Reason for the Hope

The Christian Dilemma of War, pt. 6

2008-07-11T09:22:00.000-05:00

As we saw last week, the just war theory is not without difficulties. It is a complex position on war because it requires the government and citizens to think very carefully concerning all the issues involved. Some have said the just war theory is not only about war, it’s about “a way of thinking that refuses to separate politics from ethics.” Jean Elshtain has noted that the just war theory has made positive contributions in our contemporary civic life. It rejects utopian fantasies, protests abuses of power, calls for proper action against injustice, fosters respect for other nations, and acknowledges the need for self-defense. It also is realistic about both human dignity and human depravity. Some wars are justifiable and some are not; the just war theory is an attempt to understand the difference.

As we conclude this series, we need to ask if the just war theory is compatible with the New Testament. Does the New Testament call for Christian pacifism? If so, it would be strictly forbidden for a Christian to serve as a soldier or governmental official possessing the power of the sword. However, the New Testament writers many times place soldiers and government officials in a positive light. John the Baptist told the soldiers gathered around him not to engage in extortion and to be content with their wages (Luke 3:14). John was not known for being timid; if being a soldier was immoral or an illegitimate profession he would have told them. In Matthew 8, Jesus praised a Roman centurion for having greater faith than anyone in Israel (8:5ff). In Acts 10, Peter was directed to the house of Cornelius, an active-duty centurion described as a devout man who feared God. Cornelius and his household became the first gentile converts to Christianity, and yet Peter did not command Cornelius to leave the military. There were also Christian men who served in the Roman government and possessed the power of the sword. Sergius Paulus was a proconsul (Acts 13:7, 12), Erastus (Rom. 16:23) was a city treasurer, and Zenas (Titus 3:13) was a lawyer. In all of these events, there is never a hint that being a soldier or serving in the government is incompatible with the Christian faith

Other examples that do not support pacifism include Jesus instructing his disciples to buy a sword for self-protection (Luke 22:36), his approval of a king who used the sword against wicked men (Matt. 21:33-41), and his suggestion that if his kingdom were an earthly kingdom the use of the sword would have been proper (John 18:36). One should not miss the metaphors of soldiers, warfare, and armor in the Christian life (Eph 6:10-20; 2 Tim 2:3-4; 2 Cor 10:1-6), or Paul’s appeal to military protection on several occasions (Acts 16, 22, 23, 25). If being a soldier was immoral, and the use of force always wrong, the numerous metaphors and appeals would have been inappropriate.

We live in a fallen world in which evil men desire to do bad things. As Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” This is why God has given governments the power of the sword to punish evil (Rom 13). War is a terrible thing, but unchallenged evil terrorizing the world is worse.

In the meantime, we have hope in Christ who promises that after the final battle of good and evil, there will be no more wars, no more pain, and no more death (Is. 2:4; Rev 21:4). That’s the day we long for.

The Christian Dilemma of War, pt. 5

2008-07-04T10:23:00.000-05:00

Over the past several weeks we’ve discussed the Christian dilemma of war. It is difficult to justify killing our enemies when Jesus commands us to love our enemies. It is important, however, to make a distinction between the responsibilities of individual Christians and the role of governments. Individuals are not to retaliate or take vengeance on evildoers because God has given that role, at least in this life, to governing authorities (Romans 12:19; 13:4). According to Romans 13, God has given governments the power of the sword to punish evil. But in order for governments to punish evildoers, it must commission individual citizens, such as police officers and soldiers, to carry out this task. John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Apostles all had encounters with Roman soldiers, and none of them commanded the soldiers to leave the military service. It is therefore not wrong for Christians to fight in wars under the authority of the government, provided the war is just.

As we alluded to last week, the just war theory seems to be the best way to approach the issue of war. The just war theory is more difficult to consider than activism or pacifism, which require very little thought. The activist says war is always right if the government declares it and the pacifist says war is always wrong. The just war theory, however, requires a great deal of thought and discernment in order to decide if a particular war is just—and there lies the problem. When deciding if a war is just, who must decide and what ethical criteria should be used? What happens if a government claims a war is just and the citizens who must fight the war decide it is unjust?

There are also other difficulties. The just war theory is primarily concerned about defensive wars. Historically, all offensive wars were deemed unjust. But in this day of weapons of mass destruction, can a country afford to wait until it is struck first? Is a preemptive strike ever just? These questions have led some ethicists to call for a modification of this ancient theory in order to keep up with modern warfare. Some have suggested that a preemptive strike, especially in the case of WMDs, would be considered a defensive act. There also may be certain circumstances in conventional warfare in which a preemptive strike would be considered defensive. Consider the Six Day War in 1967. Israel understood that its Arab neighbors were massing armies to invade and ultimately destroy them. Deciding not to wait until the Arabs delivered a devastating first blow, Israel delivered a successful preemptive strike. Many just war theorists consider this preemptive strike an act of self-defense.

There is also a question of nuclear weapons. Many suggest that the use of nuclear weapons can never be justified because of the massive killing of civilian non-combatants, complete damage to a nation’s infrastructure, and permanent damage to the environment. This is a difficult question, but it is even more difficult to think about how to put the nuclear genie back into the bottle. In this age of nuclear proliferation, unilateral disarmament would leave a nation open to nuclear blackmail, which may even increase the chances of nuclear weapons being used. Over the past half century, the idea of mutually assured destruction has actually kept the nuclear option in check. There are, however, no easy answers to this.

The Christian Dilemma of War, pt. 4

2008-06-27T08:44:00.005-05:00

Having examined the activist and pacifist approach to war, the Christian dilemma of war can be clearly seen. The activist is right in pointing out that governments have been appointed by God to wield the sword of His wrath against those who do evil (Romans 13), but fails to recognize that one’s government can use the sword in a wrong manner and act unjustly. The pacifist is right in pointing out the evil nature of war and killing, but fails to recognize that the higher laws of love and justice sometimes deem war and killing necessary.

The middle ground between activism and pacifism is selectivism, or what is known as the just war theory. The purpose of the just war theory is to limit war, not justify it. Just war theorists acknowledge, like pacifists, that war is evil, but they also conclude that some wars are unavoidable, which leaves open some very important questions: When is it right to go to war? What are the criteria for going to war? Who decides when war is warranted?

The question of what makes a war just has been discussed for centuries. Early formulations of the just war theory are found in the writings of Plato and Aristotle, but it was Cicero that first developed the theory in detail. Later, a modified Christian version was defended by theologians such as Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin.

The just war theory has historically been divided between the criteria of when to go to war and the criteria of conducting a war. On the issue of when to go to war, the following criteria must be met: a legitimate authority must judge if the war is necessary and just, a declaration of war must be the last resort, a declaration of war must come from the highest governmental authority, there should be reasonable hope of success, the objective should be in proper proportion to the cost, and a war should be fought with the right intention.

When conducting a just war, the objective must be to restore a lasting peace, not conquest, economic gain, or indoctrination of an ideology. The destruction of political institutions and infrastructure should be avoided unless they stand in the way of lasting peace. The military should seek to incapacitate the enemy, which means capturing the enemy is to be preferred over killing the enemy. There should be an attempt to inflict a minimal amount of suffering. Noncombatants, especially civilians, should be given immunity, and the effects on civilians must be in proportion to the evil averted.

A war can be deemed just if it is waged to defend the innocent or to execute justice. If a country is committing torture or genocide, or invades or assaults another nation, it may be an act of justice to take military action. The Allied forces were just in invading Germany and routing the Nazis because of Hitler’s aggression against France and other European countries. When a country sponsors terrorism against others nations, military action against that country is considered just.

The just war theory seems to be the best approach to the question of war, but it is not without its difficulties. Questions such as preemptive strikes and the use of nuclear weapons are not easy to justify under this theory. Next week we’ll take up these questions and then we’ll compare the just war theory with the biblical pattern of war.

The Christian Dilemma of War, pt. 3

2008-06-06T14:14:00.000-05:00

Having examined a few of the difficulties with the activist approach to war, we now turn our attention to pacifism.

There are varying degrees of pacifism. Universal pacifism views the killing of another human being or the violent resistance of evil as always wrong. Christian pacifism is the idea that Christians are never justified in killing or using violence, but recognizes the necessity at times for non-Christians to use deadly force and engage in war. Private pacifism sees personal violence as always wrong, but believes that sometimes a nation is justified in going to war. Finally, anti-war pacifism recognizes that sometimes a person is justified in using violence or deadly force in self-defense, but war is always morally wrong.

Many pacifists use the Bible to support their position. The most common verse used is “Thou shall not kill.” (Exod. 20:13) At face value, this verse seems to rule out killing any human being for any reason. However, one must also explain why God instituted capital punishment for murderers (Genesis 9:6) and why God commanded Israel to go to war on numerous occasions. A better translation of Exodus 20:13 is, “thou shall not murder.” This would imply that killing another human being in self-defense, engaging in a certain kind of war, or using capital punishment for murderers may not be morally wrong.

Pacifists also use Matthew 5:44: “But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” Christians should not hate their enemies, but the necessity to take the life of another human being does not necessarily involve hate. Sometimes war is the only way to liberate an oppressed people or to protect one’s own nation from evil tyranny. The world would be a much darker place if the United States did not get involved in World War II against Hitler’s Germany. Just like a doctor may find it necessary to amputate a leg to save the whole body, sometimes it is necessary to take human life in war to save more lives. If the ultimate goal of war is justice, going to war may in fact fulfill the law of love toward our neighbors.

Finally, another important verse for pacifists is Matthew 5:39: “…But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” What exactly did Jesus mean? Did he mean that if someone breaks into a home and threatens bodily harm, the homeowner should not resist? Looking closer at the context, it does not necessarily mean that self-defense is wrong. A slap on the “right cheek” by a right handed person is done by the back of the hand, which was considered a great insult. In essence, Jesus was saying not to return insult for insult. This is likely the best way to understand this verse since Jesus himself did not turn the other cheek when he was struck in the face (John 18:22-23).

Next week we’ll discuss the Just War Theory.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

The Christian Dilemma of War, pt. 2

2008-05-23T14:11:00.000-05:00

Last week we looked at the three main perspectives on war: activism, pacifism, and the just war theory. This week we’ll look at the strengths and weaknesses of activism. Activism is the idea that Christians (or citizens) have a duty to obey their government, including participation in a government declared war.

In the Old Testament, after the judgment with a flood because of the murderous violence of mankind, God commanded Noah to punish murderers with capital punishment. Genesis 9:6 says, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” Later, Abraham used this power of the sword when he went to war with the kings who committed aggression against his nephew, Lot (Gen. 14). A strong case can be made that in the Old Testament the power of the sword (the power of life and death) was ultimately given to human governments to protect its citizens from acts of murderous aggression.

What is implied in the Old Testament is made explicit in the New Testament. In Romans 13:1-2 Paul writes, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” In verse four, Paul explains why God has given authority to human governments: “for he [the government] is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” This does not mean that all governments honor or even recognize God, but it does mean that the government’s main task is to punish evildoers. Even a bad government is better than the certain anarchy of no government.

The activist position, then, is that if the government is established by God, and the government declares war on another nation, no matter how popular or unpopular the war is, citizens (including Christians) are obligated to obey (a similar position was argued by Socrates [Plato] in “Crito”). The underlying principle to the activist is the famous saying, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” If governments did not act, or citizens refused to fight, the world would be ruled by evil tyrants such as Hitler.

