I've been thinking lately about skepticicm vs spiritualism. On the one hand, we have multitudes that are looking for experiential spiritual manifestations, and on the other hand, we have people who believe nothing, because nothing can be proved.
An example: James Randi - he's most certainly not a believer, but I admire his work because it challenges us to be balanced as stewards of the Truth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOsCnX-TKIY
But we're left in an interesting predicament, because it seems that on one hand, because of the extreme of spiritualism, real experiences of God's work are lost and buried under the inane and banal, in exchange for sensational things like psychic readings and faith healing and talking to the dead. On the other hand, skepticism breeds a closed mind to anything that requires faith, as a reaction to the extremes of spiritual gullibility.
How do we respond? How can we display ourselves as credible? (by "we" I speak of regenerate individuals, people who have placed their trust in the divine person and justifying cross work of Jesus Christ) Well, it is true that the Gospel of Christ speaks for itself - we do not need to defend the Lion of the Word and The Spirit. But consequently, we need to renew our minds with the Word, so that our faith is evidenced as a rational faith.
On the one hand, we are unapologetic supernaturalists - the work of God and the power of God is abundantly clear. Jesus told Nicodemus that the miracle of new birth is like "the wind" - you cannot see the wind, but it exists, because you see the effects of the wind (John 3:8 - "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."). In that sense, we are unapologetic supernaturalists. God has wrought an undeniable change in us when He saved us. The effects of our Justifying faith are evident, and in that sense Sanctifying faith is not at all pie in the sky, because it is based on assured evidential, experiential truths (Heb 11:1 - Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.) That mantra, "by faith", meaning "just believe with no rational reason" is misleading, and can be detrimental to a true biblical faith. But the point is that at root, these are assurances based on the miraculous. A denial of the miraculous (intended or inadvertent) closes the door on the Son of God.
On the other hand, we are skeptic supernaturalists. John later tells us to "test the spirits". (1 John 4:1 - "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.") John is not speaking of an esoteric "spiritual" realm, where all kinds of weirdness is said to happen. In that passage, John recognizes that the spiritual realm is at work, but not in the way we expect. Rather, false spirits support false realities. John continues, "every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. (v3)" In essence, we can say that any claim or practice that undermines the person of Jesus Christ (in the full sense, of His Godhood, His Lordship and His exclusivity for justification) is from the evil one. And it is true that much "supernaturalism" of the day is ultimately a facade (intended or inadvertent) for an assault on the sufficiency of Jesus Christ. Whether the false reality is over-sensationalized supernaturalism or a total denial of any supernatural existence, both then are backed by false spirits.
Let's not be gullible, but measure what we see with the ruler, the guidepost of God's Word. On the other hand, lets not be so skeptical that we become practical agnostics, because God's work escaped our attention. The enemy must love our overreactions, one extreme to the other, because in that yo-yo swing, we're missing the Son. Let's be skeptic supernaturalists, who walk with care but, like the man born blind, when we see the work of God, can respond with absolute unashamed certainty about it - "One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see." (John 9:25)
What a deathly blindness it was! What beauty is this sight of the glory of God in the face of Christ!
Showing posts with label writings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label writings. Show all posts
Friday, February 27, 2009
Monday, October 27, 2008
Not of This World
A great brief exposition by John Piper on 1 Corinthians 7:29-31
He used it to talk about voting, but I like it as it is... so I edited it up to post here.
He used it to talk about voting, but I like it as it is... so I edited it up to post here.
1. “Let those who have wives live as though they had none.”
This doesn’t mean move out of the house, don’t have sex, and don’t call her Honey. Earlier in this chapter Paul says, “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights” (1 Corinthians 7:3). He also says to love her the way Christ loved the church, leading and providing and protecting (Ephesians 5:25-30). It means this: Marriage is momentary. It’s over at death, and there is no marriage in the resurrection. Wives and husbands are second priorities, not first. Christ is first. Marriage is for making much of him.
It means: If she is exquisitely desirable, beware of desiring her more than Christ. And if she is deeply disappointing, beware of being hurt too much. This is temporary—only a brief lifetime. Then comes the never-disappointing life which is life indeed.
2. “Let those who mourn [do so] as though they were not mourning.”
Christians mourn with real, deep, painful mourning, especially over losses—loss of those we love, loss of health, loss of a dream. These losses hurt. We cry when we are hurt. But we cry as though not crying. We mourn knowing we have not lost something so valuable we cannot rejoice in our mourning. Our losses do not incapacitate us. They do not blind us to the possibility of a fruitful future serving Christ. The Lord gives and takes away. But he remains blessed. And we remain hopeful in our mourning.
3. “Let those who rejoice [do so] as though they were not rejoicing.”
Christians rejoice in health (James 5:13) and in sickness (James 1:2). There are a thousand good and perfect things that come down from God that call forth the feeling of happiness. Beautiful weather. Good friends who want to spend time with us. Delicious food and someone to share it with. A successful plan. A person helped by our efforts.
But none of these good and beautiful things can satisfy our soul. Even the best cannot replace what we were made for, namely, the full experience of the risen Christ (John 17:24). Even fellowship with him here is not the final and best gift. There is more of him to have after we die (Philippians 1:21-23)—and even more after the resurrection. The best experiences here are foretastes. The best sights of glory are through a mirror dimly. The joy that rises from these previews does not and should not rise to the level of the hope of glory. These pleasures will one day be as though they were not. So we rejoice remembering this joy is a foretaste, and will be replaced by a vastly better joy.
4. “Let those who buy [do so] as though they had no goods.”
Let Christians keep on buying while this age lasts. Christianity is not withdrawal from business. We are involved, but as though not involved. Business simply does not have the weight in our hearts that it has for many. All our getting and all our having in this world is getting and having things that are not ultimately important. Our car, our house, our books, our computers, our heirlooms—we possess them with a loose grip. If they are taken away, we say that in a sense we did not have them. We are not here to possess. We are here to lay up treasures in heaven.
This world matters. But it is not ultimate. It is the stage for living in such a way to show that this world is not our God, but that Christ is our God. It is the stage for using the world to show that Christ is more precious than the world.
5. “Let those who deal with the world [do so] as though they had no dealings with it.”
Christians should deal with the world. This world is here to be used. Dealt with. There is no avoiding it. Not to deal with it is to deal with it that way. Not to weed your garden is to cultivate a weedy garden. Not to wear a coat in Minnesota is to freeze—to deal with the cold that way. Not to stop when the light is red is to spend your money on fines or hospital bills and deal with the world that way. We must deal with the world.
But as we deal with it, we don’t give it our fullest attention. We don’t ascribe to the world the greatest status. There are unseen things that are vastly more precious than the world. We use the world without offering it our whole soul. We may work with all our might when dealing with the world, but the full passions of our heart will be attached to something higher—Godward purposes. We use the world, but not as an end in itself. It is a means. We deal with the world in order to make much of Christ.
Remember: “The world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever” (1 John 2:17).
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Fatwa!
It is human tendency to generalize. I guess when we generalize about someone other than us, it makes it easier to categorize, package, and label them, so that we know why we're not them, and we tell ourselves that's why we're better than them. But it's rarely that simple in reality is it?
Here's a great example. Just saw this news article and it made me chuckle. While strongly differ with the Islamic belief system, I don't have to argue through generalization, that just alienates people. After all it stings when those same kinds of generalizations come back around our way.
Muslims issue fatwa against terrorism.
Here's a great example. Just saw this news article and it made me chuckle. While strongly differ with the Islamic belief system, I don't have to argue through generalization, that just alienates people. After all it stings when those same kinds of generalizations come back around our way.
Muslims issue fatwa against terrorism.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
The "Diabolical" Devil
With reference to Genesis 3, the question arises how Satan could successfully manipulate a perfect human being, untainted by sin and in perfect union with God to willfully fall into disobedience of God’s simply and clear command. In the narrative of Genesis 3 the serpent’s diabolical genius is at work. And from it we learn about why he keeps "getting" us.
First, the serpent gently led Eve to progressive departure from implicit trust in God. Satan did not start with outright denial of God’s Word. Instead, he led her gently into a process of doubting God’s purpose (3:1), to contradicting His Word (3:4) to actually doubting that God had her own interests at heart (3:5).
Second, the serpent aroused in Eve a desire for fulfillment apart from God. Having fractured her trust in God, the serpent implied to her that there was something she lacked, by telling her, “Your eyes will be opened” (3:5b). He then opened to her a potential world of knowledge; again with an indirect statement about God’s supposed secret fear, “you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (3:5c). He had led Eve toward a thought process of obtaining fulfillment apart from God. However, his real genius is seen in his final step in the procedure.
