven because we continue, generation after generation, struggling with the ingredients.

This brings me to an observation about the presentation referred to earlier. As the speaker went through a list, comparing things such as wisdom and revelation, consistency and balance, anointing and skill, theology/doctrine and power, etc., he cautioned about emphasizing one over the other. Due to the obvious fact that he saw a tendency in the church to lean, for example, toward theology/doctrine (though this is likely not an impressive feature of many individual Christians), he emphasized the need for power. Though I cannot indict the speaker of this error, it seems as though even an attempt to caution people about overemphasis can result in an overemphasis. A “yea, he’s right, we’ve made too much of doctrine” response that discards doctrine as unimportant and launches upon a pursuit for power. I once told someone that it's possible to have an imbalanced emphasis on the need for balance.

When it comes to the issues referred to in the previous paragraph, we are to find the appropriate “both and” blend. When we get into discussions about foundational ideologies, we enter upon “either or” territory. There is either absolute truth or there is not. Either there is a God or there is not. Either pragmatism is a sufficient basis upon which to approach life or it is not. Distinguishing between the need for an “either or” approach and a “both and” approach is more important than we might realize. Finally, let me point out one further distinction that should be useful. There is a difference between embracing pragmatism as a building block for one’s foundation and being pragmatic within one’s structure. For example, pure pragmatism would say, “if it works, it is good”. The measure of right and wrong hinges upon whether it accomplishes one’s goals. If lying, killing, cheating advances one’s purposes, pragmatism approves. On the other hand, operating upon a foundation constructed of a Biblical perspective, our measure of right and wrong are based upon God’s communication to us. Upon the parameters of this foundation, we hope to be pragmatic in our effort to be fruitful. It is often said, “every religion/philosophy/ideology/worldview has some amount of truth in it” (if you believe in truth). There might be shards of truth here and there but the question is one of what serves as a proper foundation. A wall, a window, a ceiling are all useful parts of a house but none of them serve as a proper foundation. In addition, if a sufficient foundation is not in place, the walls, windows and ceilings cannot serve their intended function.

Modernity and Post Modernity or The Many Faces of Humanism

2011-01-17T07:35:00.001-08:00

While preparing a sermon, I had the following thought come to mind. “It is our task to put things in their proper place. This excludes worshiping them unless that is their proper place. Worship is, therefore, reserved for God alone. To worship other things is to improperly perceive their value and, consequently, pervert their worth and usage.”

Having spent some time considering how cultures are shaped by ideas, I’ve been interested in understanding the foundational character of a “modern age” and a “postmodern age”. A central factor in shaping the distinctive character of the mindset associated with each of these ages is the way we approach issue of reason.

Often, the issue we are dealing with is that of imbalance. We then produce increased difficulties when we have a reactionary response to the imbalance, as opposed to making necessary (often simple) adjustments or corrections. Characteristic of the “modern age” was the recognition of human ability to reason, to engage in meaningful, rational deliberations. I would agree that this ability is one that must be acknowledged and appreciated. The proper place for such ability is in subordination to the God whose mind such ability reflects. Embracing and maintaining the reality that God and His reasoning capacities are supreme protects us from a dangerous misuse and imbalance when it comes to human reason. Unfortunately, it also became characteristic of the “modern age” that human reason was disconnected from its relationship to God. As this happened, reason became a type of god and savior, a role and function it is unable to perform. This is a central tenet of humanism. If I were to attempt to fly a car, I would have a serious problem at the end of the runway. It would be wrong for me to declare that cars are bad and useless. Attempting to use a car to fulfill a role and function it was not capable of fulfilling produces bad results. Getting rid of cars is not the answer. The age we refer to as “postmodern” is, in a significant way, a reaction to the failures of the claims and expectations that the “modern age” placed upon reason. When human reason did not produce world peace and solutions for all of life’s woes, doubt about the legitimacy of human reason began to grow. This was not the adjustment or correction that was needed. Along with this, because reason is a faculty design to deal with truth, doubts about truth and absolutes were fostered. This, as well, was not the solution needed. However, this is the grain of sand around which postmodernity has been formed. In the case of both modernity and postmodernity, it is not all of the ingredients that are bad. Imagine making a soup in which you added turpentine. Good ingredients can be overpowered by certain wrong additions. Modernity had a wrong expectation of human reason (human reason, itself, being a good ingredient) and postmodernity has had a wrong reaction to the failures of human reason. In attempting to abandon reason, postmodernity has turned to experience. The abandonment of reason is a wrong response that will be counterproductive (and impossible as they often use reason to defend this approach) and the expectations placed upon experience will prove to be comparable to modernity’s expectations of reason. The solution to all of these errors is to put reason (and experience) in its proper place and use it for its proper purpose.