There are, however, a few inherent problems with activism. In any given war, both sides claim the other side is the evil aggressor; both sides claim to be right. This means that Christians in both warring countries would be duty bound to obey their governments and kill each other.

Another problem for activism is a government giving specific orders to commit evil, such as purposely harming innocent civilians. Would the activist be duty bound to carry out such orders? Surly there is a time when a Christian must say “We must obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29) The conclusion of the Nuremberg trials was that “I was just following orders” is no excuse.

Next week we’ll examine pacifism.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

The Christian Dilemma of War, pt. 1

2008-05-09T14:06:00.004-05:00

By year’s end I’ll find myself in the middle of Iraq without a weapon. As a military chaplain, I’m considered a non-combatant. The chaplain’s task, simply put, is to nurture the living, care for the dying, and honor the dead. A chaplain performs or provides religious services, pastoral care and counseling, and religious education to soldiers who daily will be put into harm’s way. A chaplain is to insure that every soldier’s first amendment right of the free exercise of religion is protected. As a special staff officer, a chaplain advises the commander on matters of religion, morals, and morale. A chaplain also provides humanitarian support when needed, and can be used as a liaison between the command and local religious leaders. United States military chaplains have been providing essential ministry to soldiers and their families since 1775.

As important as these tasks are, they do not lessen the inner angst a chaplain experiences in the context of war and killing. In the military, there are many soldiers who are Christians and combatants that experience this inward struggle to an even greater degree; many find their way to the chaplain in hope of resolution.

If one searches through two thousand years of Christian literature, one will find that Christians have always struggled with the moral dilemma of war. It is a true dilemma because war always seems to have a ‘darned if you do and darned if you don’t’ aspect. So what is the Christian response to war? This is an important question in light of verses such as “thou shall not kill” and “you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” To further the confusion, good Christian men and women have always disagreed on this issue.

Historically, there have been three major approaches to war by Christians: activism, pacifism, and the just war theory. Activism holds it is the Christian duty to obey the government and to participate in every war that the government deems necessary. The pacifist view is that all wars are wrong and against the biblical injunction “thou shall not kill.” (Exodus 20:13) The just war theory suggests that there are certain criteria that must be met in order for a war to be just or moral. These are the main approaches, but each one of these can also be modified.

Before I swore the oath to become a chaplain and an officer in the United States military, I had to settle this matter in my own mind. Over the next several weeks, I’ll examine in some detail each one of these approaches and discuss each one’s strengths and weaknesses. I’ll then explain my own position to this dilemma.

War is a bad thing and it certainly should be a last resort, but there are other things worse than war. This is what we’ll explore in the weeks to come.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

The Church of Oprah

2008-05-02T14:04:00.001-05:00

Last week we examined how American religion has moved away from a belief in the Bible as objective truth and toward an inward, subjective, feelings-based spirituality. This inward move has affected many who attend church. It translates into a focus on the worship experience (which has more to do with an inward experience than worship) and a desire to hear emotionally charged, therapy laden, human-centered sermons. Many have abandoned organized religion to pursue their own feelings-based spirituality. There is no better example of this than Oprah Winfrey.

Like many Americans, Oprah was raised in Christianity; she grew up attending a Baptist church. However, she departed from a strictly Christian faith in her late twenties after hearing a pastor proclaim from the Scripture that God was a jealous God. Rather than taking the time to explore what that meant, she said, “Something about that didn’t feel right in my spirit because I believe that God is love and that God is in all things, and so that’s when the search for something more than doctrine started to stir within me.” By rejecting God’s reveled word and looking to her own feelings, Oprah tapped in to the burgeoning American spirituality; she has now become its leading prophetess.

This new American religion is a mixture of Christian ethics (i.e. forgiveness, generosity, gratitude, and community), positive thinking, the pursuit of wealth and fame, and new age spirituality. The belief that the Bible is God’s self revelation is abandoned, and one’s own feelings become the primary source of authority. On her recent webcast Oprah said, “God is a feeling experience not a believing experience, and if your religion is a believing experience--if God for you is still about a belief--then it’s not truly God.” Evidently, Oprah and her listening fans did not ‘feel’ the contradiction; after all, Oprah was explaining her own ‘belief’ about God. Nevertheless, Oprah was clearly taking pot shots at biblical doctrine.

Oprah’s eclectic spirituality can be seen through the books she recommends and the guests she interviews, such as Deepak Chopra and Marianne Williamson. Recently, she has been promoting Eckhart Tolle and his new book, “A New Earth.” On March 3 Oprah began a web-based seminar featuring Tolle. That night, over 500,000 people tried to log in, which brought down the server. Since then, over 2 million people have downloaded that first class.

So what is Tolle’s teaching about which Oprah is so excited? In the spirit of American spirituality, Tolle teaches an eclectic combination of Hinduism, Buddhism, and pseudo Christianity; it is, in essence, New Age. This means he believes that we are all gods. Tolle writes in “The Power Now” that he doesn’t like to use the word ‘God,’ or talk about finding God, because it implies that God is something other than you, or me. Along with reincarnation, Tolle also teaches that truth is “inseparable from who you are…”

These are just the latest doctrines being taught from the church of Oprah, and because it fits within the scope of American spirituality, millions of Americans are buying into it.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

American Spirituality

2008-04-25T14:01:00.001-05:00

At the very core of Christianity is the belief that God has revealed Himself through the pages of the Bible, or as Francis Schaeffer wrote, “He is there and He is not silent.” Christianity stands or falls on the historical accuracy and truthfulness of Scripture. Faith in the historical events of Christ’s death on the cross and the resurrection brings salvation by God’s grace to sinners. The Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:17, “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.” Thankfully, God has revealed himself through the person of Jesus Christ and in the pages of Scripture; otherwise humanity would not have known its own creator. God uses external means, such as historical events, the incarnation, the written word, preaching, the church, the supper, and baptism, to reveal Himself and to nurture faith in Him. Christianity is spiritual, but it is a spirituality that can never be divorced from the external and physical. One does not become a Christian by first looking within one’s own soul; one begins outside of one’s self with the truth of God’s objective revelation.

However, there has been a trend in the last several hundred years in America to move away from the external Word of God and look for spiritual truth inside the self. This trend is a result of the influence of German Pietism, Christian Liberalism, Christian Existentialism, and American Revivalism, along with the ever-present Gnostic tendencies. The result has been a uniquely American approach to religion and spirituality. This approach is a search for a direct inward spiritual experience through feelings and emotions. The danger of this inward subjectivity is that it marginalizes the external elements of the Christian faith, such as the Word, the church, preaching, the Lord’s Supper, and baptism. Michael Horton sarcastically writes, “Ultimately, it’s what I do alone with God that matters, not what God does for me together with his covenant people through public, earthly, material means that he has appointed.” If one’s feelings are the ultimate authority it will lead one far away from the doctrines revealed by God in Scripture. Commenting on American spirituality, an article in “Entertainment Weekly” states, “[S]eekers of the day are apt to peel away the tough theological stuff and pluck out the most dulcet elements of faith, coming up with a soothing sampler of Judeo-Christian imagery, Eastern meditation, self-help lingo, a vaguely conservative craving for ‘virtue,’ and a loopy New Age pursuit of ‘peace.’ This happy free-for-all, appealing to Baptists and stargazers alike, comes off more like Forest Gump’s ubiquitous ‘boxa chocolates’ than like any real system of belief. You never know what you’re going to get.”

This is precisely what happens when one moves away from the objective Word of God and becomes one’s own spiritual authority.

Next week we’ll examine how this spiritual trend in America has led us to “the church of Oprah.”

a pdf version of this entry is available here

The First Amendment

2008-04-18T09:08:00.001-05:00

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”—The First Amendment to the Constitution.

When the First Amendment was adopted, the United States became one of the most unique nations in world history. But few people realize just how close we came to not having religious freedom. After the Revolutionary War, 9 of the 13 colonies still had state sponsored churches, and many people suffered religious persecution. Baptists were typically among those at the wrong end of a whip; perhaps this is what motivated the Baptists to champion the cause of religious liberty.

Before the Revolutionary war, Baptist pastor Isaac Backus documented many examples of religious persecutions. He formed the “Grievance Committee” in 1769, and wrote “Government and Liberty” in 1778. In Virginia, the General Assessment Bill, supported by Patrick Henry and George Washington, would have created a tax to support religious ministries, with the Anglicans as the intended beneficiaries. However, in 1784 the Virginia Baptist General Committee lobbied against the Bill. Baptist pastor John Leland lobbied and ultimately won the support and friendship of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Soon Madison drafted a petition entitled “Memorial and Remonstrance,” and in 1785 Jefferson introduced what he called one of his greatest achievements, “An Act for Establishing Religious Freedom.”

When a draft of the proposed United States Constitution was circulating, John Leland protested that there needed to be more explicit guarantees for the freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. Madison agreed and helped to insure these freedoms with the passing of the First Amendment.

Today, the First Amendment is as vital as ever to our nation. Other countries have adopted similar laws guaranteeing religious freedom, and even the United Nations, at least on paper, recognizes religious liberty as a basic human right. To the American citizen, the First Amendment guarantees the right of the individual to attend the church of one’s own choosing, or to stay at home and mow the lawn.

There is, however, a downside to the First Amendment. In his book, “Shopping for God,” James Twitchell suggests that the freedom created by the First Amendment has created a free-for-all in religion. This has left each group with the task of capturing a piece of the religious market. Today religion is marketed on television, billboards, and magazines like any other commodity. When religion is turned into a commodity, the consumer is king, leaving churches scrambling to build the nicest buildings, develop the best programs, create the most exciting worship, and incorporate the latest technologies in order to capture market shares (i.e., members). This competition leaves many churches vulnerable to the church down the street that does it bigger and better. Unfortunately, all of this marketing cheapens the Gospel of Jesus Christ by placing it on the same level as soap and exercise equipment within the broader culture. Lost in all of the marketing techniques is the pure Gospel, which the Apostle Paul calls “the power of God unto salvation.” (Rom. 1:16)

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Can a Man Know He'll Go to Heaven

2007-11-15T13:57:00.001-06:00

The popular sentiment in our culture is that everyone will go to heaven, except for very bad people like Hitler or Saddam. This sentiment comes from the belief that if we do more good deeds than bad over the course of our lives, we are assured of heaven. However, if going to heaven is based on good deeds, we must not set the bar too high. In our self-centered society one can readily spot evil in others, but it’s almost impossible to spot evil in one’s own heart.

Today, religion is viewed as a kind of therapeutic self-help. In the market place of religion, the perceived end goal of all religions is to make us good, and therefore worthy of heaven. If you ask most people in America if they are going to heaven when they die, they’ll likely answer “yes.” A man once told me that he thought he would go to heaven because he had never killed anyone. But his answer was not drawn from the authority of the Bible; it was drawn from the authority of his own opinions and wrong ideas of what qualifies a person for heaven.

The Bible gives us a very different picture concerning the fate of mankind. In Matthew 7:13-14, Jesus tells us that very few people are on the narrow path to heaven—most are on the wide road to destruction. The Bible states that there is no person on earth that is good enough to go to heaven. Romans 3:10-12 says “…None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” (see also Rom. 3:23)

No one will go to heaven because of their good deeds. Heaven cannot be earned; it must be received as a gift (Ephesians 2:8-9). Salvation comes only through Jesus, who died for our sin, was buried, and rose again on the third day. Trusting in Jesus and his perfect work on the cross is the only way to heaven (Acts 16:30-31; John 3:16, 18; Rom. 10:9-10). The Apostle Peter says, “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12) Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (Acts 14:6)

Confidence in our salvation cannot be based on our own opinion; it must be based on the authority of God’s Word and faith in Jesus Christ. According to the Apostle John we can know for sure that we will go to heaven when we die: “Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.” (1 John 5:12-13)

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Why Would a Loving God Send Anyone to Hell?