Finally, the serpent stepped back to allow Eve to foment in her own lust. Having done his work in putting the seed of doubt in Eve’s mind and arousing her own desires, the serpent is then interestingly not a part of the further narrative that leads up to and past the fall of Eve and Adam into sin. In 3:6, it is Eve’s thought process alone that led to her sin. The serpent’s work was done, and he shrewdly distanced himself from interfering in her final individual plunge into sin, knowing “each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire” (James 1:14). In fact, the serpent did not make Eve sin, he just encouraged her doubt and made it seem the reasonable course of action. Eve rationalized progressively that “the tree was good for food” (3:6a) – that firstly it would provide bodily nourishment; God indeed desired Adam and Eve’s wellbeing (2:16,17). She then rationalized that the tree was “a delight for the eyes” (3:6b) – God indeed had created trees for this very purpose, “God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food” (2:9), and therefore partaking would fit in with God’s express desire. Finally, she saw that “the tree was to be desired to make one wise” – and such a result would only be in the center of God’s will.
The serpent brought Eve to sin, not by making her choose sin over obedience, but by helping her paint in her own mind her need to think independently of God and thus see what actually was sin as the expedient course of action.
Let this reminder ring a warning bell in our own hearts. Don't try to wrestle with the devil. Resist him.
First, the serpent gently led Eve to progressive departure from implicit trust in God. Satan did not start with outright denial of God’s Word. Instead, he led her gently into a process of doubting God’s purpose (3:1), to contradicting His Word (3:4) to actually doubting that God had her own interests at heart (3:5).
Second, the serpent aroused in Eve a desire for fulfillment apart from God. Having fractured her trust in God, the serpent implied to her that there was something she lacked, by telling her, “Your eyes will be opened” (3:5b). He then opened to her a potential world of knowledge; again with an indirect statement about God’s supposed secret fear, “you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (3:5c). He had led Eve toward a thought process of obtaining fulfillment apart from God. However, his real genius is seen in his final step in the procedure.
Finally, the serpent stepped back to allow Eve to foment in her own lust. Having done his work in putting the seed of doubt in Eve’s mind and arousing her own desires, the serpent is then interestingly not a part of the further narrative that leads up to and past the fall of Eve and Adam into sin. In 3:6, it is Eve’s thought process alone that led to her sin. The serpent’s work was done, and he shrewdly distanced himself from interfering in her final individual plunge into sin, knowing “each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire” (James 1:14). In fact, the serpent did not make Eve sin, he just encouraged her doubt and made it seem the reasonable course of action. Eve rationalized progressively that “the tree was good for food” (3:6a) – that firstly it would provide bodily nourishment; God indeed desired Adam and Eve’s wellbeing (2:16,17). She then rationalized that the tree was “a delight for the eyes” (3:6b) – God indeed had created trees for this very purpose, “God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food” (2:9), and therefore partaking would fit in with God’s express desire. Finally, she saw that “the tree was to be desired to make one wise” – and such a result would only be in the center of God’s will.
The serpent brought Eve to sin, not by making her choose sin over obedience, but by helping her paint in her own mind her need to think independently of God and thus see what actually was sin as the expedient course of action.
Let this reminder ring a warning bell in our own hearts. Don't try to wrestle with the devil. Resist him.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Yes we can WHAT?
Soap Box time.
I have no issues with Obama... I kind of like the guy and his smoke-mouth. But with this talk of movements and change and revolution and young people excited about politics and whatnot... it gets me thinking there's a bit of overstatement going on about the needs of the moment. Obama echoes language in his talks from the great speeches of past generations, but my issue is that we aren't really facing the same kind of issues at the same level as we did at those times.
Slavery? Genocide of Jews? Racism and Human Rights? When we say Yes we Can with reference to such issues, it rings true. Rallying support looks righteous, not cultist.
But this?
Speaking as an outsider, it's hard to understand why we need to be passionate about this at the level that its being portrayed. The foundation just does not come across as critical enough, especially in the middle of a nation that, all things considered, still is probably the "free-est" place in the world to live in.
To me it seems that it's more about the dynamism of Obama than anything else. And ultimately, that people need hope at a scale that this stuff cannot even begin to touch. That seed of need is unidentified by most, but ever present in the heart and ignited by the slightest whisper of false salvation.
But hope cannot begin by looking inward. The idea of "the Human Spirit" is so subtly Godless that it's hard to catch it, but it takes hold of the heart like a firestorm, and before you know it, we're self sufficient, and Yes We Can.
edit: Glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks this.
I have no issues with Obama... I kind of like the guy and his smoke-mouth. But with this talk of movements and change and revolution and young people excited about politics and whatnot... it gets me thinking there's a bit of overstatement going on about the needs of the moment. Obama echoes language in his talks from the great speeches of past generations, but my issue is that we aren't really facing the same kind of issues at the same level as we did at those times.
Slavery? Genocide of Jews? Racism and Human Rights? When we say Yes we Can with reference to such issues, it rings true. Rallying support looks righteous, not cultist.
But this?
Speaking as an outsider, it's hard to understand why we need to be passionate about this at the level that its being portrayed. The foundation just does not come across as critical enough, especially in the middle of a nation that, all things considered, still is probably the "free-est" place in the world to live in.
To me it seems that it's more about the dynamism of Obama than anything else. And ultimately, that people need hope at a scale that this stuff cannot even begin to touch. That seed of need is unidentified by most, but ever present in the heart and ignited by the slightest whisper of false salvation.
But hope cannot begin by looking inward. The idea of "the Human Spirit" is so subtly Godless that it's hard to catch it, but it takes hold of the heart like a firestorm, and before you know it, we're self sufficient, and Yes We Can.
edit: Glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks this.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
What Apocrypha?
The Apocrypha refers to a group of 11 books commonly tagged on to the Old Testament by the Catholic Church, who claim these as Scripture. Why is it in there? There's a lot of reasons for and against, and I strongly believe it has no place in the Bible. But on what basis? I believe there's a strong argument why not, that's the reason for this post. But I need to set this up clearly. It's worth it, stay with me.
First, some historical background:
The Greek translation of the Old Testament (called the Septuagint or LXX - 'the 70'):
The Catholic Bible contains 11 of these books. It is important to understand that the majority of these writings are certain to have been around during the life of Christ and certainly the Apostles were aware of them (we see their influence in the NT - see Jude for example. NOTE: quotation in scripture does not equal canonicity, Paul quoted from pagan poets.)
Second, regarding the Hebrew Old Testament:
What protestants call the "Old Testament" comes from the Hebrew "Tanakh". The same books occur as are in the Old Testament (sans Apocrypha). But that's not the issue. What is pertinent to our discussion is the order of the books in the Hebrew Tanakh: There are three divisions: The Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. (Stay with me! it gets good.) In the Protestant Old Testament, The Order is Law, Writings, Prophets (the last being Malachi). However, in the Tanakh, it is Law, Prophets, Writings. Which means that The first book is Genesis, but the last book (contained in the writings) is Chronicles.(here for verification.)
Key here is that the Apocrypha was tagged on to the end of the OT.
Finally, lets tie it together:
Jesus is speaking here about the of the historic rejection of the prophets. Then he makes a comprehensive statement - about the blood of all the righteous shed on the earth. And for this he refers to the Hebrew scriptures and starts with the first innocent who was murdered (Abel - from Genesis, the first book). The next name would be the last prophet, we assume. But who's this Zechariah fellow? He's not Zechariah the prophet of the eponymous book that's almost at the end of the OT. It's better than that. You know where I'm going, but you're not sure...
A murdered prophet. To a modern day Bible reader the connection would not have been made. But hopefully it's clear now - Christ was referring to an incident from the last book of the Tanakh! With his sweeping statement, he was referring to all of scripture - from the beginning with Abel, to the end, with Zechariah. And there's no mention of that group of documents which rhymes with "Apocrypha". Seems pretty clear that he didn't consider them at all. So why should we?
[For even more clarity, See also: Luke 24:27,44 "law, prophets, writings". No Apocrypha.]
Remember: they existed in practically their full state at that time. It wasn't like the New Testament, which hadn't been written yet.
First, some historical background:
The Greek translation of the Old Testament (called the Septuagint or LXX - 'the 70'):
as handed down through Christians contains 14 (or 15 depending how they are grouped) additional books not found in the Hebrew Old Testament. These additional books are know by the Greek term apocrypha, meaning "hidden."
http://www.bibleteachings.org/apocrypha.html
The Catholic Bible contains 11 of these books. It is important to understand that the majority of these writings are certain to have been around during the life of Christ and certainly the Apostles were aware of them (we see their influence in the NT - see Jude for example. NOTE: quotation in scripture does not equal canonicity, Paul quoted from pagan poets.)
Second, regarding the Hebrew Old Testament:
What protestants call the "Old Testament" comes from the Hebrew "Tanakh". The same books occur as are in the Old Testament (sans Apocrypha). But that's not the issue. What is pertinent to our discussion is the order of the books in the Hebrew Tanakh: There are three divisions: The Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. (Stay with me! it gets good.) In the Protestant Old Testament, The Order is Law, Writings, Prophets (the last being Malachi). However, in the Tanakh, it is Law, Prophets, Writings. Which means that The first book is Genesis, but the last book (contained in the writings) is Chronicles.(here for verification.)
Key here is that the Apocrypha was tagged on to the end of the OT.
Finally, lets tie it together:
Matthew 23:35-35
Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.