In conclusion, in an effort to keep this entry short, I will state that human reason must be placed in a subordinate relationship to God’s reason and must be used, under the guidance of God, to study His revelation to us.

Both And, And/Or, Either Or

2010-12-23T08:24:00.000-08:00

I have often heard people claim that doctrine is not important. The alternative then presented is relationship. I would like to suggest that this is a false and unnecessary dichotomy. It might be argued that relationship is more important than doctrine. I would yet insist that this is a false and unnecessary dichotomy. Before I proceed, I will offer a slight disclaimer. I understand the intention behind the words “doctrine is not important” (or words to this effect). However, I am stating that this is a poor and counterproductive way of communicating. We might say it is a carelessly stated doctrine. I will explain by making two points.

From a Christian perspective, the central relationship in question would be our relationship with Jesus. I completely affirm that no amount of good information (doctrine), void of this relationship with Christ produces the outcome toward which God is working. However, my first, caution regarding the dichotomy between doctrine and relationship is the close association between the person of Christ and truth. Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary, states the following concerning doctrine: “In a general sense, whatever is taught. Hence, a principle or position in any science; whatever is laid down as true by an instructor or master. The doctrines of the gospel are the principles or truths taught by Christ and his apostles. The doctrines of Plato are the principles which he taught. Hence, a doctrine may be true or false; it may be a mere tenet or opinion.” Admittedly, there is such a thing as bad doctrine. Does that make doctrine bad? My point, before I comment to the point I make, is that Jesus closely associates Himself with truth and truth is too closely associated with doctrine to wage war against or cast doubt upon the importance of doctrine and all of this is intimately connected to relationship. There is no need to create tension regarding this issue and doing so will likely have a negative impact upon the relationship that is so highly valued to those who promote the idea. Jesus said of Himself, “I am the way, and the truth (aletheia), and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.” (John 14:6) We are told that, “In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1) “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14) There are, as well, such well known statements as “If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32), “…everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock” (Matthew 7:24), “…the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who indeed bears fruit, and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty” (Matthew 13:23) and “…make disciples of all the nations…teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:19-20).

Along with the above point is the emphasis Scripture places upon doctrine (teaching). We find that the armor Paul uses to illustrate the Christians equipment for battle begins and ends with truth (Ephesians 6:14, 17). Paul tells Timothy, “Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching (didaskalia – doctrine, instruction); persevere in these things; for as you do this you will insure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you." (1 Timothy 4:16) Paul speaks of those who perish because they did not receive a love of the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:10). Finally, we read that, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching (didaskalia – doctrine, instruction), for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Rather discarding or devaluating doctrine, a more constructive approach would be to emphasize the difference between right and wrong, truth and falsehood and the importance of good doctrine and effective study. When doctrine and relationship are viewed as antagonistic to one another, I fear that the resulting relationships will be shallow and the Christian in question will be unequipped to persuade others of the importance of the relationship. I have heard people say that when God decided to save man, He didn’t send a tract, He sent His Son. In fact, He sent both. We have the written and preserved Word, a revelation of truth and the incarnate Word. Concerning the issue of doctrine and relationship we are looking at a “both and”, not an “either or”. Let us not play into the hand of the postmodern relativists and deconstructionists among us.

Just Thinking

2010-12-22T06:09:00.000-08:00

On the Kingdom of God

2010-12-17T05:19:00.000-08:00

A number of years ago, as I was preparing a sermon, I was led to express the challenge we face as the human race with a statement that opened with the line; "Our task is to put things in their proper place". Recently I have been impressed with the importance of understanding the mission of the church in terms of furthering the kingdom of God in the nations. This task involves structuring our various social relationships according to the principles of God's design and purpose for such relationships. We engage in such an endeavor as an expression of love and trust in the wisdom and goodness of God. In the process, we will encounter a wide variety of ideologies that suggest an alternative arrangement for the aforementioned relationships. Such ideologies are the inventions of the mind of man whereas the kingdom of God is based upon the mind of God revealed to the mind of man. The kingdom of God, therefore, is not to be seen as an ideology.

One of the ideological challenges we currently face comes in the form of postmodernism. The difficulty encountered with a perspective like postmodernism is the radical relativism it encourages. Such relativism denies that there is any real, measurable value to anything by assigning an unqualified equality to all views. This eliminates the possibility of an absolute standard and denies that God's truth is above man's ideologies (at the very least it denies that we can know it with a satisfying degree of certainty). It discredits the endeavor to identify, understand and communicate the principles of the kingdom of God as revealed to the mind of man. In its reaction against and refutation of modernity, postmodernism commits the proverbial error of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Reacting to modernity's failure to arrive at utopia through man's reasoning powers has led proponents of postmodernism to become cynical and skeptical when it comes to truth claims and reason. The error of modernity is found in its radical independence from God and over enthusiastic trust in man.