2007-11-08T13:53:00.002-06:00

Over 90% of people in the world believe in heaven, while fewer than 50% believe in hell. Hell is not a popular topic. In today’s churches, preaching about hell has almost disappeared. This may be a reaction, in part, against the fire and brimstone preacher who seemed to delight in hell. However, preaching about hell is offensive to people, and some pastors are more concerned about drawing a crowed than telling people the truth.

When I hear this question, I want to ask, “Where did you get the idea that God is loving?” This idea doesn’t come from nature or from other religions; the only place we’re told that “God is love” is in the Bible (1 John 4:16). This same Bible also warns us of the reality of hell, so there is no logical contradiction between these two ideas. The apparent contradiction stems from elevating one attribute of God to the exclusion of others. The Bible does teach us about God’s love, but it also teaches us that God is just and that He must judge sin. He is no more loving than He is just.

We understand this even from our own nature; we love others and yet we know that a criminal must be punished. Our sense of justice is offended if a guilty criminal goes free. This understanding of love and justice comes from God.

Jesus taught that the punishment of hell is eternal. In Matthew 25:46, Jesus said, “And these [wicked] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Some object to hell being eternal and suggest that seventy to eighty years of sin and rebellion against God on earth should not be punished forever; such punishment is deemed too severe. However, when we consider that God is infinitely holy and our sin is against God (Psalm 51:4), then our sin is an infinite sin and requires and infinite punishment.

Jesus warns us time and again about the reality of hell. However, Jesus also provided a way of deliverance. At the cross where Jesus died, the perfect love of God and the perfect justice of God are both demonstrated. God so loved us that He punished Jesus for our sins. Christ was both God and man, so the punishment upon Jesus appeased God’s infinite justice on behalf of humanity. John 3:18 says, “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” Faith in Christ is the difference between heaven and hell. In John 3:16, Jesus says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”

Through Jesus Christ, God has provided a way for us to escape the horrors of hell. Many still reject God’s way of salvation; they do not want God ruling over them. In the end, hell is God merely giving people what they want: an eternity without Him.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Importance of the Death of Jesus, pt. 2

2007-11-01T13:48:00.001-05:00

Last week we discussed the doctrine of propitiation; we now turn to the doctrine of imputation.

Imputation is one of the principle doctrines of the Christian faith and the very essence of the Gospel (good news). Belief in the doctrine of imputation is what historically defines an evangelical, but many evangelicals are ignoring or abandoning it today. Why? People don’t like to think of themselves as sinners, and they don’t want to think of God as a holy judge who punishes sinners. They choose instead to believe in a divine Santa Claus who grants wishes, gets us out of a jam, or performs therapy to make us feel better. Even among many Christians, the current emphasis is on subjective feelings, new divine revelations, or experiences of God rather than knowing Him through His Self-revelation in the Scripture. Biblical doctrines (including imputation) are downplayed as unimportant and unnecessarily divisive.

Recently, a Christian organization conducted a survey at an evangelical pastor’s conference. Sixty-seven percent of the pastors surveyed were completely unfamiliar with the doctrine of imputation. Many who were familiar with the term considered it unimportant in their ministries. Only a small percentage recognized the doctrine as vital to the Christian faith. This is startling, and if accurate, Christianity is in real trouble, not from an outward attack, but from the inward neglect of pastors to teach the clear doctrines of the Bible.

What is the doctrine of imputation? To impute means to credit an account. There are three important aspects of imputation in the Bible. First, Adam was the federal and biological head of the human race. When Adam sinned, his sin was imputed (credited) to the whole human race. Adam’s sin brought guilt and death to all (read Romans 5:12-19). Second, our sin was imputed to Christ at his death. God the Father placed our sin and guilt upon Christ (Romans 5:6-11). Finally, the perfect righteousness of Christ (He kept the Law perfectly) is imputed to us. God provided in Christ what he demanded from us in the Law. In 2 Corinthians 5:21 Paul writes, “For our sake he made him [Jesus] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (see also Romans 5:18-19). Salvation and eternal life is not earned by doing good deeds; it is given to us as a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8-9). This gift must be received by trusting in Christ and his perfect work upon the cross (Romans 10:9-11).

Many object to Adam’s sin being imputed to the whole human race, but rarely does anyone complain about our sin being imputed to Christ (the last Adam), or Christ’s righteousness being imputed to us. Besides, we’ve all sinned enough on our own to be in big trouble on judgment day.

This is the essence of the Gospel: if we trust in Christ, we will not stand at judgment in our sin; we will stand before God with the righteousness of Christ credited to our account. This is truly good news.

a pdf version of this entry is avaliable here

Importance of the Death of Jesus, pt. 1

2007-10-25T13:43:00.001-05:00

To understand the answer to this question is to understand one of the major differences between Christianity and all other religions. There are two theological terms concerning the death of Christ that need to be understood: propitiation and imputation. These two terms are vital in understanding what the death of Jesus accomplished. This week we’ll look at propitiation and next week, imputation.

The Scripture teaches that God is holy. This means there is no evil or sinfulness in God. His holiness demands that all sin be punished. Romans 3:23 reminds us that we have all sinned, therefore all of us deserve God’s wrath (God’s wrath is mentioned around 600 times in the Bible). God would not be just if He did not punish sin, much like a judge would not be just if He let a convicted criminal go free. Understanding God’s holiness and our sinfulness is the key to understanding propitiation.

In Scripture, propitiation means to appease God’s wrath by an offering. The Hebrew word for propitiation is kippur, which means atonement. The Old Testament sacrificial system was build upon the concept of atonement and foreshadowed the atoning sacrifice of Christ. Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) was a yearly sacrifice to cover the sins of Israel. The Greek word for propitiation can also be translated ‘mercy seat’ (Heb. 9:5). The mercy seat was on the Ark of the Covenant where the atonement for sin (on the Day of Atonement) was secured.

The New Testament teaches us that Christ’s death was an atoning sacrifice (John 1:29, Romans 5:6-11, etc.). This sacrifice turned aside God’s wrath that should have been directed toward us because of our sin. The death of Jesus was a substitutionary atonement, which means that Jesus took our punishment upon himself; He died in our place. 1 John 4:10 says, “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” It’s also important to understand that the forgiveness of sin is not automatically granted to everyone; Christ and his atoning sacrifice must be believed by faith (Eph. 2:1-10). Most people can recite John 3:16, but verse 18 is also important: “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

The atoning sacrifice of Christ has recently come under attack, not by theological liberals (that’s expected), but by self-proclaimed evangelicals. Steve Chalke and Alan Mann, in their book, “The Lost Message of Jesus,” suggest that Christ’s death was merely a display of God’s love, rejecting the idea of substitutionary atonement and labeling it “divine child abuse.” When we understand God as Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), then we will recognize what God has done: He has punished Himself on our behalf. The cross can only be seen as a display of God’s love when viewed as substitutionary atonement. Surely no greater love has ever been demonstrated (Romans 5:8).

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Should the church be seeker-sensitive?

2007-10-19T09:32:00.000-05:00

As a pastor, I’m constantly bombarded with advertisements promising to take the church I pastor to new levels of success. This usually involves the latest marketing techniques and a communication style that is less offensive—more seeker-sensitive. The advertisements come replete with testimonials by pastors who grew churches into the thousands by using these techniques. Success is usually defined by large crowds, bigger buildings, and bigger budgets. Most pastors I know want their churches to grow, but I’m afraid that hidden underneath this promise is a western ethos that could ultimately prove to be deadly to the church.

Unfortunately, the church has bought into the world’s definition of success. Success is defined as taking something small and growing it into something large, like a small business growing into a large corporation. Based on this definition, a small church is viewed as unsuccessful (and undesirable), while a large mega-church is viewed as successful (and most desirable). Even our Christian conventions seem to employ this definition—how many faithful small church pastors are invited to be keynote speakers? Biblically speaking, success is not defined by drawing large crowds. We typically think of the Old Testament prophets as successful, but very few people heeded their message. We certainly believe Jesus was successful, but the longer He taught, the smaller the crowds became. A better (and more biblical) definition of success is faithfulness to God and to the message with which He has entrusted us (Heb. 3:1-6), which brings us to the problem of being seeker-sensitive.

If seeker-sensitive means we should make the message simple and easy to understand, I’m all for it. If seeker-sensitive means we should avoid certain biblical subjects, such as sin and hell, for fear that it might offend the seeker, then I’m against it. Those promoting the seeker-sensitive movement mean the latter; they view evangelism and church growth primarily as a marketing issue. That is, if you put together a good marketing strategy, if you avoid certain subjects, and preach on subjects more in line with self-help or pop psychology, less people will be offended and more “seekers” will be turned into members. This reasoning, however, does not square with the Bible. Romans 3:10-11 says, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.” On their own, people really aren’t seeking after God; they’re seeking self-fulfillment through self-help and pop-psychology. Ironically, in Scripture, Christ is viewed as the seeker, not the lost sinner: “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10).

Salvation cannot be manipulated or marketed by man; it is a complete work of God (John 6:44). We should remember the warning of the Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 4:3-4: “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” Paul’s remedy for this is to faithfully “preach the Word.”
This should be the church’s standard of success, thereby leaving the results completely in the hands of God.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

The Bible and Ecology

2007-09-07T10:15:00.000-05:00

The Christian understanding of ecological stewardship must first begin with God. Psalm 24:1 says, “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein.” Since the earth is the Lord’s, anyone who misuses or destroys God’s creation will ultimately answer to God. An example of this is found in Revelation 11:18: “The nations raged, but your wrath came, and the time for the dead to be judged, and for rewarding your servants, the prophets and saints, and those who fear your name, both small and great, and for destroying the destroyers of the earth.” God is going to bring judgment on those who destroy His earth.

The stewardship of the earth is not just implied from God’s ownership of creation; it is explicitly given to mankind from God. Genesis 1:28 says, “And God blessed them [Adam and Eve]. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Subduing the earth meant there was work to be done. God gave mankind permission to use the earth’s natural resources, such as plowing fields and building houses. But permission to subdue is not permission to destroy. The earth’s natural resources must be managed properly. Likewise, dominion over the earth and animals was not a license to do whatever one wished; it was a charge to take care of them. This idea is also found in Genesis 2:15: “The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.” Even though mankind has since rebelled against God, the responsibility to work and keep God’s creation was never revoked; it’s still humanity’s responsibility. However, the sinful and greedy nature of mankind naturally gravitates toward exploitation and destruction, not stewardship.

In the past, exploitation of the earth may have had a local impact, but not a global one. This was due to smaller populations and limited technologies. But with the population around six billion and the technologies to do great and irrevocable ecological damage, there should be a new urgency to re-discover the biblical concept of stewardship.

In a national survey of pastors, the question was asked, “What are the most important obstacles to further development of an effective philosophy of creation that involves appropriate environmental concern and action by evangelicals?” Well over half the participants cited a “lack of teaching and preaching on the environment, particularly the failure to develop a robust theology of the creation.”