Jesus is speaking here about the of the historic rejection of the prophets. Then he makes a comprehensive statement - about the blood of all the righteous shed on the earth. And for this he refers to the Hebrew scriptures and starts with the first innocent who was murdered (Abel - from Genesis, the first book). The next name would be the last prophet, we assume. But who's this Zechariah fellow? He's not Zechariah the prophet of the eponymous book that's almost at the end of the OT. It's better than that. You know where I'm going, but you're not sure...
2 Chronicles 24:20-21
Then the Spirit of God clothed Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, and he stood above the people, and said to them, “Thus says God, ‘Why do you break the commandments of the Lord, so that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has forsaken you.’” But they conspired against him, and by command of the king they stoned him with stones in the court of the house of the Lord.
A murdered prophet. To a modern day Bible reader the connection would not have been made. But hopefully it's clear now - Christ was referring to an incident from the last book of the Tanakh! With his sweeping statement, he was referring to all of scripture - from the beginning with Abel, to the end, with Zechariah. And there's no mention of that group of documents which rhymes with "Apocrypha". Seems pretty clear that he didn't consider them at all. So why should we?
[For even more clarity, See also: Luke 24:27,44 "law, prophets, writings". No Apocrypha.]
Remember: they existed in practically their full state at that time. It wasn't like the New Testament, which hadn't been written yet.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
God's Sovereignty - Not if, but How.
A friend and I were discussing the issue of whether the fact that God is sovereign over all things means that he actively orchestrates every single event in history, from the dropping of a piece of chalk to our acts of sin.
[We both reject Open Theism. This is just a discussion about the fact of God's sovereign control over all things and specifically HOW it works]
Briefly, these were the thoughts that emerged:
Maybe the issue is that we need to separate the terms Sovereignty and Will. Does God do/force to happen everything he desires? ("he desires all men to be saved") No. But does God accomplish everything according to his purpose? (Eph 1) Clearly.
It boggles the mind. God's power is such that even when in the present all actions are turned against his will, ultimately looking back from a future date [nay, even in the rebellious now!], we can conclude that even though those actions may not have been according to his will; they were according to His intricately plotted out purpose.
Words of comfort to 'some of us' who are prone to wander.
[Now I realise this isn't an in depth study, so please feel free to use scripture to enhance /enlighten this discussion.]
[We both reject Open Theism. This is just a discussion about the fact of God's sovereign control over all things and specifically HOW it works]
Briefly, these were the thoughts that emerged:
1. We are limited in our ability to understand the infinite. Therefore tread lightly.
2. God's sovereignty is not hands-off : free will is a loaded concept. Any will is always subsidiary and subject to God's purpose.
3. But (and Biblical examples are clear) God's sovereignty is not micro-management. He does allow sin. He does give Satan room to function (Job's case for example).
4. But does it need to be micromanagement? God is omnipotent... in that he has created laws and decrees, both Physical and Spiritual, which will come to pass whatever may try to interfere. Even in the micro, we CAN be out of his WILL (Sin) but never out of his sovereignly ordained PLAN. Can we disobey him? Obviously. But can we defeat his purpose for our lives? Consequently, just because we do something that goes against his command/will, it doesn't necessitate that we are also acting against his sovereignty.
Maybe the issue is that we need to separate the terms Sovereignty and Will. Does God do/force to happen everything he desires? ("he desires all men to be saved") No. But does God accomplish everything according to his purpose? (Eph 1) Clearly.
It boggles the mind. God's power is such that even when in the present all actions are turned against his will, ultimately looking back from a future date [nay, even in the rebellious now!], we can conclude that even though those actions may not have been according to his will; they were according to His intricately plotted out purpose.
Words of comfort to 'some of us' who are prone to wander.
[Now I realise this isn't an in depth study, so please feel free to use scripture to enhance /enlighten this discussion.]
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
I forgive you, but...
I've been thinking about forgiveness recently, and surprisingly there's a can of worms where I didn't imagine one to be: On whether forgiveness is conditional.
And so I did a little looking, and am going to make it a blogpost just because it's a place to have it for reference.
A few passages that relate:
Dealing with the passages:
Eph 4:32 is a good starting point. Some have used it to say that our forgiveness is modelled on Christ's. Which in a sense is true, but you can take it to far by saying "Christ forgave but on condition of our repentance." I disagree, because the verse seems to be more about the act of forgiveness rather than the method - "God in Christ has forgiven you! You now go and forgive". The passage is not saying "God in Christ forgave you, but it was conditional on your repentance. Therefore, now go and forgive everyone who is truly repentant".
There's more clarity available - Matt 18 and Luke 11 can be used to show that forgivness necessitates repentance. However, when we look at the passage in Mark 11:25, there we find a broader context. And putting the three verses together, this is how it looks:
1. We are to forgive all who sin against us unconditionally. (Mark 11:25). This is the broad circle, as it were.
2. We are therefore (now a smaller circle) required to forgive everyone who asks us for forgiveness. (Matt 18, Luke 17:2-3) The logic is obvious in light of Mark 11.
Some synonyms of words found in the Bible for forgive: "to show grace", "to release", "to deduct". In that light, when we forgive, we would be required to show grace (not hold onto a root of bitterness) to release (from debt) and to deduct (from any losses we might have incurred). That's Biblical forgiveness, and all these attitudes are possible unilaterally.
However, there is a place where a hands on approach is necessary, and Matt 18 and Luke 17:2-3 make that clear - there are times when the type of sin committed necessitates confrontation. Interestingly, the onus is not on the sinner but on the sinned against " If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault". The motive is not vindication but restoration. "If he listens to you, you have gained your brother."
Sometimes we run away from confrontation and "just forgive" but true love sometimes needs to do more to gain our brothers and sisters. And sometimes other people have to be broght into the picture (Matt 18), but that's about Church discipline.
This is therefore where I stand: Christian Forgiveness is unilateral and unconditional, but there are times when restoration is necessary even if forgiveness has been granted by the wronged party - again, a separate but related issue - love seeks the restoration of lost relationship and the repentance that accompanies restoration. Part of what you might need in the process of leaving bitterness behind is to address the issue with the person who has sinned against you.
And so I did a little looking, and am going to make it a blogpost just because it's a place to have it for reference.
A few passages that relate:
Eph 4:32
"Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you."
Matt 18:21,22-
"Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.""
Luke 17:2-3
Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, 4 and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”
Mark 11:25
And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.
(look up verse 26, it's a killer)
Dealing with the passages:
Eph 4:32 is a good starting point. Some have used it to say that our forgiveness is modelled on Christ's. Which in a sense is true, but you can take it to far by saying "Christ forgave but on condition of our repentance." I disagree, because the verse seems to be more about the act of forgiveness rather than the method - "God in Christ has forgiven you! You now go and forgive". The passage is not saying "God in Christ forgave you, but it was conditional on your repentance. Therefore, now go and forgive everyone who is truly repentant".
There's more clarity available - Matt 18 and Luke 11 can be used to show that forgivness necessitates repentance. However, when we look at the passage in Mark 11:25, there we find a broader context. And putting the three verses together, this is how it looks:
1. We are to forgive all who sin against us unconditionally. (Mark 11:25). This is the broad circle, as it were.
2. We are therefore (now a smaller circle) required to forgive everyone who asks us for forgiveness. (Matt 18, Luke 17:2-3) The logic is obvious in light of Mark 11.
Some synonyms of words found in the Bible for forgive: "to show grace", "to release", "to deduct". In that light, when we forgive, we would be required to show grace (not hold onto a root of bitterness) to release (from debt) and to deduct (from any losses we might have incurred). That's Biblical forgiveness, and all these attitudes are possible unilaterally.
However, there is a place where a hands on approach is necessary, and Matt 18 and Luke 17:2-3 make that clear - there are times when the type of sin committed necessitates confrontation. Interestingly, the onus is not on the sinner but on the sinned against " If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault". The motive is not vindication but restoration. "If he listens to you, you have gained your brother."
Sometimes we run away from confrontation and "just forgive" but true love sometimes needs to do more to gain our brothers and sisters. And sometimes other people have to be broght into the picture (Matt 18), but that's about Church discipline.
This is therefore where I stand: Christian Forgiveness is unilateral and unconditional, but there are times when restoration is necessary even if forgiveness has been granted by the wronged party - again, a separate but related issue - love seeks the restoration of lost relationship and the repentance that accompanies restoration. Part of what you might need in the process of leaving bitterness behind is to address the issue with the person who has sinned against you.
Monday, February 26, 2007
One more pebble hits the wall.
TIME Magazine put out an article over the weekend which purports to prove that Jesus is still dead. Normally this kind of stuff I would just ignore, but then I started thinking - about how ironic it is that Christians are accused of intellectual suicide and grabbing at straws of "faith" (apparently faith meaning belief in the non-existent). The intellectual unfairness that takes place in such "findings" gives me the same feeling as having a root canal.
But because a celebrity is taking up this cause, it's going to be more mainstream than it would have been and have more intellectual clout (ironically) than it would have had. A movie review site I read said this about the whole thing-
How do you respond to statements like that? I don't think we really need to. Compare it to consiracy theories: That man never went into space or landed on the moon (google it, there's plenty of such sites) or that the holocaust never happened. And "proof" is supplied. At the heart of it is incredulity. How do you respond to such ideas? Normal people don't usually waste their time on researching a response.