God, in wisdom and love, has designed our social relationships to function fruitfully upon immutable principles. The principles will have varying applications but the principles remain constant. We have the option of violating or honoring such principles. Christianity, though some have waged war against the title, is to focus on redeeming and reconciling all things unto Christ. This involves identifying, applying and communicating the aforementioned principles.

Such principles begin with the relationship one has with "self". This is inherently tied into the relationship one has with God. If we fail to put "self" in its proper place, problems will arise. The most fundamental statement we can make about "self" is that it is not more important or valuable than God. Correcting any error that might exist on this level is associated with the doctrine of repentance. Once repentance is a reality, the individual will need to address a variety of other issues according to the principles that apply to having a right relationship with oneself and with God.

Without attempting to suggest a specific order in which such relational issues unfold and without intending to expound upon pertinent details in this posting, we have the task of dealing with principles that apply to social relationships known as friendships. This would pertain to those with whom we identify and pursue levels of intimacy. As an example, we can refer to Proverbs 18:24 and 2 Corinthians 6:14.

Continuing to make the basic point of this posting, we must deal with principles that apply to family relationships, business relationship, recreational relationships, educational relationships, governmental relationships, etc. Either each area of social relationship will either be informed by principles that agree with God's design and purpose for the relationship in question or it will be informed by a humanistic ideology.

This is a central dimension to the mission of the church and its task to disciple nations, preach the good news about the kingdom of God, promoting and encouraging it to come on earth as it is in heaven.

The Path to Genuine Peace is Paved with Conflict.

2010-12-09T03:22:00.000-08:00

Isaiah 9:1-7
But there will be no more gloom for her who was in anguish; in earlier times He treated the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali with contempt, but later on He shall make it glorious, by the way of the sea, on the other side of Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles.
The people who walk in darkness will see a great light; those who live in a dark land, the light will shine on them. Thou shalt multiply the nation, Thou shalt increase their gladness;
they will be glad in Thy presence as with the gladness of harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. For Thou shalt break the yoke of their burden and the staff on their shoulders, the rod of their oppressor, as at the battle of Midian. For every boot of the booted warrior in the battle tumult, and cloak rolled in blood, will be for burning, fuel for the fire. For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this.

Here we have a text that describes a land (a designated group of people, a nation) that was facing serious conflict. The conflict was due, as it generally is, to bad civil government and irresponsible, self absorbed citizenry. Surely, this is not unlike today in many "lands" throughout the earth.

The reference to Zebulon, Naphtali and Galilee speaks of areas that had a bad reputation due to pagan influence. In every age, we must discern whether we, as a people, in our personal, individual lives and our corporate, institutional spheres are operating according to principles of God’s kingdom, as revealed in Scripture, or being influenced to think and act according to the deceptive philosophies, ideologies and principles of "the world". Many years after the text we are considering, a Messianic Jew living in the Roman Empire warned the people of his day by writing, "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." (Colossians 2:8, NASB) The warning is not against philosophy itself, but against philosophy that promotes ideas that do not further the administration of God. He also wrote, "...do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect." (Romans 12:2; NAS)

Isaiah speaks to the people of his day about a day of light and joy and deliverance that is to come. The joy he refers to is compared to the joy one experiences at the time of harvest and during te dividing of the spoils of war. The time of harvest refers to the end of a process after labors wisely designed and engaged in toward that specific end. Dividing spoils of war has the same implications within the context of the end of a victorious battle. It's important to recognize the prevalence of the theme of battle in text such as this as it sets a meaningful and pertinent stage for accomplishing the work of God and furthering His kingdom, increasing His government. I am not suggesting that we can advance the kingdom of God by way of military force as some religious groups assume and attempt. I am, however, declaring that advancing the kingdom of God by way of persuasion and influence will take place in an atmosphere of conflict. One might say that the path to genuine peace is paved with conflict. This involves spiritual warfare and ideological battles.

The reference made by Isaiah to the battle of Midian would turn our attention to the victory Gideon had with limited manpower. This is a form of encouragement to workers who are few. It often appears to our natural senses that the task is too great since the workers and resources are limited. Victory, however, is at hand when the faithful few, in the power of God, put their hands to the plow and move forward.

Albert Barnes states, “Most of the picture seems to have been that of battles, conflicts, sieges, dimness, and thick darkness. But in one portion of the passing scene there was light. It was the light that he saw rising in the distant and darkened Galilee. He saw the joy of the people; the armor of war laid aside; the image of peace succeeding; the light expanding and becoming more intense as the darkness retired, until he saw in this region the Prince of Peace - the Sun of Righteousness itself. The eye of the prophet gazed intently on that scene, and was fixed on that portion of the picture: he sees the Messiah in his office, and describes him as already come, and as born unto the nation.”