Many evangelicals have stayed away from the environmental movement because they do not want to be perceived as nature worshipers. But with the explicit theology of creation and stewardship of the earth found in the Bible, Christians have much to contribute to the broader environmental debate—and we just might find a world ready to listen.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Christian Stewardship and Environmental Ethics

2007-08-31T10:12:00.000-05:00

To some, Christian environmentalism sounds like an oxymoron. This may be true for several reasons. Christians are reluctant to take on a tree-hugging, nature-worshiping persona. Christians are also puzzled by the inconsistency of environmentalists who protest the killing of baby seals, but remain silent concerning the killing of unborn humans.

But another reason most likely stems from a famous essay in 1967 entitled, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” by Lynn White, Jr. In this essay, in a Gestapo-like fashion, White blames Christianity for the world’s environmental problems. He writes, “Christianity…not only established a dualism of man and nature but also insisted that it is God’s will that man exploit nature for his proper ends. Hence we shall continue to have a worsening ecologic crisis until we reject the Christian axiom that nature has no reason for existence save to serve man.” White believes that the real loss was Christianity’s replacement of pagan animism, a belief that every object in nature possesses a spirit. To White, if we would return to animism we would avoid cutting down trees, damming up rivers, and boring holes into the side of mountains.

White’s essay became one of the most influential articles of its time and sparked a host of other essays in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Fred Van Dyke writes, “Part of its success was that it told secular academics what they wanted to hear, that religious traditions in general, and Christianity in particular, were contemptible mythologies, justifiably despised.” White’s indictment of Christianity was the prevailing belief for many years, but his accusation woke Christians from their ecological slumber. Many Christian theologians and scientists began to respond to this accusation by showing that White and others had completely mischaracterized Christianity and the Bible. Over time, many academicians dismissed White’s conclusion, but the sentiment remained in popular culture for some time. Today that sentiment is changing.

Ironically, environmentalists are now beginning to see the Judeo-Christian idea of stewardship as the last great hope in environmental ethics. Environmental philosopher Max Oelschlaeger writes, “For most of my adult life, I believed, as many environmentalists do, that religion was the primary cause of the ecologic crisis. I also assumed that various experts had solutions to the environmental malaise. I was a true believer….I lost that faith by bits and pieces…by discovering the roots of my prejudice against religion. That bias grew out of my reading Lynn White’s famous essay blaming Judeo-Christianity for the environmental crisis.” Oelschlaeger goes on to say, “The church may be, in fact, our last best chance. My conjecture is this: there are no solutions for the systemic causes of ecocrisis, at least in democratic societies, apart from religious narrative.”

In his popular conservation biology text, environmental ethicist J. Baird Callicott writes, “The Judeo-Christian Stewardship Environmental Ethics is especially elegant and powerful. It also exquisitely matches the requirements of conservation biology. The Judeo-Christian Stewardship Environmental Ethics confers objective value on nature in the clearest and most unambiguous of ways: by divine decree.”

Next week we’ll take a closer look at these divine decrees from Scripture.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

A New Religion

2007-08-24T11:00:00.000-05:00

A new religious system centered on the earth is emerging worldwide. Its distinctive message is the impending doom of global warming. This new religion has many familiar elements: high priests (scientist that speak infallibly), doomsday prophets (Al Gore and many from Hollywood), a laity (people who merely believe what the priests and the prophets say without critical evaluation), and heretics (scientists that are skeptical of an impending doomsday). This new religion has defined sin as CO2 emissions, rather than a moral offense against a Holy God. Fortunately for the “sinner,” an indulgence can be bought in the form of a carbon offset, which allows one to continue to drive an SUV, fly in private jets, and live in large mansions without condemnation.

This new religion lacks the skills of logic and critical thinking, and a science based on evaluating all the evidence, not just what supports one’s theory. For instance, since the 1850’s the earth has experience a warming trend, followed by a cooling trend, followed by the current warming trend. The cooling trend was so pronounced that scientists in the 1970’s were predicting a new ice age. In 1975, Newsweek ran an article using indisputable “scientific evidence” that a new ice age had begun.

Many global warming gurus cite NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies director James Hansen, when he stated that nine of the ten warmest years have occurred since 1995. When NASA ran an internal audit of it statistical information it discovered that four of the top ten hottest years were actually from in 1930’s. Previously cited “warm” years—2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004 were actually cooler than some of the years directly preceding the 1900’s.

Evidence of climate fluctuation throughout earth’s history is not hard to find. The Hudson and Thames rivers froze in what has come to be known as the “little ice age” of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In the medieval period, Vikings established settlements in Greenland and Newfoundland until the little ice age froze them out. A few years ago, a body of a 4,700-year-old traveler was found frozen in a mountain glacier in Switzerland, indicating the mountain pass had been open at one time for human travel.

In recent years, NASA’s instruments have calculated that Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and Titan (a moon of Neptune) are all warming, which have nothing to do with burning fossil fuels. Many scientists are now pointing to the sun’s cycle as the culprit in warming and cooling of the planets.
Last year the “Evangelical Climate Initiative” was published with the names of 86 evangelical Christian leaders, including Rick Warren, who has decided to back major initiatives to stop global warming. While I’m an evangelical, and I do believe there are theological reasons for being environmentally conscious, I’m not quite ready to drink the Kool Aid with my other evangelical friends. Next week we’ll look at what I believe to be a more balanced response to environmentalism.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Racial Segregation: Sin in the Church, pt. 4

2007-08-17T11:17:00.000-05:00

[In concluding this series, I’ve invited my good friend James Smith, a member of Trinity, a prospective Elder, and an African-American, to share a few thoughts concerning the issue of racial segregation in the church. Judging from the wide range of responses to this series, there is still much work ahead.]

Every church I’ve attended since becoming a Christian has been predominantly white. When searching for a church, sound doctrine, not racial makeup, has been at the top of the list. Recently, I was challenged in my thinking about racial segregation after I invited a white couple to our church and then followed up the invitation with assurances that the church was predominately white. Why did I feel I had to make that comment?

Unfortunately, this mentality is rampant in our churches today. Every area of society has been enriched by racial integration, from the arts, sports, and entertainment, to politics and academia. Yet the church remains largely segregated. What was the initial cause of this segregation? Why do 21st century Christians from different races continue to worship separately? Are there valid excuses for continuing this behavior?

Slavery was the foundation for segregation in the 18th and 19th centuries. As black slaves were converted to Christianity, slave owners allowed them to worship only among themselves. The abolition of slavery did not change this practice. After the civil rights laws were enacted, the church had the opportunity to promote integration from the pulpit, but chose to continue to worship separately. However, secular organizations such as Major League Baseball, the National Football League, and the National Basketball Association, along with the entertainment industry, saw the value of integration and slowly began to make changes.

Today, churches are still largely segregated, fearful of losing their own cultural identities. But coming together will produce a rich, diverse, and unified community, with Christ at the center rather than a particular group or culture. We see this in the book of Acts where a diverse group of people from many nations come together committed to a common goal. This is how the 21st Century church should look.

Many concerns arise with the talk of integrating racially different congregations. Which building? Which pastor? Which staff members? Which worship style? These issues must be addressed, but should not prevent progress. As church leaders, it will be difficult to stand before God, see a remnant from every nation, tongue and tribe, and explain why we chose to remain segregated.

For anyone thinking about crossing the racial/cultural barriers and coming together to work side by side and worship the God of heaven, my suggestion is to take the advice from the Nike commercials and “Just Do It.” God is bigger than any excuse or concern we could have for remaining segregated.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Racial Segregation: Sin in the Church, pt. 3

2007-08-10T09:59:00.000-05:00

When James, the half-brother of Jesus, wanted to illustrate the dangers of showing partiality, he wrote an example in the context of a worship service. James writes, “My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory” (2:1). A few verses later he writes, “If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors” (James 2:8-9). Showing partiality toward another race (racial prejudice) transgresses the law of love, therefore it is sin. In light of our racially segregated churches, one does not have to wonder too much what James would have to say about this issue. As Christians, we don’t love like we should; we continue to be divided by race, rather than united by love.

The early church was racially diverse. There were Jews (Hebraic and Hellenistic) and Gentiles (from the Middle East to Europe), and even though there were cultural strains (Acts 6:1, 15:1), the apostles never advocated segregating the church based on race. If they had, they would have set up Jewish churches and Gentile churches. But in the New Testament we find Jews and Gentiles worshiping together.

The apostle Paul taught that all believers in Christ become part of one body and one household. Paul writes, “so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (Romans 12:5). In Ephesians 2:19 Paul writes, “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.” Just so we understand that God’s kingdom transcends all cultural barriers, Paul writes, “for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith…There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:26, 28). If all believers in Christ are a part of one body, and members of God’s household which transcends all ethnic, social and gender barriers, then why do we worship separately as if this were not true? In Revelation (5:9, 7:9) we find every tribe, language, people, and nation before the throne of God. If that’s what heaven will be like, shouldn’t our churches represent that unity in diversity now?

As long as we cling to our own cultures and ways of worship (music style, order of service, preaching style) there’ll be no progress in the desegregation of the church. If one ethnic group demands that another ethnic group gives up everything and assimilates fully into their own culture, there’ll be no advancements. When two ethnic groups join together, what should be produced is a tertium quid--a third distinct culture (a blending of styles and practices). The unifying factors should be a commitment to God’s kingdom above our own cultures, Christ-centered and exalting lyrics, and Christ-centered biblical preaching (Phil. 2:9-11). With that, God would be glorified.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Racial Segregation: Sin in the Church, pt. 2

2007-08-03T10:33:00.000-05:00

God loves diversity; no two things are created exactly alike. Before sin entered the world, He called his creation “good,” and when He created humanity in His own image He called it “very good.” It was God’s plan from the beginning to create, from one couple, all the ethnic groups of the world. Paul affirmed this in Acts 17:26 when he said to the Athenian philosophers, “And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place…”

When God became a man in the person of Jesus, he became a Palestinian Jew. He was a direct descendant of Abraham, who was from the region of what is now Iraq. Contrary to the picture of a blue-eyed, blond-haired Jesus that hangs on the wall of many of our churches, Jesus most likely had dark eyes and dark skin. However, we quickly discover in the Gospels that Jesus was not just interested in saving his own race (thankfully, since most of us would not qualify). In the Gospel of John (3:16), Jesus reveals the reason for his coming to earth: “For God so loved the world [all nations], that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” After his death and resurrection, and directly before his ascension, he gave the church its marching orders: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations [ethnic groups], baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…” (Matt. 28:19). God’s kingdom will consist of a remnant of all the nations of the world.

The Apostle Peter, in spite of his own racial biases, learned this lesson well. In Acts God showed Peter in a vision that no race should be considered “unclean.” As he entered the house of a gentile, Peter said, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean” (Acts 10:28). Peter then said, “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality…”(Acts 10:34). The Apostle Paul concurred when he wrote, “For God shows no partiality” (Rom. 2:11).

The theme of the Gospel is that God’s kingdom transcends all racial, social, and economic barriers and that God loves all nations exactly the same. Because of this, God assures us that heaven will consist of individuals from “every tribe, language, people, and nation” (Rev. 5:9). But if the church is to represent the kingdom of God on earth, and Jesus taught us to pray, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” why do Christians still show partiality? Why are churches still divided racially? Christians have failed to fully understand the heart of God. We have missed the opportunity to be a witness to the truth that God’s kingdom transcends all cultural barriers, making all nations one in Christ.