Conspiracy theorists probably have similar words about their detractors as "inane inflexibility".
It is of note that the issue at stake is foundational: The resurrection of Jesus Christ, of which Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:17-19:
He said it not from a standpoint of fear, like the world assumes, but of confidence. Where was his confidence? In his blind "faith"? Not likely. See what he says just prior to the verses above:
Why do we believe that James Cameron has no case? Well, because he's trying to rewrite the facts. That pebble is going to drop to the ground.
Edit: Cameron's Problems Begin
Edit: For Further Reference
But because a celebrity is taking up this cause, it's going to be more mainstream than it would have been and have more intellectual clout (ironically) than it would have had. A movie review site I read said this about the whole thing-
"It’ll be interesting to see what he’s come up with, but it’ll be just as interesting to see the Christian response. Here’s the thing about the faithful: no matter how much proof you show them, they won’t believe what they don’t want to believe. We’re supposed to respect that sort of inane inflexibility."
How do you respond to statements like that? I don't think we really need to. Compare it to consiracy theories: That man never went into space or landed on the moon (google it, there's plenty of such sites) or that the holocaust never happened. And "proof" is supplied. At the heart of it is incredulity. How do you respond to such ideas? Normal people don't usually waste their time on researching a response.
Conspiracy theorists probably have similar words about their detractors as "inane inflexibility".
It is of note that the issue at stake is foundational: The resurrection of Jesus Christ, of which Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:17-19:
And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.
He said it not from a standpoint of fear, like the world assumes, but of confidence. Where was his confidence? In his blind "faith"? Not likely. See what he says just prior to the verses above:
1 Cor 15:3-8
"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. "
Why do we believe that James Cameron has no case? Well, because he's trying to rewrite the facts. That pebble is going to drop to the ground.
Edit: Cameron's Problems Begin
Edit: For Further Reference
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Prosperity Gospel hits the mainstream
TIME.com: Does God Want You to Be Rich? A Holy Controversy
When Time covers something like this, you know it's hit the bigtime. According to the article,
And what about Jesus' words in the Gospels? Well the article leaves the contradiction between this doctrine and scripture without real answer. Instead:
No real surprises about how popular all this is, though I was surprised to see Rick Warren listed as a major detractor to this doctrine.
In trying to be "balanced", the article ends up being vague and clouding the issue... and you end up left with the idea that there is no clarity in scripture on this topic and that the Church has not really addressed the issue clearly. Not true, even in my limited personal experience.
The crisis to me is singular: The view of God that is being propounded here is idolatory. In fact, on probing further it seems that the real God here is self. Maybe it's a reflection on a peculiarly American mindset that "I" is the beginning and end of all things.
Tozer warned his generation that the Church needed a high view of God--So much more urgent is this call today.
Some verses come to mind.
Let's understand who God is as he has revealed himself to us, not as we want him to be, and tailor our lives and purpose in life to a right view of God.
When Time covers something like this, you know it's hit the bigtime. According to the article,
"17% of Christians surveyed said they considered themselves part of such a movement, while a full 61% believed that God wants people to be prosperous. And 31%—a far higher percentage than there are Pentecostals in America—agreed that if you give your money to God, God will bless you with more money."
And what about Jesus' words in the Gospels? Well the article leaves the contradiction between this doctrine and scripture without real answer. Instead:
But for a growing number of Christians like George Adams, the question is better restated, 'Why not gain the whole world plus my soul?' For several decades, a philosophy has been percolating in the 10 million-strong Pentecostal wing of Christianity that seems to turn the Gospels' passage on its head: certainly, it allows, Christians should keep one eye on heaven.
No real surprises about how popular all this is, though I was surprised to see Rick Warren listed as a major detractor to this doctrine.
In trying to be "balanced", the article ends up being vague and clouding the issue... and you end up left with the idea that there is no clarity in scripture on this topic and that the Church has not really addressed the issue clearly. Not true, even in my limited personal experience.
The crisis to me is singular: The view of God that is being propounded here is idolatory. In fact, on probing further it seems that the real God here is self. Maybe it's a reflection on a peculiarly American mindset that "I" is the beginning and end of all things.
Tozer warned his generation that the Church needed a high view of God--So much more urgent is this call today.
Some verses come to mind.
About Christ:
[Colossians 1:16]
For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
From Paul:
[Acts: 20:22-24]
And now, behold, I am going to Jerusalem, constrained by the Spirit, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me. But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.
Let's understand who God is as he has revealed himself to us, not as we want him to be, and tailor our lives and purpose in life to a right view of God.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Lying and the Bible - Part 1/3
In a recent conversation with a good friend, the age old issue of whether lying is ever justified was raised, and later I felt like I needed to do a systematic approach in the understanding of the matter.
In addition, I don't want to trust just my own intellect, which is my tendency. Where spiritual matters are concerned, as much as I can I want to rely on the Word of God. If it is undogmatic, I want to be undogmatic. If it is clear, there I want to take a stand.
Outright, I am of the opinion that lying is not justified. But rather than start from that presupposition and give a list of proofs, I want to try and use scripture to gain an understanding. Scripture first, then hypotheses. Of course, my biases probably will show through, but I hope as a whole the logic will be unblemised.
Some Fundamentals
What does the Bible say about lying?
A few passages come to mind.
There are a lot more passages about this throughout scripture, but I think these are sufficient to get an idea that we are commanded not to lie, and that lying is s sin.
God is a God of truth. But as His children, we we are urged to imitate God.
God is our standard for morality. If he is perfectly holy, then we are called to be perfectly holy (whether we can be is not the issue, what we are commanded is). Our sanctification is the process of us becoming like Christ in all his perfection.
The standard is very high. Immediately I realize I cannot attain it. But the difficulty does not mean I stop working out my salvation with fear and trembling. Why? Because it is GOD who is at work in me, not my own effort, so that I can will and act for his good pleasure. I'm not alone in this endeavour (Phil 2:12,13), This is a wonderful manifestation of Grace.
Hang on you say, what about the exceptions? Well, I'm trying to do this a step at a time, and exceptions or complications, however you want to call it, will come later.
So what is a lie? Starting with the bare bone definition, a lie is an active action. You lie simply when you speak what is not true. Even when we speak of "not telling the truth" we are usually not talking about a passive witholding of information, but of untruth being spoken. This is the first aspect of the issue that I want to deal with.
So far, my simple mind is devoid of further issue and I'm happy to submit to scripture - speaking untruth is forbidden. I want to be like Jesus, and this is his demand. I cannot lie. the issue is so far uncomplicated.
In addition, I don't want to trust just my own intellect, which is my tendency. Where spiritual matters are concerned, as much as I can I want to rely on the Word of God. If it is undogmatic, I want to be undogmatic. If it is clear, there I want to take a stand.
Outright, I am of the opinion that lying is not justified. But rather than start from that presupposition and give a list of proofs, I want to try and use scripture to gain an understanding. Scripture first, then hypotheses. Of course, my biases probably will show through, but I hope as a whole the logic will be unblemised.
Some Fundamentals
What does the Bible say about lying?
A few passages come to mind.
Exodus 20:16 - You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Titus 1:2 - in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began.
Heb 6:18 - so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us.
Rev 21:8 8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.
There are a lot more passages about this throughout scripture, but I think these are sufficient to get an idea that we are commanded not to lie, and that lying is s sin.
God is a God of truth. But as His children, we we are urged to imitate God.
1 Cor 11:1 - Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
1 Peter 1:16 - since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”
God is our standard for morality. If he is perfectly holy, then we are called to be perfectly holy (whether we can be is not the issue, what we are commanded is). Our sanctification is the process of us becoming like Christ in all his perfection.
The standard is very high. Immediately I realize I cannot attain it. But the difficulty does not mean I stop working out my salvation with fear and trembling. Why? Because it is GOD who is at work in me, not my own effort, so that I can will and act for his good pleasure. I'm not alone in this endeavour (Phil 2:12,13), This is a wonderful manifestation of Grace.
Hang on you say, what about the exceptions? Well, I'm trying to do this a step at a time, and exceptions or complications, however you want to call it, will come later.
So what is a lie? Starting with the bare bone definition, a lie is an active action. You lie simply when you speak what is not true. Even when we speak of "not telling the truth" we are usually not talking about a passive witholding of information, but of untruth being spoken. This is the first aspect of the issue that I want to deal with.
So far, my simple mind is devoid of further issue and I'm happy to submit to scripture - speaking untruth is forbidden. I want to be like Jesus, and this is his demand. I cannot lie. the issue is so far uncomplicated.
Lying and the Bible - Part 2/3
Exceptions?
The first rude awakening occurs when the accounts of Rahab and the Egyptian midwives are thrown at me. Both are examples of people who spoke actual untruth. Both were commended in some way by God. The question is raised whether this can be used as an exception to God's rule of lying.
Rahab: Joshua 2 tells us a wonderful story of God's eternal Grace. A prostitute saw the glory of God through His works for Israel, and she believed. I love verse 11.