It is noteworthy that passages such as this are spoken in a present moment about the future in language that speaks of certainty. These things will happen. Isaiah speaks of something that is not yet a reality but will be. A word of caution is appropriate at this point. We should not allow this to encourage a passive attitude or approach on our part. This is often a tendency. What we must understand is that Scripture everywhere affirms that such things become a reality through an appropriate process. We must humbly realize that the process involves plans and provisions made by God along with a proper response on the part of God's people. Understanding and recognizing this is of great importance to the church and its mission in the world today! Our mission involves the proclamation and advancement of the kingdom of God. Isaiah says, "the government will rest on His shoulders". This speaks of the idea that Jesus will reign as king of a kingdom. The goal is that all earthly kingdoms will rightly be subordinate to His ultimate authority and leadership. A "yoke" that is easy. An authority (as bad as this word appears to some) that eventually produces genuine peace, as opposed to counterfeit, make-believe, pretend peace that comes by ignoring unrighteousness and moral evil. One of the parables presented by the Messiah spoken of by Isaiah was, “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field; and this is smaller than all other seeds; but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants, and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.” (Matthew 13:31-32, NASB) The rulers and kingdoms of the earth will someday find their proper "resting place", their Sabbath in Him. This will come about, not through the power of military force and takeover but through the power of persuasion in the midst and atmosphere of conflict.

Though there is much more that could be said, I will draw my conclusion by referring to one of the titles given in Isaiah's prophesy.

Prince of Peace

Consider these words spoken by the one referred to as the Prince of Peace. “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life shall lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake shall find it." (Matthew 10:34-39, NASB) And again, “Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three. They will be divided, father against son, and son against father; mother against daughter, and daughter against mother; mother-in-law against daughter-in-law, and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.” (Luke 12:51-53, NASB)

I would suggest that redemptive history unfolds in degrees, according to appropriate stages and processes. The path to genuine peace is paved with conflict. As in His days on planet earth, we do not currently see Jesus governing as the Prince of Peace. The conflict has not yet been properly addressed and resolved. There is more energy put into avoiding conflict than facing and resolving it. This conflict is essentially over ideas, philosophies and ideologies. We might say that they are the presuppositions upon which all of life, personal and corporate, is lived. All of the provisions for victory have been made but the church in this age, like the nation of Israel in the past age, has a role to play in the ultimate fulfillment of this victory.

A Child was born and a Son was given because God uses humans to reach humans. Do we really believe that God would have the government will rest on His shoulders? That He is a Wonderful Counselor, a Mighty God, an Eternal Father, the Prince of Peace. Do we want to experience the reality that there will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace? Let us turn our attention away from speculations that do not further the administration of God. Let us free ourselves from the entanglements of everyday life, put our hands to the plow and fulfill the mission / task we've been given. Proper doctrine will encourage the body of Christ to see its "calling" in the right light and inspire us to accomplish our mission.

Furthering the Administration of God

2010-12-03T06:11:00.000-08:00

The Apostle Paul urged his young disciple Timothy to remain in Ephesus in order to prevent certain men from disseminating ideas that merely produce speculation. If you were to remove this from a task given to a character in the Bible and imagine a spiritual leader giving this assignment to you, it is likely that it would be seen as a relatively unpleasant and challenging obligation. It is probable that our new, improved postmodern Christian would simply reject the assignment. That being said, I am struck by Paul's concern. In the NAS we read that certain ideas, "...give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God...". The phrase "administration of God" is of interest.
Without lengthy efforts to validate the following I would simply like to suggest that our ultimate mission as the body of Christ is to embrace and advance the government or kingdom of God on earth. This is not a kingdom that can be established by physical force but by truth and moral transfomation. It is a kingdom that consists of human beings humbly embracing and operating within the reality of God's design for every area of individual and corporate life. Indentifying and proclaiming the truth about God's design for every area of individual and corporate life is preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom. While we live out God's design in our own individual and corporate areas of life we are to, as well, proclaim the good news of the kingdom. To do this as an expression of love for God and man is the ultimate mission of the church. This is discipling nations. This is speaking the truth in love. Let us not, however, be naive. There are forces that are in serious opposition to the fulfillment of this mission. As seen in Paul's statement to Timothy, there is a need to silence the misleading ideas that others will proclaim. In a letter to the Corinthians Paul states, "...the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every alofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, and we are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete...".
My point is simple. The world is full of ideologies that are intended to prevent the kingdom of God from being advanced and established. Our tasks is to, both, dismantle such false philosophy and offer the world a radiant understanding of the glories of God and His kingdom in both word and deed. My question to you is, "Do you really beleive that God knows what is best for us and has our best interests at heart?"