Next week we’ll take up the question of cultural differences.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Racial Segregation: Sin in the Church, pt. 1

2007-07-27T08:55:00.000-05:00

Sin in the church is nothing new. The Scripture is brutally honest in pointing out the shortcomings of the Old Testament saints and the New Testament church. Church history is full of failures, missteps, and grave errors committed by those who claimed to be Christian. To be sure, the church has made many positive contributions to the world (i.e., social justice, education, and healthcare), but even the church’s best efforts are tainted with sin. This is why Christians must rely daily on God’s grace and forgiveness (1 John 1:9).

It’s easy to own up to the sins of the past; it’s much harder to acknowledge and confess our current sins. This is why sin is so dangerous; it causes us to conceal, ignore, and make excuses when we clearly fall short of God’s standards. There’s always the temptation to be like the Pharisees by denying our sin and pretending to be perfect, but the Apostle John warns, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8).

Today, there’s no better example of the church trying to conceal, ignore, and make excuses for its sin than in the area of race relations. The fact that Sunday morning is the most racially segregated hour in America is a huge blight on the American church and is extremely damaging to our witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Gospel (salvation by grace through faith in Christ) is for every nation, tribe and tongue (Rev. 5:9), and the goal of the Gospel is to make every race one in Christ (Eph. 2:14-18). The world hates, discriminates, and divides on race, social status, and any number of things, but God has clearly condemned this and calls Christians to unite under the Lordship of Christ. This is what Paul meant when he wrote, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). Unfortunately, the American church has chosen to remain divided over race—and to us it is sin.

In his book, “The Bible and Race,” T. B. Maston writes, “If God is no respecter of persons, if he shows no partiality, our ultimate goal should be the elimination of all partiality, prejudices, and discrimination from our lives.” A few chapters later he writes, “If Christians do not attempt honestly to apply the Christian spirit and Christian principles to race relations, how can they expect others to respect their Christian claims or to hear and accept the message they proclaim? The race problem is, in a very real sense, ‘American Christianity’s test case.’” Maston wrote these words in the late 1950’s; sadly, the racial wall of segregation in the American church has not improved much since then. It is to our shame that secular culture has made greater strides in race relations and desegregation than the church.

Over the next few weeks we’ll take a closer look at the problem, build a scriptural framework for thinking about the issue, and then give some suggestions for a way forward.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

The Offensive Nature of the Cross

2007-07-20T10:43:00.000-05:00

Scott Guthrie, Minister of Music & Education at Trinity Church, is writing this week while Billy continues his doctoral work.

If it is difficult to accept that God became man, then His sacrificial death is even harder to believe. So it should come as no surprise when people are offended by the message of the cross. In fact, to the heart unmoved by God, the message of the crucified Christ can do nothing but offend.

First, the cross offends human decency. The cross was a vile instrument of death, cruel by anyone’s standards. The Jews viewed crucifixion as a curse from God (Deut. 21:23), reserved for blasphemers and idolaters. For Messiah to be identified with such sinners was detestable; for Him to be crucified like them was unthinkable. The Romans reserved crucifixion for notorious criminals, rebellious slaves, and those committing treason. Cicero, a Roman statesman, political theorist, and philosopher, wrote, “This very word ‘cross’ should be removed not only from the person of a Roman citizen but from his thoughts, his eyes, his ears.” Even basic human decency recoils at the shame and horror of the cross.

Next, the cross offends human wisdom, which marvels at new and complex ideas and develops philosophies to explain the world in which we live. It elevates the powerful, the intellectual, and the wealthy. Consequently, human wisdom thinks it intellectually irresponsible to believe such a foolish message as that of the cross. But in Isaiah 55:8 God declares, “My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” and Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 1:27 that “God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise.” The message of the cross is, by God’s design and for His glory, contrary to everything glorified by human wisdom.

Finally, the cross offends human pride. The inclination of natural man (as opposed to the man led by the Spirit) is to deny his depravity and believe he is basically good. He admits his imperfection, but is convinced he can overcome his weaknesses through self-effort, looking to Jesus merely as an example to follow or a great moral teacher. But Jesus did not come to show man how to improve himself, for all have sinned (Rom. 3:23) and are powerless to escape the condemnation of the Law. Rather, Jesus came “to give His life a ransom for many” (Mt. 20:28), declaring, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6). This means salvation lies totally outside man himself, in the person and work of Christ, and leaves no place for human pride.

As fallen human beings, the message of the cross offends us in every way. Nevertheless, it is at the heart of the gospel, “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16), and no one is saved apart from it. But the offense continues unless God gives eyes to see and ears to hear. This is why Jesus told His disciples, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44).

a pdf version of this entry is available here

A Perspective on Worship Wars

2007-07-13T09:15:00.000-05:00

Scott Guthrie, Minister of Music & Education at Trinity Church, is writing this week while Billy continues his doctoral work.

Without a doubt, music in corporate worship is one of the most controversial issues facing the American church. Disunity abounds in churches today, as those enamored with organ music and those defiantly chained to their guitar amps stand toe to toe, buckle to buckle, and, ironically, sing together, I Shall Not Be Moved. People will tolerate shoddy preaching, excuse inept handling of God’s Holy Word, and even permit false doctrine. But to parody Merle Haggard, “When you’re running down my music, man, you’re walking on the fightin’ side of me.” Suffice it to say that music is the highest passion for a great many people in today’s churches.

At this point, it is important to remember that the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Any positive thing we do that brings God glory can be identified as worship. One of the most fantastic ways we can worship God is to cause others to see Him for who He is and what He’s done and have them join us in glorifying Him; this multiplies His worshipers, and therefore His worship. Jesus Himself prayed that His followers would be unified so the world would know that God sent Him (John 17:21). Our unity testifies to Christ’s identity, His purpose, His love, and His greatness. God uses this testimony to create for Himself new worshipers, increasing His glory.

Today, music has become synonymous with worship, and a divisive battle rages over which ‘worship style’ most glorifies Him. Ironically, by attempting to ‘give God the greatest glory’ (which is really only a veiled attempt to see our own desires satisfied), we are denying God glory by our disunity. Even more ironic is that in our crusade to justify certain worship styles because of their appeal to the culture, we actually drive culture further from God through our division.

Still think music is the most important thing?

When passion for a musical style is greater than the desire to see God glorified, our worship has shifted objects; we actually begin to worship our worship. The issue of music ceases to be merely problematic and becomes idolatrous. To be sure, there are issues to be discussed regarding music in corporate worship, and differing opinions are sure to abound. But in every discussion, in every debate, the glory of God must be the one thing that will not, that cannot, be sacrificed. We must glorify Him in both our unity of spirit and our diversity of talents and gifts.

The ‘saving grace’ in all this mess is that God is jealous for His own glory and will not share it with anyone or anything. God is the only being in existence for whom the pursuit of His own glory is not a sin. He will be glorified; He will draw those to Him whom He has chosen. We may fail, but God never fails.

So let us not make much of music. Let us make much of God

a pdf version of this entry is available here

The Protestant Work Ethic, pt. 4

2007-07-06T09:33:00.000-05:00

The doctrine of vocation--the idea that we love and serve God and our neighbor through every aspect of our lives--is vital for understanding how we are to live faithfully as Christians. Properly understood and practiced, this doctrine rids us of the sacred/secular split that is so common in western Christianity. It also gives us a powerful ethic with which to judge our work and actions. In Martin Luther’s, “Small Catechism,” he gives advice on confessing one’s sins (notice how it centers on the idea of vocation): “Here reflect on your walk of life in light of the Ten Commandments: whether you are a father, mother, son, daughter, master, mistress, servant; whether you have been disobedient, unfaithful, lazy, whether you have harmed anyone by word or deed; whether you have stolen, neglected, wasted, or injured anything.” A powerful way to look at sin is to see it as a transgression against one’s vocation, which is ultimately a transgression against God.

We’ve discussed how the Protestant idea of vocation is far more than our jobs, but we can see how this ethic can be applied to our work. In order to love and serve both God and neighbor, a Christian doctor’s primary concern will not be money, but the health and life of the patient. A Christian lawyer will be concerned with truth and justice (remember those concepts?) rather than merely winning a case. A Christian police officer will work to protect the citizens, not intimidate or beat them. A Christian businessman will be more concerned with serving his customers and taking care of his employees than the bottom line. A Christian employee will not be lazy or careless, but diligent and hard working, even when the boss is not looking.

It’s also apparent that certain actions can be right or wrong depending on one’s vocation. It is illegal to cut someone with a knife, unless you’re a surgeon. A judge has the ability to sentence someone to death; a vigilante does not. It is wrong to kill one’s enemies unless you’re a soldier, and even then a soldier can only kill those his country is at war with, not his personal enemies.

The apostle Paul understood this concept well. In Romans 12:19 he writes, “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’” But how and when will God bring vengeance and wrath on evildoers? Paul is not just referring to a future day of judgment (it certainly must be included), but a few verses later (Romans 13:1-7) shows that God has appointed governments to carry out His wrath. Romans 13:4 says, “for he [the government] is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword [the power of life and death] in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” When we are wronged, we are not to avenge ourselves. We are to look to the government [army, police, courts, prisons], whose vocation is to punish evil.

If the Protestant idea of vocation is reclaimed and practiced, Christians will truly be salt and light (Matthew 5:13-16) in a decaying and dark world.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

The Protestant Work Ethic, pt. 3

2007-06-29T09:45:00.000-05:00

It is a wonder how the Reformers who rejected salvation by works (only by God’s grace through faith) developed such a high work ethic. The Protestants were not trying to compensate for something lacking in their theology; they were merely following the Scripture. Ephesians 2:8-9 says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” God does not save people because of their good works (in reality, all of our works are tainted with sin. Is. 64:6). No one can put God in their debt. Eternal life cannot be earned; it must be received as a gift. The Reformers, however, also understood Ephesians 2:10: “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” We are not saved by works, but we are created for good works. These good works are not just random acts of kindness; the good works God calls us to are primarily done through our vocations. As we’ve discussed, a vocation is not just a job, it also includes family, church, community, hobby, rest, and recreation. Vocation is living the life that God has called us to as His ambassadors (2 Cor. 5:20) and priests (1 Peter 2:9).

Our calling of good works, then, is not a calling for self-gratification or self-glorification; it is a calling to serve others. William Perkins wrote, “Every man for himself, and God for us all is wicked, and is directly against the end of every calling.” Then he wrote, “They profane their lives and callings that employ them to get honors, pleasures, profits, worldly commodities, etc., for thus we live to another end than God hath appointed, and thus we serve ourselves, and consequently neither God nor men.” The Reformers viewed vocation as the way to carry out the greatest commandment—to “love God with all of your heart, soul, and mind,” and to “love your neighbor as yourselves.”(Matt. 22:37-40) Luther wrote in his Larger Catechism, “In God’s sight it is actually faith that makes a person holy; it alone serves God, while our works serve people.” Gustaf Wingren wrote, “God does not need our good works, but our neighbor does.” The Reformers saw that through our vocations we can become Christ-like by not looking to be served, but to serve others (Matt. 20:28).