There are two verses that raise questions. The first on is Hebrews 11:31.
The second passage about Rahab could raise a few more questions.
a. What is the passage about?
We find a clue about this from verse 14 of the same chapter
b. So why this controversial person as an example?
Why Rahab? Does her inclusion beside Abraham itself mean that all her works on behalf of the Israelites was justified? Lets look at the passage contextually again. First, Abraham is mentioned. He is the father of the Jewish nation. He is the called out one. His is an example of an insider if there ever was one. But to reinforce his point, James puts forward a rank outsider, a pagan, a prostitute, an outcast. And he shows us that even though she had faith (As we have seen in Hebrews 11) her faith was not alone. She staked her life on her belief that Yahweh was Lord. What a set up for his final statement in the chapter - "faith without works is dead".
c. What about her works is justified?
Sticking with the words of scripture, James 2:25 mentions specifically that Rahab welcomed the spies and sent them another way. In simple terms, she helped the people of God. This help was the evidence of her faith. We do not see an endorsement of her lies, or even that somehow she was OK in allowing the soldiers of Jericho to believe that the Jews had come to her for prostitution. All those issues are subsidiary, and not even dealt with in James. We need to say what scripture says and be quiet when it speaks nothing about an issue.
I am reminded of David, the "man after God's own heart". I struggled for a long while with the fact that though David is upheld as one of the great ones in the OT, his life is filled with immorality, inconsistency and lack of faith. What about Abraham? He is noted as an example of justification by faith, and yet the major part of his life is characterized by disbelief and lack of trust. Was there a different standard for these? Did God somehow allow those things then for them, because the situation was different? No! Once again, we see that God is steadfast in his love and gracious to all. His grace covered them ultimately through Christ (Rom 3:21-26)
The Egyptian Midwives:
A similar principle applies here, the favor of God cannot justifiably be used to endorse lies. We have seen God rewarding faith similarly in Abraham, David and Rahab, the weakness of the sinner is covered by Grace. Vs 21 elaborates - they "feared God" and God blessed them.
Edit: To further elucidate, they feared God above man. So when Pharaoh commanded them to kill the Hebrew babies, they refused. This was what God blessed them for. They obeyed him rather than man. That they spoke untruth does not justify it just because they were intending good.
We need to use scripture to interpret scripture, and use the certain to interpret the uncertain, not the reverse. Lying is sin, and we do not have sufficient warrant to add exceptions to a command which is absolute.
The first rude awakening occurs when the accounts of Rahab and the Egyptian midwives are thrown at me. Both are examples of people who spoke actual untruth. Both were commended in some way by God. The question is raised whether this can be used as an exception to God's rule of lying.
Rahab: Joshua 2 tells us a wonderful story of God's eternal Grace. A prostitute saw the glory of God through His works for Israel, and she believed. I love verse 11.
11 And as soon as we heard it [of God's power through Israel], our hearts melted, and there was no spirit left in any man because of you, for the Lord your God, he is God in the heavens above and on the earth beneath.In Joshua chapter 2:5,6 we are presented with this woman, Rahab who speaks untruth in order to save the Jewish spies who are hiding in her house. Her belief in the God of Israel led her to help the spies, and lying was a part of this help. At this point, there would be no real problem. Lying is a sin, and therefore what she did was a sin. The end does not justify the means. We would put this down to another testimony of God's grace in a weak sinner.
There are two verses that raise questions. The first on is Hebrews 11:31.
By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies.With regard to the issue at hand, there is no explicit connection. This verse is talking about Rahab's faith in the God of Israel. No mention or endorsement is made of her actions. I believe this verse is a comment on Rahab's attitude in Joshua 2:11. Additionally, we can use a previous verse in the chapter to shed light on our understanding of what was this faith of Rahab.
Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
The second passage about Rahab could raise a few more questions.
James 2:25 - And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?We begin to wonder - was Rahab justified by works, including her lie? This would allow for an argument that said cetain kind of lying is justified. I think the problem arises when we come to a text and try to understand from it what it was never intended to prove or disprove. My solution is simply this - lets look at the passage and understand it's meaning and implications in context.
a. What is the passage about?
We find a clue about this from verse 14 of the same chapter
James 2:14 - What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?The point is the one that has been made by great theologians from the ages since the reformation - that we are justified by faith alone, but that faith is NOT ALONE. Deeds must follow our belief. Action proves that we truly believe. Rahab is one of the examples.
b. So why this controversial person as an example?
Why Rahab? Does her inclusion beside Abraham itself mean that all her works on behalf of the Israelites was justified? Lets look at the passage contextually again. First, Abraham is mentioned. He is the father of the Jewish nation. He is the called out one. His is an example of an insider if there ever was one. But to reinforce his point, James puts forward a rank outsider, a pagan, a prostitute, an outcast. And he shows us that even though she had faith (As we have seen in Hebrews 11) her faith was not alone. She staked her life on her belief that Yahweh was Lord. What a set up for his final statement in the chapter - "faith without works is dead".
c. What about her works is justified?
Sticking with the words of scripture, James 2:25 mentions specifically that Rahab welcomed the spies and sent them another way. In simple terms, she helped the people of God. This help was the evidence of her faith. We do not see an endorsement of her lies, or even that somehow she was OK in allowing the soldiers of Jericho to believe that the Jews had come to her for prostitution. All those issues are subsidiary, and not even dealt with in James. We need to say what scripture says and be quiet when it speaks nothing about an issue.
I am reminded of David, the "man after God's own heart". I struggled for a long while with the fact that though David is upheld as one of the great ones in the OT, his life is filled with immorality, inconsistency and lack of faith. What about Abraham? He is noted as an example of justification by faith, and yet the major part of his life is characterized by disbelief and lack of trust. Was there a different standard for these? Did God somehow allow those things then for them, because the situation was different? No! Once again, we see that God is steadfast in his love and gracious to all. His grace covered them ultimately through Christ (Rom 3:21-26)
The Egyptian Midwives:
Exodus 1:19-21 - The midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women, for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them.” So God dealt well with the midwives. And the people multiplied and grew very strong. And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families.
A similar principle applies here, the favor of God cannot justifiably be used to endorse lies. We have seen God rewarding faith similarly in Abraham, David and Rahab, the weakness of the sinner is covered by Grace. Vs 21 elaborates - they "feared God" and God blessed them.
Edit: To further elucidate, they feared God above man. So when Pharaoh commanded them to kill the Hebrew babies, they refused. This was what God blessed them for. They obeyed him rather than man. That they spoke untruth does not justify it just because they were intending good.
We need to use scripture to interpret scripture, and use the certain to interpret the uncertain, not the reverse. Lying is sin, and we do not have sufficient warrant to add exceptions to a command which is absolute.
Lying and the Bible - Part 3/3
Broader definitions of Lying
So far I have dealt with simply speaking what is true. There is a broader issue however. Deception takes many forms.
1. What about half truths?
2. What about withholding information?
3. What about simple tomfoolery, pranks, games, etc?
Firstly not all these things can really be put into one category as "lying". For instance, withholding information is many times healthy and desirable, for instance in issues of confidentiality, whether spiritual or even military. Wisdom and deception are far removed from each other.
Games are another area - both sides are aware of certain parameters within which to function. There are accepted norms. And in fact, Games have very strict rules and penalties for going outside the bounds. When someone tries to manipulate rules, he is labelled a cheat. Why? Not just because of a transgression of law - that's a foul. Cheating is when the intent is malicious.
So morality and spirituality comes in at the point of intent. If in these cases intent is malicious then sin is born. Whether in areas of Withholding information, half truths, or Game parameters.
Again, we cannot justifiably say that lying or deception is ever endorsed Biblically. Some might take a hard line and label as lies even instances where intent is
not malicious. But I think this muddies the water unprofitably.
It is important to remember that we need to be very careful how we deal with issues out of the boundaries of explicit speaking of untruth. Intent is a hard thing to gauge. But it will be the key in unravelling the matter.
For example, a child may withhold information from a parent because of fear of consequences. The intent is sinful.
But a child may also unwittingly withhold information that might have been pertinent to the issue, simply because the child did not know it was important. The intent then was not sinful.
In this case the discernment and spiritual insight of the parent comes into play.
Final Notes
I need to delve a little into some of the more subjective arguments.
A question was raised about hierarchy of God's law. The logic was that some laws take precedence over others, and for instance if I have to lie to protect someone from being murdered, then that would be justified.
A quick note about this: The only related scriptural examples I can find are these: Children are commanded to obey their parents (Eph 6:1) All people are commanded to be subject to all authorities. (Rom 13:1) However, in each of these instances these is a caveat, if you look at the verses. from this we understand that if people in authority contradict God, then we disobey authority. This is not really teaching hierarchy of law. It is an issue of hierarchy in authority. Whenever God's word is compromised, then I obey God rather than man. So I disobey man, but it is not sin, because God specifically has declared himself supreme authority. Obeying him is of first importance.
As far as lying goes, the hierarchy of authority does not apply, because God as supreme authority has commanded us to be truthful, and there is no issue of submission to any other involved.