In our community (or any community) you’ll not find one person who is completely independent (that idea should deflate some egos). Where would any of us be with out the plumber, the garbage man, the electrician, the grocery store clerk, the doctor, the lawyer, the insurance agent, the pastor, the road worker, the policemen, the firemen, the truck driver, etc. We all need each other, and we all serve each other whether we like it or not. The Reformers understood that God calls us to the good works of loving our neighbors by serving them through our vocations. As we do this, we’ll soon discover that we’re not only loving and serving our neighbor, we’re also loving and serving Christ. As Matthew 25:40 says, “And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’”

a pdf version of this entry is available here

The Protestant Work Ethic, pt. 2

2007-06-22T09:11:00.000-05:00

As we discussed last week, the Protestant doctrine of “the priesthood of all believers” challenged the medieval church’s distinction between sacred and secular. Martin Luther, and later John Calvin, championed the idea of vocation as a sacred calling. Luther wrote, “Your work is a sacred matter. God delights in it, and through it He wants to bestow His blessing on you.” Calvin wrote, “It is an error that those who flee worldly affairs and engage in contemplation are leading an angelic life…We know that men were created to busy themselves with labor and that no sacrifice is more pleasing to God than when each one attends to his calling and studies to live well for the common good.” In the minds of the Reformers, work was a calling and a means by which we glorify God and serve our neighbors.

These ideas produced sweeping social changes in the medieval world. One of the greatest changes was in education. Before the Reformation it was only deemed necessary for the clergy and ruling class to read, but Luther made it his goal to educate everyone, including the plowboy, in order to read and understand the Word of God. The reformed churches, however, went even further and began to implement a classical approach to education. This approach completely transformed the social order of the day. It began to erode the walls of social class, spurred economic growth, and planted the seeds of individual and political freedom.

These social, economic, and political changes were also affected by the Protestant idea of vocation. Today, vocation has come to mean a job or career, but the Reformers had a much broader understanding of the word. To the Reformers vocation meant God’s calling (vocatio) on one’s life. As Harry Blamires wrote, “Vocation is the voice of providence, and providence is always purposeful.” One’s vocation, which included work, rest, play, marriage, and raising children, meant living out God’s purpose for one’s life. Because one’s vocation was a calling from God, it was not to be used for selfish purposes or for purely monetary gain, but always for God and the service and betterment of others. This produced honest, quality-driven, hard-working laborers. Everyone practiced a trade according to their God-given abilities and according to the needs of the community. A wide range of trades insured that all the needs of the community would be met. The blacksmith made farm equipment, the farmer produced food, the doctor helped heal the sick, the preacher taught the Bible, the cobbler made shoes, the tailor made cloths, etc. Everyone did their part for the glory of God and the betterment of the community. Puritan William Perkins summed up this idea of vocation when he wrote, “The main end of our lives…is to serve God in the serving of men in the works of our callings…Some man will say perchance: What, must we not labor in our callings to maintain our families? I answer: this must be done: but this is not the scope and end of our lives. The true end of our lives is to do service to God in serving of man.”

What would it look like if service to God and others were removed from the idea of vocation? Vocation defined as merely a job done for personal glory and/or monetary gain would lead to a self-centered, pleasure-seeking, greedy, materialistic, purposeless society. Unfortunately, that kind of society is not hard to imagine.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

The Protestant Work Ethic, pt. 1

2007-06-15T09:08:00.000-05:00

In many ways the medieval church was influenced more by Greek philosophy than by Scripture. Philosophers under platonic influence held to an extreme separation between the spiritual (the invisible world) and the physical (an imperfect copy of the invisible world). To the Platonists, the spiritual world was good and the physical world evil. This Greek influence on the medieval church can especially be seen in its concept of vocation. In the medieval church, the idea of vocation played out in a two-tiered, or dualistic, view of human life. One could receive a “call” (Latin vocatio) from God to be a monk, priest, or nun, which were considered the spiritual callings. For everyone else, there was marriage, children, and physical labor. This kind of earthy or worldly existence was viewed as unspiritual (even though marriage was one of the seven sacraments). Those who engaged in the worldly affair of physical labor were typically poor and uneducated—reading and writing were considered necessary only for those who pursued the spiritual life of contemplation and devotion.

This Platonism of the medieval church was challenged and overturned in the 16th century by the Reformation. The Reformers rejected the dualism of the medieval church and reintroduced the scriptural notion of the “priesthood of all believers.” To the Reformers, this notion did not mean that the office of pastor was unnecessary, or that everyone had a right to interpret the Bible however they wished. The priesthood of all believers meant that Christians did not need an earthly mediator between God and man in a priestly system, because Jesus Christ is the mediator (1 Tim. 2:5). Through Jesus Christ, Christians have direct access to the Father (Heb. 4:16). Not only do Christians have direct access, we also have been called (vocatio) to the holy calling of the priesthood (1 Peter 2:9). According to Scripture, the priesthood is not the calling (vocation) of a select few; it is the duty and delight of every Christian. This means that every Christian, the preacher, the teacher, the doctor, the plumber, the trash man, the pool man, the street sweeper, the farmer, the politician, the banker, the lawyer, the grocer, the truck driver, the cashier, the housewife, the soldier, the corporate executive, and the fast food restaurant worker are all spiritually equal before God. The high calling of serving God and man is carried out through work (and other activities). This doctrine did not degrade the office of pastor, but raised to a sacred calling what once was thought to be secular or worldly work.

In my own tradition (Baptist), we still carry the residual language of the medieval church. We talk of people being called into “full-time Christian service,” which is platonic to the core. In actuality, according to the priesthood of all believers, all Christians are in full-time Christian service no matter what their jobs.
In the next few weeks we’ll discuss how the protestant work ethic gave rise to the Western notions of education and capitalism and how the protestant idea of vocation can be lived out. We will also discuss how the protestant work ethic, when God is taken out of the picture, will lead to a self-centered, pleasure-seeking, greedy, materialistic, purposeless, meaningless society.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Was Jesus in the Old Testament, pt. 3

2007-06-08T09:45:00.000-05:00

Reading the Gospels many years ago, I noticed that Jesus constantly referred to Himself as the Son of Man. This troubled me because I knew the historic teaching of Christianity was that Jesus is both God and Man. Jesus’ constant reference to Himself as the Son of Man seemed to place the emphasis on His humanity, to the exclusion of His deity. This continued to puzzle me, until I realized why Jesus preferred to use this title. Daniel 7:13-14 says, “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.” By using the title Son of Man, Jesus was identifying himself as the one in Daniel’s vision. This allusion was not lost on the Jews (like it was lost on me), who knew this prophecy very well.

It’s even more awesome when one compares Daniel’s prophecy to Jesus’ own prophecy concerning His second coming. In Matthew 24:30 Jesus says, “Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” Jesus says, in Matthew 25:31, “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.” Before His crucifixion, Jesus was taken before the high priest and asked if He was the Messiah. Jesus answered, “I am[ego eimi], and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” (Mark 14:62 (ESV) There’s no doubt that Jesus was claiming to be the one Daniel saw in his vision.

Jesus’ whole life was lived in the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. The writers of the Gospels understood this and made many of these prophetic connections. The Gospel of Matthew was especially written to point out the prophecies fulfilled in the life of Jesus. Many times in Matthew (and the other Gospels) one will come across a phrase like, “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet.” (Matthew 1:22)

In Matthew 16:1-3, the Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus asking for a sign from heaven to prove He was the Messiah. Jesus answered them by saying, “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.” In essence, Jesus was telling them that the Scripture and its prophecies were sufficient signs from heaven to prove He was the Messiah.

Is Jesus found in the Old Testament? Without a doubt; He is its very theme.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Was Jesus in the Old Testament, pt. 2

2007-06-01T11:53:00.000-05:00

The Apostle John gives an account of a conversation Jesus had with the Jews. Jesus said, “’Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.’ So the Jews said to him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.’ So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.” (John 8:56-59) Why were the Jews angry enough to kill Jesus? It was because He had claimed to be God.

When God sent Moses to deliver Israel from Egyptian bondage, God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’” (Ex 3:14) The Hebrew word translated “I Am” is Yahweh. Yahweh is the Hebrew name of God given in the Old Testament. When Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I am [Greek, ego eimi], ” Jesus was claiming to be Yahweh, and for this they wanted to stone Him.

Another important piece of evidence for Jesus’ identity as God is the use of the title “LORD.” In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament from around 100 BC), The Hebrew word Yahweh (God) is translated Kurios in Greek, and Kurios is translated Lord in English. In many of our English translations, when LORD is used with all capital letters in the Old Testament, the underlying Hebrew word is Yahweh. When Lord is not in all capital letters in the Old Testament, it should be translated something like master or sir. The New Testament does not maintain this distinction. How, then, should we translate this passage: “Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved….For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’” (Romans 10:9-10, 13) When we confess ‘Jesus as Lord,’ are we confessing Him as master or are we confessing him as God? We are actually confessing both. The Old Testament passage Paul quotes is Joel 2:32: “And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD [Yahweh] shall be saved….” Clearly, with Paul’s thoughts sufficiently anchored to this Old Testament passage, we are to confess that Jesus is God (Yahweh).

An example of Jesus being confessed as both Lord (master) and God is when Thomas realized that Jesus really had risen from the dead. John 20:28-29 says, “Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’ Jesus said to him, ‘Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.’”

The witness of Scripture is that God (Yahweh of the Old Testament) became a man and dwelt among us (John 1:14).

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Was Jesus in the Old Testament, pt. 1

2007-05-25T11:53:00.000-05:00

After the resurrection, two of Jesus’ disciples were walking back to Emmaus feeling sad and dejected. Jesus came to them while they were walking, keeping his identity hidden. They began to tell this ‘stranger’ the story of the crucifixion and the possibility of the resurrection, but their sadness indicated that they remained doubtful. Jesus then said to them, “’O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?’ And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” (Luke 24:25-27) Jesus confirmed that He was the theme of the Old Testament.

In the Old Testament there are many prophecies concerning Jesus. The first is Genesis 3:15, which prophesies that a male child of the woman will crush Satan’s head (a fatal blow) while Satan will only crush his heel. Jesus stomping on the head of a snake in the opening scene of Mel Gibson’s movie was an allusion to this prophecy. This death blow to the head of Satan was rendered by Jesus on the cross.

Many prophecies seem to indicate that God himself will come to the earth in the form of a man. Isaiah 9:6 says, “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”According to this prophecy, Jesus would be a child born to humanity, but He also would be the Mighty God from heaven.

Isaiah 7:14 says, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel [God with us].” Some suggest that ‘virgin’ here should be interpreted young woman, but a young woman conceiving and bearing a son would hardly be a significant sign.

Micah 5:2 says, “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.” In Daniel chapter seven the term Ancient of Days is clearly a reference to God.

Zechariah 2:10-11 says, “Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion, for behold, I come and I will dwell in your midst, declares the Lord. And many nations shall join themselves to the Lord in that day, and shall be my people. And I will dwell in your midst, and you shall know that the Lord of hosts has sent me to you.” Notice that the Lord will dwell in our midst because the Lord of hosts sent Him. This passage is ultimately fulfilled in Jesus--Jesus confirmed this when He said, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.” (John 8:42)

Next week we’ll look at more passages and discuss the use of the word ‘Lord’ in the Old and New Testament.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Where Did God Come From?

2007-05-18T10:10:00.000-05:00

This question begins in our childhood, and if not given a proper answer, it can linger into adulthood. The reason it seems so difficult is that we live in a world of beginnings, so we assume that everything must have a beginning—including God. Genesis 1:1, however, clues us in to the answer: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” The very first verse in the Bible tells us that before the heavens and the earth (the universe) were created, God existed. God is a non-contingent being, meaning His existence does not depend on anything else. He was not created; He has always existed. Psalm 90:2 says, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.” Revelation 1:8 says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Some may improperly cite the scientific principle of causality by saying everything must have a cause, which they assume would include God. However, the principle of causality states that every effect must have a cause. By definition God is not an effect of something else (otherwise there would be something greater than God), so the principle of causality would not apply to God.
This question is hard to grasp because we are finite and therefore limited in our understanding. We would have to be infinite like God to understand God’s eternal nature. But we can understand what God has revealed: that He has always existed and there was never a time when He was not.

If all of this is too hard to believe, then it must be understood that the existence of something eternal is not just a religious problem; it’s a problem for science as well. There’s a basic scientific axiom which says ex nihilo nihil fit –“out of nothing, nothing comes.” This axiom reminds us that if there was ever a time in which there was nothing, there would still be nothing. The fact that you and I (and the universe) exist is proof that there’s something eternal—something has always existed.

Since logically we know that there is something eternal, the real question is whether this something is an impersonal force or a personal being. If it is an impersonal force, how did it produce personal beings? If this force is lifeless and unintelligent, how did it ever produce life and intelligence? Can the creation be greater than its creator? Again, Genesis 1:27 tells us why we are intelligent and personal beings: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” We are personal and intelligent beings because we have been created in the image of an intelligent and personal God.

No doubt it’s difficult to explain God’s existence, but it’s also very difficult to explain our own existence without God.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds

2007-05-11T10:13:00.000-05:00

Hypocrisy is commonly cited as a reason for not attending church. Admittedly, hypocrisy is not hard to find in church. But in reality, hypocrisy is not hard to find anywhere. The human heart is bent toward hypocrisy. Jesus warned us about judging hypocritically when he said, “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?...You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” (Matt. 7:3,5) In this context, Jesus was not condemning all judgments (he was not taking away our ability to call things right and wrong), just hypocritical judgments.

Hypocrisy abounds even among secularists who have attempted to establish certain key principles that they themselves have failed to follow. Two examples of these principles are religious tolerance and moral relativism. According to Webster, tolerance is, “sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own.” One tolerates those with whom he disagrees. However, tolerance in our society is now intolerance in disguise. In the name of religious tolerance, Christmas trees are removed, prayers are forbidden, Bibles are disallowed, and the name of Jesus cannot be mentioned; these actions do not exemplify religious tolerance. When someone desires to limit the free exercise of religion because it is offensive, they are clearly being intolerant. The courts should not limit the freedom of religion (as is the trend) because of the offended; they need to direct the offended to grow up, and suggest they look up the definition of tolerance. For the secularist to desire the appearance of tolerance, when they are in fact intolerant, is nothing short of hypocrisy.

Moral relativism is another example of hypocrisy in our society. A moral relativist is one who suggests there are no objective standards of right and wrong. A relativist might say something like, “that might be wrong for you, but it is not wrong for me.” In reality, however, there’s really no such thing as a true moral relativist. The idea of moral relativism is just a ploy in an attempt to tear down an old morality (the Judeo/Christian ethic) and establish a new morality. Many who claim to be moral relativists will protest the war, push for acceptance of certain lifestyles, and denounce the use of fossil fuels as a source of energy. Having an idea of what’s right, expecting others to agree with oneself, and desiring to impact laws and public policy are not the activities of a relativist, but of an absolutist. An absolutist who attempts to pass himself off as a moral relativist is in reality a hypocrite.

All of this is to show that hypocrisy abounds everywhere. If someone uses hypocrisy as an excuse for not attending church, then it should also be an excuse for not leaving the house. And if they choose seclusion to avoid hypocrisy, they should, by all means, avoid looking in the mirror.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Curbing Evil in the Human Heart

2007-04-27T10:10:00.000-05:00

Last week we examined the Scriptural view that moral evil originates in the human heart. But if human beings are basically evil, why doesn’t something like the Virginia Tech shooting happen more often? The short answer is the grace of God. God uses several means to curb evil within the human heart, which in return curbs evil within society. The primary means God uses is the conscience.

The conscience is recognized by secular and Christian thinkers alike. The existence of the conscience is not usually debated; what is debated is the origin and proper function of the conscience. The Scripture seems to suggest that the conscience is inherent in all people (1 Cor. 10:29; 2 Cor.4:2). Many authors suggest the function of the conscience is threefold: it distinguishes between what is morally right and wrong; it urges one to do that which is right; it brings a sense of guilt when one does wrong. In essence, God has placed the conscience inside every human heart to be a governor against evil.

If the conscience is God-given and innate, then why do consciences differ? The moral reasoning of a person can be educated, thereby giving the conscience a moral standard from which to adjudicate. Robert J. Burdette wrote, “Following conscience as a guide is like following one’s nose. It is important to get the nose pointed right before it is safe to follow it. A man can keep the approval of his own conscience in very much the same way that he can keep directly behind his nose, and go wrong all the time.” The conscience is only as good as the moral training of the individual.

Moral training is one of the God-given mandates for parents. Parents are responsible before God to teach their children God’s moral law (Deut. 6:4-7), for disciplining their children when they do wrong (Prov. 22:15; Prov. 29:17), and training them to do right (Prov. 22:6). If parents are faithful in this responsibility (and do not expect the church or the government to do it for them), then a child will have the correct moral foundation that God intended, and the child’s conscience will be a faithful guide in moral decision making. If the parents fail at their duty, then the moral training of the child will be accomplished by their peers, the media, and the rest of culture. This is precisely what we are seeing in the United States due to the large-scale breakdown of the family. School shootings were unheard of in the past because families were strong and the Judeo/Christian ethic was believed and taught within the family.

This is not to say, however, that a good conscience cannot go bad. The moral reasoning of a person can become so twisted by sin that the conscience can become evil (Hebrews 10:22), defiled (Titus 1:15), and seared (1 Tim 4:2). A person can have good parents who taught them well, but by continually carrying out the evil intentions of their heart and ignoring the inward warnings, his conscience can become seared over and useless. The most evil human being one can encounter is a person without a conscience. These are the people that buy guns, chain doors, and methodically kill professors and students in the classroom.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

The Source of the Evil at Virginia Tech

2007-04-20T10:51:00.000-05:00

As we continue to mourn the largest shooting massacre in our nation’s history, it’s interesting to listen to the questions asked and answers given in an attempt to make sense of it all. Everyone, it seems, is looking for the source of this “evil”(where did the moral relativists go?). Was it the fault of the shooter’s parents? His classmates? The handgun manufacturer or the gun store owner? Violent movies or video games? The internet? The school administration? It seems we are looking for the blame everywhere except the most obvious place—the heart of the shooter. The reason we miss the obvious is that we have come to believe that evil comes from society (external) rather than from the human heart (internal). But if all of the parts are good, then how does the collective whole become evil? After all the tragedies we’ve experienced as a nation, it may be time to revise our understanding of evil. If we are ready for the truth, then we’ll find James, the half-brother of Jesus, ready with the answer.

The Greek philosopher Socrates wondered that “men know what is good, but do what is bad.” Socrates understood that within the human heart there is a kind of schizophrenia. James (4:17) put it like this, “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.” James called this inward struggle in the human heart double-mindedness (dipsychos-two minds). Double-mindedness is evident in both doubting God (1:5-8) and lacking purity of heart (4:8). It is not just hypocrisy between what we believe and what we do; it’s a lack of inward wholeness—a divided heart.

This division in the human heart is the source of evil. In verses 1:14-15, James shows us how sin and evil are born: “But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” Notice that James does not point to external influence as the source of sin; he points to our “own desire” as the source of human sin and death. In James 4:1-5, he tells us that our warring inward passions are the source of quarrels, fights, and murders among us. In other words, an evil heart brings about evil actions.

If human beings are basically good, then we must look for an external reason for evil deeds. But if human beings are basically evil, then we need no further explanation. Jeremiah 17:9 says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” The world will point to a hundred external reasons why Cho killed the students and faculty at Virginia Tech, but the brother of Jesus (and the rest of the Bible) points no further than his evil heart.

This leaves us with a question for next week. If human beings are basically evil, then why doesn’t something like this happen more often?

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Revival of the Mind, part 7

2007-04-13T11:13:00.000-05:00

In order to recover the life of the mind, evangelicals must anchor their faith on historical facts, not on religious feelings. Reliance on subjective feelings rather than on objective facts may explain why a thorough knowledge of the Bible, biblical history, and biblical theology is almost non-existent among Christians today. This affinity toward subjective feelings must change or Christianity will continue to be marginalized in our culture.

A Christian revival of the mind, however, should include more than just biblical knowledge. A good understanding of history, including church history, is important. As Solomon once said, “there’s nothing new under the sun.” There are no new heresies, just repackaged old ones. There are no new philosophies, just the Greeks re-mixed. A good understanding of the intellectual movements of world history will demystify the current thoughts and trends of our culture and keep us from being held captive by novelties. In the same manner, a thorough understanding of Church history will keep the Church from making the same old mistakes and from being held captive by new and novel theologies.

A revival of the mind also means that Christians will work toward the redemption of the culture. Instead of rejecting the science and arts, we should cultivate them with enthusiasm and pursue them for the Glory of God. A toilet on display in a museum or a crucifix in a jar of urine should not be responded to with outrage, but with pity—pity that a person has such a dark and twisted view of the true, the beautiful, and the good. Christians should not respond with calls of censorship (he who calls for censorship will soon be censored), but with masterpieces that show true hope, creativity, and beauty, and by contrast, shame the dark and twisted attempts at art.

In the sciences, Christians can show they are more open-minded than their naturalist counterparts. A naturalist, by definition, has already closed his mind to the possibility of God, even before examining the evidence. A Christian in the sciences can follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if it’s to God. If the biblical worldview is correct, then any discipline that takes it into account will come much closer to the truth. For example, if those who study sociology, psychiatry, or anthropology would recognize that mankind is morally fallen and possesses a sin nature, they will come closer to the truth than those who believe mankind is basically good.

If God has created all things, then He has made all scientific and artistic disciplines possible, therefore all disciplines lead back to Him. Christians need to think deeply about how the biblical worldview can be brought to bear on their particular job or field of study. Like C.S. Lewis wrote, “We must attack the enemy’s line of communication. What we want is not more little books about Christianity, but more little books by Christians on other subjects—with their Christianity latent.” We should so love God with all of our hearts, souls, and minds that when the world looks for an expert in any field they should find a Christian there.

In the past, Christians were among the brightest and best thinkers in the world. By the grace of God and with a revival of the Christian mind, it can be that way again.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Revival of the Mind, part 6

2007-03-30T10:47:00.000-05:00

In order for the church to recover the life of the mind, church leaders must lead by example; this does not lessen the responsibility of every Christian in this recovery effort. The call of Christ is a call to be a disciple, which means to be a learner of Christ by allowing Him and His Word to shape our hearts and minds. Christ is the teacher and Christians are His students. It’s no mistake that Jesus added the word “mind” in Matthew 22:37 (also in Mark 12:30 and in Luke 10:27) to Deuteronomy 6:5, helping us not to forget that our minds, as well as our hearts and souls, must be involved in our love for God.

If Christians are students, then we must do what students do—learn. Learning requires the intellect; if Christians neglect the intellect, they will prove to be worldly Christians at best, false disciples at worst. James 4:4 tells us that to be friends with the world is to be an enemy of God. Worldliness is not about whether women should wear make-up or men should have short hair; it’s about keeping our minds from being conformed to the world’s way of thinking. Mark Noll wrote, “If evangelicals do not take seriously the larger world of the intellect, we say, in effect, that we want our minds to be shaped by the conventions of our modern universities and the assumptions of Madison Avenue, instead of by God and the servants of God.” In order to avoid worldliness, Paul tells us that we must not be conformed to the world, but be transformed by a renewal of our minds (Romans 12:2), minds shaped by the biblical worldview. The foundation of all Christian thought is that there is a God and He has spoken in the Bible. The Christian mind evaluates everything through the lens of the Bible, especially the biblical doctrines of creation, fall, and redemption.