Edit: It has been a long while, but I thought I'd add this "mindlblowing revelation" to conclude. With regard to all the exceptions to lying that we might think up to oppose what I believe is a Biblical argument, isn't there a place to say "trust God"? However difficult the situation, if He has decreed something and we seek to obey Him, Can we not rest in knowing that He will provide the means to carry out His will? Or the strength to bear the consequences of obedience to Him? These may be painful in the moment, maybe... but eternally joyous. We serve a living, caring Father. Amen?
So far I have dealt with simply speaking what is true. There is a broader issue however. Deception takes many forms.
1. What about half truths?
2. What about withholding information?
3. What about simple tomfoolery, pranks, games, etc?
Firstly not all these things can really be put into one category as "lying". For instance, withholding information is many times healthy and desirable, for instance in issues of confidentiality, whether spiritual or even military. Wisdom and deception are far removed from each other.
Games are another area - both sides are aware of certain parameters within which to function. There are accepted norms. And in fact, Games have very strict rules and penalties for going outside the bounds. When someone tries to manipulate rules, he is labelled a cheat. Why? Not just because of a transgression of law - that's a foul. Cheating is when the intent is malicious.
So morality and spirituality comes in at the point of intent. If in these cases intent is malicious then sin is born. Whether in areas of Withholding information, half truths, or Game parameters.
Again, we cannot justifiably say that lying or deception is ever endorsed Biblically. Some might take a hard line and label as lies even instances where intent is
not malicious. But I think this muddies the water unprofitably.
It is important to remember that we need to be very careful how we deal with issues out of the boundaries of explicit speaking of untruth. Intent is a hard thing to gauge. But it will be the key in unravelling the matter.
For example, a child may withhold information from a parent because of fear of consequences. The intent is sinful.
But a child may also unwittingly withhold information that might have been pertinent to the issue, simply because the child did not know it was important. The intent then was not sinful.
In this case the discernment and spiritual insight of the parent comes into play.
Final Notes
I need to delve a little into some of the more subjective arguments.
A question was raised about hierarchy of God's law. The logic was that some laws take precedence over others, and for instance if I have to lie to protect someone from being murdered, then that would be justified.
A quick note about this: The only related scriptural examples I can find are these: Children are commanded to obey their parents (Eph 6:1) All people are commanded to be subject to all authorities. (Rom 13:1) However, in each of these instances these is a caveat, if you look at the verses. from this we understand that if people in authority contradict God, then we disobey authority. This is not really teaching hierarchy of law. It is an issue of hierarchy in authority. Whenever God's word is compromised, then I obey God rather than man. So I disobey man, but it is not sin, because God specifically has declared himself supreme authority. Obeying him is of first importance.
As far as lying goes, the hierarchy of authority does not apply, because God as supreme authority has commanded us to be truthful, and there is no issue of submission to any other involved.
Edit: It has been a long while, but I thought I'd add this "mindlblowing revelation" to conclude. With regard to all the exceptions to lying that we might think up to oppose what I believe is a Biblical argument, isn't there a place to say "trust God"? However difficult the situation, if He has decreed something and we seek to obey Him, Can we not rest in knowing that He will provide the means to carry out His will? Or the strength to bear the consequences of obedience to Him? These may be painful in the moment, maybe... but eternally joyous. We serve a living, caring Father. Amen?
Friday, March 31, 2006
Does Anyone Want to Be an Adult Anymore?
Check out this Article
Al Mohler featured an interesting article - it's long but it's interesting. The obvious question is the one Al raises about Adults holding onto childhood, but there's more, and I can't seem to place a finger on it. On the surface, cultural phenomena like this aren't evil - just maybe the deeper implications are harmful. It's easy to slip into unwarranted judgement of just appearances.
I can't get my head around it all to come up with a decent analysis, it's a bizarre trend. Something that did occur to me is that parents are to model a standard - it's part and parcel of how kids learn character. But we're seeing a generation by generation lowering of the bar - it's not just a lower standard, it's a redefining of what's the standard, what the priorities of parenting are. Check this quote about parenting from the article:
Even the jobs of choice these days might clue us into the social anarchy that seems a result of this unthinking, selfishly hedonistic mindset. At least in the article the jobs that seem to prevail: fashion, music, media, marketing, TV... it's ironic that actually these are probably the most socially impactful career tracks today. We live in a generation that blatantly cares only about itself.
To quote a song: There's something happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear. But it's time we stopped and listened and figured out what's going down.
Maybe it's not a big deal, maybe these issues are culturally relevant to the United States, but the sad truth is maybe it is important, because what's cutting edge hip is going to trickle down to the rest of the globe sooner or later.
Al Mohler featured an interesting article - it's long but it's interesting. The obvious question is the one Al raises about Adults holding onto childhood, but there's more, and I can't seem to place a finger on it. On the surface, cultural phenomena like this aren't evil - just maybe the deeper implications are harmful. It's easy to slip into unwarranted judgement of just appearances.
I can't get my head around it all to come up with a decent analysis, it's a bizarre trend. Something that did occur to me is that parents are to model a standard - it's part and parcel of how kids learn character. But we're seeing a generation by generation lowering of the bar - it's not just a lower standard, it's a redefining of what's the standard, what the priorities of parenting are. Check this quote about parenting from the article:
“You have to have a little bit of Dora the Explorer in your life,” he says. “But you can do what you can to mute its influence.” Okay. “And there’s no shame, when your kid’s watching a show, and you don’t like it, in telling him it sucks.” Yeah! There’s no—wait. What? “If you start telling him it sucks, maybe he might develop an aesthetic.” Sorry, son. No more Thomas the Tank Engine for you. Thomas sucks. Stop crying. Daddy’s helping you develop an aesthetic. Now Daddy’s going to go put on some thunder music.
Even the jobs of choice these days might clue us into the social anarchy that seems a result of this unthinking, selfishly hedonistic mindset. At least in the article the jobs that seem to prevail: fashion, music, media, marketing, TV... it's ironic that actually these are probably the most socially impactful career tracks today. We live in a generation that blatantly cares only about itself.
To quote a song: There's something happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear. But it's time we stopped and listened and figured out what's going down.
Maybe it's not a big deal, maybe these issues are culturally relevant to the United States, but the sad truth is maybe it is important, because what's cutting edge hip is going to trickle down to the rest of the globe sooner or later.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Good News - Part One
Heads Up. This might be a long one.
What is the Biblical Gospel in a simple, logical, un-cliched, reasonable form? What is Christianity as defined by the Bible? Well, here's what I think is what it boils down to - this, in the form of a Q & A. I'm starting with a presupposition that the Bible IS the only authoritative word of God. I could have gone into a lot more detail, but I'm trying to outline a basic, clear explanation.
My main purpose in this blog post is remembrance - there is rich joy in contemplating the work of Jesus in my life. I have found that it is essential to stay close to the cross if I want to remain devoted to Jesus. This is the basis of my faith, my love, my hope, my passion.
This post is in three parts: This is part 1.
PART I: The Need for Salvation.
Question 1: What have God and man have to do with each other? Who decided that there needed to be this connection - that man somehow is compelled to come to God?
Answer: Three issues.
Question 2: Ok, so there is a connection between God and man. Man is accountable and his main purpose is to glorify God. So, what's the problem? Can't we just try to please him the best we can, as he intended us to?
Answer: There's a couple of issues we need to understand before we're ready to tackle the idea of glorifying God.
Question 3: Well, I understand that sin is a problem. But I still don't quite understand what the big deal is... I mean, why can't I just do my best and can't God be merciful?
Answer: Sin has very serious effects that need to be understood if this question is to be tackled Biblically.
This is where all men and women stand without God. This is the state of all humans - dead, unable to act, hostile to God, under the wrath of God, hopelessly lost, destined for eternal punishment.
This is in clear Biblical terms, why we NEED to be saved.
What is the Biblical Gospel in a simple, logical, un-cliched, reasonable form? What is Christianity as defined by the Bible? Well, here's what I think is what it boils down to - this, in the form of a Q & A. I'm starting with a presupposition that the Bible IS the only authoritative word of God. I could have gone into a lot more detail, but I'm trying to outline a basic, clear explanation.
My main purpose in this blog post is remembrance - there is rich joy in contemplating the work of Jesus in my life. I have found that it is essential to stay close to the cross if I want to remain devoted to Jesus. This is the basis of my faith, my love, my hope, my passion.
This post is in three parts: This is part 1.
PART I: The Need for Salvation.
Question 1: What have God and man have to do with each other? Who decided that there needed to be this connection - that man somehow is compelled to come to God?
Answer: Three issues.
Issue a. Isaiah 43:7
everyone who is called by my name,
whom I created for my glory,
whom I formed and made.”
There's a simple principle found here. God created all things. We are immediately confronted with the notion of accountability. The created owes its existence to the creator.
Issue b. Colossians 1:16
For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things were created through him and for him.
So we fine-tune the previous thought a little. Not only does all of creation owe its existence to God, but the purpose of all things is to give pleasure to God.
We're not only speaking now about accountability, but about specific duty. God created all things (not just man) to be actively giving him (God) pleasure. To "glorify" him. As a side note, this is what creation implicity does by just "being" (Psalm 19:1 - "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork".)the intricacy and beauty of creation gives glory to its creator.
Issue c. Genesis 1:26Herein lies the uniqueness and specific purpose of man.
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.
The implications of this verse are very specific, because not only do they point to a special purpose for man's creation above and over the rest of creation, but they imply a means by which man can fulfil his purpose differently than the rest of creation (the purpose, as we have seen is the pleasure, the Glory, of God).
Man is in the image of God - this means not that he is God, but that unlike the rest of creation he can think, he can love, he can feel, he can have relationship connitively, by choosing to. In specific, actual ways, He can glorify God with words, with thoughts, with specifically chosen actions.
Also implied is God's tender love and special care when he created man.
Question 2: Ok, so there is a connection between God and man. Man is accountable and his main purpose is to glorify God. So, what's the problem? Can't we just try to please him the best we can, as he intended us to?
Answer: There's a couple of issues we need to understand before we're ready to tackle the idea of glorifying God.
Issue a. The Character of God
Holy - Isaiah 6:1-5
In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said:
“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts;
the whole earth is full of his glory!”
And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!
This is one of the phenomenal passages in scripture. Isaiah the prophet saw God. And this was his experience. The one thing that stands out is God's utter, unadulterated holiness. Even the perfect angels have to cover themselves in the presence of God. The idea of Holiness here is not just purity, but "otherness" - that God is set apart, above and beyond all else. And absolute purity is just an aspect of his holiness. It is this God who desires man to glorify him.
God's Standard - Leviticus 11:44
For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy.Man or woman can only fulfil his/her purpose in the context of God's holiness. Because God is so utterly holy, only a perfectly holy life will give him pleasure, will truly glorify him.
Issue b. The Fact of sin
Adam's Sin - Genesis 3:1-7
Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.
Man and woman were created perfect, in the image of God, with an unhindered ability to glorify God. The situation was perfect. No issue, no unholiness present. But by one act of disobedience, the situation changed drastically. It is only once we have a proper understanding of God from passages like Isaiah 6 (above) that this makes sense. Man's one sin put a permanent block between him and God. No longer was man's life pleasing to God, no longer could man fulfil his purpose of existence.
You might ask, "What's that to me, If the first humans God created sinned? I was not there, I had nothing to do with it!" It's a valid question, and the Bible provides an answer. Romans 5:12: Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned sin came to all, through that one man, Adam. The point here is that all human beings are now, as it were genetically "birthmarked" or stamped with sin. It is the characteristic of who we are, inherently, at birth. King David understood it well when he confessed his sin to God - Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me. Born in sin, because of Adam. All of us, without exception, are marked, and therefore, separated from God, unable to please him. This is what I mean by the "fact of sin".
Issue c. The Act of SinSin is defined here as "falling short" of God's glory (see verse). To jump across a chasm, even an inch short means death. Same with sin - it results in both physical death, as we see in our own failing bodies, as well as eternal spiritual death. This, in short is the crisis. Because of factual and actual sin, we're unable to glorify God with the standard of perfect holiness that is required, which is our purpose for being.
Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of GodSee, we're not just marked even at birth by sin, we all, without exception faced with actual sin in our lives. Who of us can claim to be without sin? The Bible is clear that all have actually, physically, committed acts of sin. There is not much argument needed here. And so we're double sinful - both by just being human, and secondly, also by choosing to sin.
Question 3: Well, I understand that sin is a problem. But I still don't quite understand what the big deal is... I mean, why can't I just do my best and can't God be merciful?
Answer: Sin has very serious effects that need to be understood if this question is to be tackled Biblically.
Issue a. Sin in Relation to God
James 2:10
For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. We've seen God's holy standard. But in addition to this, even one single disobedience to God's law means that we are in disobediece to all of God's law. It's all or nothing.
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
We saw from Romans 3:23 that sin prevents us from perfectly glorifying God. But it is important to understand that sin is not just a barrier that prevents us from communion with God. On the basis of sin being disobedience to all of God's law, we can see in this verse that it's not only a barrier, it's a crime. And crime demands punishment, and for us the "wage" is death.
Issue b. Sin with Relation to Man
Ephesians 2:1-3
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. Sin is not only punished by physical death and eternal death, Sin causes spiritual death. The idea is of total inability. Dead things dont do anything. We're dead in sin, and without life, there is no possibility of us being able to do anything of ourselves to please God. This is our state without God.
In addition to this, because we have committed a crime before the Holy God, not only are we under punishment, but under his wrath, as the verse suggests. The Bible talks about judgement in very clear terms: Hebrews 9:27 - And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment... We will all be called to answer, and by ourselves, we will bear the punishment for our sins. This is righteous, this is just.
Here are some more verses about what our sin has done to us: Romans 8:7,8 - For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
This is where all men and women stand without God. This is the state of all humans - dead, unable to act, hostile to God, under the wrath of God, hopelessly lost, destined for eternal punishment.
Revelation 20:11-15
Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
This is in clear Biblical terms, why we NEED to be saved.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Proving the existence of God
People say that it's a circular argument that us "fundamentalist Bible believing" Christians use to talk about the existence of God: Why do I believe In God? The Bible says so. Why believe the Bible? Because it's the Word of God. What makes you so sure God wrote it? Because, ultimately, the Bible says so - that's a circular argument all right, but I don't think that a Christian needs to be ashamed or guarded about it.
Sure, the Bible can be historically verified is internally consistent. Sure scriptural prophecies have stood times test. But for someone does not believe, what good does all of that do? Because some of these discussions are so far back in time that no one of us was there - all we have is the Bible - God's word that it happened.
"Faith comes by hearing the word of God". Ultimately, discussions away from the Word of God will lead nowhere, and the danger is that the authority of Scripture is undermined, traded for the wisdom of man - much of which is helpful, but just not Divine Decree.
It's hard to comprehend from an outsiders perspective, how such an approach is inviting or even desirable for anyone who does not have the same presuppositions. But I believe we have no reason to apologise, or rationalise or be diffident about the claims of God on men. There is definitely a measure of gentleness and love and compassion and understanding and relevance - this piece is not about those issues - Francis Shaeffer has got good things to say about the right approach in "taking the roof off" someone's worldview. Ultimately the only word that will save is the Word of Power - and only God's Word, Scripture, the Bible, has power to save.
Who speaks from a position of power? Is man justified in his questions about God? Let's get our perspectives right. God owes no man:
Circular arguments are OK, in my book, when they are backed by the clear mandate of God's word. It's not God who has to explain himself or prove himself. It's man who stands judged, because what is plain to him, he has suppressed, and has left himself no excuse.
Sure, the Bible can be historically verified is internally consistent. Sure scriptural prophecies have stood times test. But for someone does not believe, what good does all of that do? Because some of these discussions are so far back in time that no one of us was there - all we have is the Bible - God's word that it happened.
"Faith comes by hearing the word of God". Ultimately, discussions away from the Word of God will lead nowhere, and the danger is that the authority of Scripture is undermined, traded for the wisdom of man - much of which is helpful, but just not Divine Decree.
It's hard to comprehend from an outsiders perspective, how such an approach is inviting or even desirable for anyone who does not have the same presuppositions. But I believe we have no reason to apologise, or rationalise or be diffident about the claims of God on men. There is definitely a measure of gentleness and love and compassion and understanding and relevance - this piece is not about those issues - Francis Shaeffer has got good things to say about the right approach in "taking the roof off" someone's worldview. Ultimately the only word that will save is the Word of Power - and only God's Word, Scripture, the Bible, has power to save.
ESV, Romans 1:16-17
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, [4] as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”
Who speaks from a position of power? Is man justified in his questions about God? Let's get our perspectives right. God owes no man:
ESV, Romans 1:19-20
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Circular arguments are OK, in my book, when they are backed by the clear mandate of God's word. It's not God who has to explain himself or prove himself. It's man who stands judged, because what is plain to him, he has suppressed, and has left himself no excuse.
Monday, November 07, 2005
Holy Spirit Revival
We've been going through 1 John, and reached chapter 4, and the discussion about the experience of the Spirit from the end of Chapter 3 has sparked some thought.
Something I'm trying to understand. Coming from a cessationist, non-charistmatic, non-sign gifts background, and now trying to understand these things in light of scripture, and interesting issue is raised about the experience of the Spirit. I don't know if I agree with Piper fully, but he does have some good things to say.
What's the connection between tongues and the Spirit? As soon as you start talking about an experience, people start to get uneasy and think oh no, this guy is going to start speaking in Tongues or something. No! Piper again:
Not dead faith, but vibrant passionate, even (hold on to your hats) emotional faith that is filled with the truth of God and expressive of the glory of God. Piper helps a little with defining the "experience" of the Spirit.
John Piper on the Holy Spirit
This is why Paul can say in Acts 19:2 when he meets the confused disciples of John the Baptist, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" What would a contemporary Protestant evangelical say in response to that question? I think we would say something like, "I thought we automatically received the Holy Spirit when we believed. I don't understand how you can even ask the question." How could Paul ask that question? He could ask it, I think, because receiving the Holy Spirit is a real experience. There are marks of it in your life. And the best way to test the faith of these so-called disciples is to ask them about their experience of the Spirit. This is no different than what Paul said in Romans 8:14, "All who are led by the Spirit are the sons of God" (see 2 Cor. 13:5 and 1 John 3:24; 4:12-13). I sometimes fear that we have so redefined conversion in terms of human decisions and have so removed any necessity of the experience of God's Spirit, that many people think they are saved when in fact they only have Christian ideas in their head not spiritual power in their heart.
Something I'm trying to understand. Coming from a cessationist, non-charistmatic, non-sign gifts background, and now trying to understand these things in light of scripture, and interesting issue is raised about the experience of the Spirit. I don't know if I agree with Piper fully, but he does have some good things to say.
What's the connection between tongues and the Spirit? As soon as you start talking about an experience, people start to get uneasy and think oh no, this guy is going to start speaking in Tongues or something. No! Piper again:
So you see, the real issue the Charismatics raise for us is not the issue of tongues. In itself that is relatively unimportant. The really valuable contribution of the Charismatic renewal is their relentless emphasis on the truth that receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit is a real, life-changing experience. Christianity is not merely an array of glorious ideas. It is not merely the performance of rituals and sacraments. It is the life-changing experience of the Holy Spirit through faith in Jesus Christ the Lord of the universe.
Not dead faith, but vibrant passionate, even (hold on to your hats) emotional faith that is filled with the truth of God and expressive of the glory of God. Piper helps a little with defining the "experience" of the Spirit.
We could talk for hours about what that experience is. In fact, most of my messages are just that—descriptions of the experience of the Spirit of God in the life of the believer. But I'll mention two things from the book of Acts—things that mark the experience of being baptized in the Holy Spirit or of receiving the gift of the Spirit. One is a heart of praise. In Acts 10:46 the disciples knew the Holy Spirit had fallen because "they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling (or magnifying) God." Speaking in tongues is one particular way of releasing the heart of praise. It may be present or may not. But one thing is sure: the heart in which the Holy Spirit has been poured out will stop magnifying self and start magnifying God. Heartfelt praise and worship is the mark of a real experience of the Holy Spirit.
The other mark I'll mention is obedience. In Acts 5:29 Peter and the apostles say to the Sadducees who had arrested them, "We must obey God rather than men." Then in verse 32 he says, "We are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God gave to those who are obeying him." ("Gave" is past tense; "obey" is present ongoing tense.) It is inevitable that when the object of your heart's worship changes your obedience changes. When Jesus baptizes you in the Holy Spirit, and infuses you with a new sense of the glory of God, you have a new desire and a new power (1:8) to obey.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Marriage on the Mind
Surely, marriage is an economic contract to provide for children and to take care of mothers while they bear kids and bring them up--but it is much more than that. It is the means this animal, Homo Sap., has evolved--quite unconsiously--for performing this indispensible function and be happy while doing so.
Robert A. Heinlein, Time enough for Love
Science Fiction is an amazing source to me of the world's mind. Sometimes, things that I read in these stories just stick out at me and help clarify some of the places reason takes man, without God.
This passage above seems like a reasonable statement (evolutionary theory aside). But there's so much missing. When I move into the Biblical realm, I see that marriage is not just an association for convenience and propagation. Marriage is a sacred ordination by God himself. And why is it sacred? To us who believe, the love of a husband and a wife is a profound illustration (or should be, Eph 5) of God's love for us. So marriage, God's way, is so much more than Mr. Heinlein outlines. More than just to make oneself happy, even more than just to make the other spouse happy. It is that God is exalted and explicitly seen as glorious through the union of two redeemed hearts.
And there's so much more.
Friday, October 21, 2005
Taking informality to an arrogant extreme
I have nothing but love for Americans, but listening to the Albert Mohler program(a great segment on Biblical relationships by the way), a little tidbit he gave on american teenage informality cracked me up:
Apparently NorthWestern University's winning Lacrosse team was invited to the oval office, and some of the girls on the team wore flip flops!
Now Americans are said by people across the world to be arrogant and to disregard any kind of norms (a general opinion based on some truth) but it's funny to see this caricature find root in examples from reality.
I can just imagine - 'clickety click' (sound of said girl walking up in flip flops to the premier) "whassup, George".
It's like they're itching to provide an already provoked world with ammunition for mockery. In India we call flip flops "bathroom slippers".
Apparently NorthWestern University's winning Lacrosse team was invited to the oval office, and some of the girls on the team wore flip flops!
Now Americans are said by people across the world to be arrogant and to disregard any kind of norms (a general opinion based on some truth) but it's funny to see this caricature find root in examples from reality.
I can just imagine - 'clickety click' (sound of said girl walking up in flip flops to the premier) "whassup, George".
It's like they're itching to provide an already provoked world with ammunition for mockery. In India we call flip flops "bathroom slippers".
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Room Noise: Did anyone get it? Guess not.
I've been listening to this song (see bottom of post) by a band that was popular when I was still pre solid-food, physically speaking. They sure knew how to write back then!
Ironically, I had this track as part of a playlist containing Contemporary Christian Music, including some of the new commerical worship music that's out there - and sure, I like a lot of it myself. Somehow though this song became more poignant in that context.
For example, a band who's music I love sang the following:
I can contrive some meaning from that, but only relative to my interpretation of those words. Or another band sang this:
Again, nothing incorrect necessarily, but there's a certain lack of solidity that makes it appealing to my generation, I think. Actually, scratch that - maybe not it's the lack of solidity that makes it acceptable, but the lack of depth in my generation that makes fluffy lyrics such as these the norm. We're in the age of "Hallmark"esque Christian lyrics, and I believe people are too quick to say "that's deep".
Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking for Contemporary Christian Music to start singing "A Mighty Fortress" to a death metal tune. I don't think you have to be Shakespearan to have substance. Or even say the name Jesus every third line (though it would help to mention your Lord and master some of the time) - you can be solid, boldly Christian by being serious about the content of your words - guard your mouth and raise the standard of your lyrics before a Holy God. Look at Petra. Even someone like Keith Green, who I think gets a bad rap sometimes. They said something. It's sad that the so much good music we find these days is from people who regurgitate the old - I'm sure there are Christian Musicians today who seriously have something to say for the glory of God and the enrichment of the Church.
I could go on and rant and rave, but that's not my point really - I wanted to point out that this is not an old issue - people one generation before me struggled the same way, and here's a song to prove it:
Twenty something years later, is someone listening?
Ironically, I had this track as part of a playlist containing Contemporary Christian Music, including some of the new commerical worship music that's out there - and sure, I like a lot of it myself. Somehow though this song became more poignant in that context.
For example, a band who's music I love sang the following:
Take control of the atmosphere
Take me far away from here
There is no better loss than to lose myself in you
In a parachute to glide, I am captive in your sky
Surrender has somehow become so beautiful
I can contrive some meaning from that, but only relative to my interpretation of those words. Or another band sang this:
Praise Him under open skies
Everything breathing praising God
In the company of all who love the King
I will dance, I will sing
It could be heavenly
Turn the music loud, life my voice and shout
From where I am
From where I've been
He's been there with me
He's built a monument
His very people
So let his people
Sing, sing, sing
Again, nothing incorrect necessarily, but there's a certain lack of solidity that makes it appealing to my generation, I think. Actually, scratch that - maybe not it's the lack of solidity that makes it acceptable, but the lack of depth in my generation that makes fluffy lyrics such as these the norm. We're in the age of "Hallmark"esque Christian lyrics, and I believe people are too quick to say "that's deep".
Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking for Contemporary Christian Music to start singing "A Mighty Fortress" to a death metal tune. I don't think you have to be Shakespearan to have substance. Or even say the name Jesus every third line (though it would help to mention your Lord and master some of the time) - you can be solid, boldly Christian by being serious about the content of your words - guard your mouth and raise the standard of your lyrics before a Holy God. Look at Petra. Even someone like Keith Green, who I think gets a bad rap sometimes. They said something. It's sad that the so much good music we find these days is from people who regurgitate the old - I'm sure there are Christian Musicians today who seriously have something to say for the glory of God and the enrichment of the Church.
I could go on and rant and rave, but that's not my point really - I wanted to point out that this is not an old issue - people one generation before me struggled the same way, and here's a song to prove it:
Room Noise
2nd Chapter of Acts
No more Conversation
No more idle words
Pitter pitter patter
words fall from your platter
Pseudo Gospel music
Music everywhere
but not a single drop
to drink anywhere
I don't want to be room noise
generically speaking
I don't want to be room noise
no one will stop and hear me, hear me...
Down on bended knees
Doing what you please
As you say
"Gospel Gospel music's an alternative"
Then you never have to
change the way you live
Idle, Idle lyrics
floating through the air
Invisible acting
emotional snare
I don't want to be room noise
Generically speaking
I don't want to be room noise
No one will stop and hear me, hear me...
Down on bended knee
doing what you please
PHARISEE!
I don't want to be room noise...
Twenty something years later, is someone listening?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)