What can Christians do to help facilitate a revival of the mind? The first priority should be for every Christian to become biblically literate. Sadly, the average Christian does not have a good grasp of what the Bible teaches, or of the flow and significance of biblical history. Studying the Bible and listening intently to teaching and preaching from the Bible should once again become a priority to Christians if we’re going to see a revival of the mind.

Christians must also seek to become theologically literate. Theology literally means “words about God.” Anyone saying anything about God is engaging in theology. Obviously this means that there is good theology (words that are right about God) and bad theology (words that are wrong about God). How can we know good theology from bad theology? The Bible is God’s words about Himself and is the standard by which all words about God should be measured. Christians should learn the great theological truths of the Christian faith by reading the Bible and books by gifted Christian theologians, both past and present (I recommend books such as “Systematic Theology” by Wayne Grudem).

Next week we will conclude this series by suggesting a few more areas of study and give some final thoughts about the Christian mind.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Revival of the Mind, part 5

2007-03-23T10:27:00.000-05:00

If the church is going to see a revival of the mind, it first must be modeled by its leaders. Pastors must model how faith and reason are inextricably linked. There’s a great need for our pulpits to once again be filled with pastor-scholars. Today, many Christians are suffering from light, airy, meatless, short, moralistic, human-centered sermons. There is truly a famine of the Word in the land (Amos 8:11). To counter this trend, a pastor must model sound biblical exposition. He must pay special attention to the nuances of grammar and do a thorough historical investigation of the cultural setting of the text. This careful study will help him determine what the text meant to the original hearers. He should consult other scholars (preferably from a variety of time periods and denominational backgrounds to keep from getting theological tunnel vision) in commentaries and theological journals. Once he has a solid understanding of the meaning of the text, he must then build a bridge from the biblical time period to the twenty-first century.

In order to accomplish this, he must be a student of the culture by observing current thoughts and trends. He must understand differing worldviews and engage in apologetics to defend the faith (1 Peter 3:15) and to dismantle the influence of worldly philosophies (2 Cor. 10:5). As C. S. Lewis once wrote, “Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.” The pastor then needs to bring all of this to bear in his teaching, carefully expounding the Scriptures, anticipating and answering objections, and helping the church to apply the truth of God’s Word.

As one can imagine, this takes hours and hours of hard study (2 Tim. 2:13). This is why C. H. Spurgeon wrote to his students, “A man great at teadrinkings, evening parties, and Sunday-school excursions, is generally little everywhere else. Your pulpit preparations are your first business, and if you neglect these, you will bring no credit upon yourself or your office.” Many church members, however, would rather have a light sermonette on Sundays as long as the pastor is out drinking tea with them during the week. This suggests that the pastor is central to the life of the church, rather than the Word of God proclaimed. When the pastor’s study time is guarded, the Word of God is honored.

What about other ministry tasks, such as counseling, administration, visitation, etc.? A careful study of Scriptures shows that it was never God’s plan for one man to fulfill all of these tasks. First Timothy 5:17 says, “The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.” This verse suggests a plurality of elders [pastors], one in particular whose job it is to “work hard at preaching and teaching.” Deacons were also added to assist the pastors.

If the church continues to demand that its pastor/teacher fill his days with countless duties other than prayer and study (Acts 6:2-4) it is unlikely that the church will experience a revival of the mind or of the heart, which means that the church’s impact in our culture for the Kingdom of God will continue to be negligible.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Revival of the Mind, part 4

2007-03-16T09:31:00.000-05:00

In the past few weeks we’ve discussed some historical influences that brought about anti-intellectualism and the subsequent elevation of feelings within evangelicalism. Emotions are good servants but bad masters, and there are many lasting negative effects on evangelicalism from this reign of emotion.

Perhaps there’s no better example than in the area of biblical interpretation. When feelings are given the ultimate priority, everything must bow to their authority—including Scripture. I recall attending a Sunday School class years ago where a passage from the Bible was discussed. The teacher read the text, stopped at each verse and asked, “What does this verse mean to you?” As each member formulated an answer, I noticed many prefaced their answers by saying “I feel…” What’s worse, after the teacher heard the various and sundry (and some contradictory) answers, rather than concluding with solid grammatical and historical evidence as to what the verse actually meant, the teacher quickly moved to the next verse. A constant diet of this would lead one to conclude that the meaning of the text comes from within the interpreter (based on feelings), rather than discovering the meaning of the text through the hard work of biblical hermeneutics. Because of this, major doctrines are denied or reinterpreted because they just don’t ‘feel’ right. Perhaps this is why we’ve seen so many denominations and splinter groups develop in the last couple hundred years. I’m sure we’d all be amazed how much doctrinal unity could be achieved among the denominations if solid principals of biblical interpretation were employed.

This anti-intellectualism has also hurt missions and evangelism. The emphasis on faith-as-feelings means that Christians in our culture are not ready to articulate why they believe what they believe. In spite of Peter’s admonition (1 Peter 3:15) to always be “prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you,” many Christians are woefully unprepared, and this lack of preparation is hurting our witness to the world. When a Christian is unsure of his beliefs, he is less likely to engage others with the truth claims of the Gospel. The inability to articulate the faith is not because Christians lack intellectual acumen; many have jobs that require much thought. Christians, like anyone else, do what they deem most important, and since feelings have trumped the intellect in religious matters, studying the Bible and its doctrines are low on the priority list.

This also highlights the common sacred/secular split within the Christian mind. Religion is relegated to the private world of feelings, while the intellect is reserved for public life. Our culture doesn’t mind Christian politicians or business people, as long as their Christianity stays private and does not inform or interfere in their public lives. Many Christians have acquiesced by compartmentalizing their lives, rather than letting the Lordship of Christ inform every aspect of life. This has opened Christians up to the (sometimes accurate) charge of hypocrisy, which has further damaged our witness.

In the next few weeks, we’ll examine how Evangelicals can return to the life of the mind.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Revival of the Mind, part 3

2007-03-12T10:05:00.001-05:00

Last week we discussed the emphasis of Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) on religious feelings and how it influenced both liberal and conservative theologians. It was the conservative’s retreat into religious feelings and away from the hard work of scholarship that helped solidify an anti-intellectual sentiment among evangelicals. But Schleiermacher was not the only influencing factor; the Second Great Awakening (1800-1820) and the revivals of Charles Finney (1824-1837) also contributed.

The 19th century revival movements were centered on emotionally charged preaching with the goal of eliciting an immediate response. Although much moral reform came from these revivals, they tended to place personal conversion and a personal relationship with Christ over against church tradition (creeds and doctrines) and traditional learning. Since personal conversion was the only thing deemed necessary, church doctrine, including the issues surrounding the Great Reformation, was viewed as unimportant. In ‘The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind,’ Mark Noll writes, “They [revival preachers] called upon individuals to take a step of faith for themselves. In so doing, they often left the impression that individual believers could accept nothing from others. Everything of value in the Christian life had to come from the individual’s own choice—not just personal faith but every scrap of wisdom, understanding, and conviction about the faith.” Added to this extreme focus on the individual, revival preachers railed against the “learned clergy” and their classical university training, creating a general mistrust of formally educated pastors (and formal education in general).

Charles Finney not only despised formal theological training, he also despised formal sermons (expository sermons) because they “put content ahead of communication.” The style of sermon Finney preferred included moving stories, no-holds-barred emotional appeals, strong humor, graphic applications, and personal appeals to come forward and sit on the ‘anxious bench’ to be converted. These sermons were purposefully devoid of any serious reflection on Christian doctrines.

Of course, personal conversion is absolutely necessary in the Christian faith, but the revivals inadvertently created a shallow, non-thinking, doctrinally illiterate form of Christianity that emerged as a part of mainstream evangelicalism. In his book, ‘No Place for Truth,’ Dr. David Wells wrote, “The church-centered faith [reformed theology] that had been favored before the Revolution retreated before itinerant revivalism, reasoned faith retreated before exuberant testimony, and theological confession retreated before the axioms of experience.” Wells also noted that when Knut Hamsun, the Norwegian Nobel prize winner visited America in the 1880’s, he observed that the typical sermon did “not contain theology but morality….They do not develop the mind, though they are entertaining.” A quick scan through preachers on television reveals that nothing much has changed. Because of this continuing neglect of the mind, much of modern evangelicalism has become a mile wide and an inch deep.

A revival of the mind does not mean Christians should become stoic, but zeal without knowledge does not honor God (Romans 10:2). In John 4:23-24, Jesus tells us that the Father is seeking those who would worship Him in spirit and in truth, meaning that true worshipers must engage both their hearts and their heads for the glory of God.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Revival of the Mind, part 2

2007-03-02T09:59:00.000-06:00

What historical events brought about the anti-intellectual undercurrent within evangelicalism?

A thorough study of this question would span hundreds of pages, so a quick sketch will have to suffice. Bypassing important connections such as Descartes, the Enlightenment, and Immanuel Kant, we’ll begin with Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834)—known as the father of modern theology. Schleiermacher emphasized the importance of subjective feelings within Christianity. Since he rejected the authority of the Bible, he felt this move was necessary in order to maintain his Christian faith. Dr. Paul House writes, “Partly based on his reading of Immanuel Kant, Schleiermacher concluded that religion consists chiefly of intuition and feelings that lead people to have a sense of and a desire for the infinite, which he broadly defined as God…This emphasis on feeling as the essence of religion remains his most enduring legacy.”

During the 19th and 20th centuries, liberal and conservative theologians drank deeply from Schleiermacher’s well. Liberal theologians emphasized life over doctrine because, like Schleiermacher, they rejected the major doctrines of the Bible. Surprisingly, many conservative theologians were influenced by Schleiermacher as well. Take, for example, a theologian from my own tradition (Southern Baptist), E. Y. Mullins. Mullins rejected Schleiermacher’s view of the Bible, but wrote, “Schleiermacher restored Christianity to the inner life of men…. The witness of the spirit within was of the utmost importance—experience and not theory [became] the basis of certainty.” Mullins concluded, “Schleiermacher restored the experience to its place as an authority, and legitimized mysticism in the Christian churches…” More could be said about Mullins’ influence, but clearly this thinking makes internal feelings a source of authority, which inadvertently lowers the authority (and need) for the Bible and its doctrines. Dr. Gregory Thornbury warned that a faith based on feelings rather than God’s revealed word cannot endure. The Apostle Paul did not point to his inward subjective feelings as proof of the Gospel; he pointed to the brute historical facts of Christ’s death and resurrection.

As many academic theologians with German-sounding names were busy shredding the Bible and essential Christian doctrines, the emphasis on inward experience gave evangelicals a safe retreat from the increasingly hostile world of rationalism, skepticism, and scientism. Rather than sharpening the mind for battle through the hard work of study in order to “…destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God…” (2 Corinthians 10:5), we fled the battlefield. We retreated from the life of the mind, and by doing so, abandoned the universities (how many Christians are leading thinkers in our universities?). This abandonment may turn out to be our undoing, since the cultural influence has shifted from the church to the university. The university, with its current commitment to philosophical naturalism, continues to render cultural acceptance of the Gospel and the historicity of the Bible implausible.

Thankfully, there were (are) some evangelicals who girded their minds and fought. Many left us books pointing out the soft underbelly of our opponents--if only we would come out of our emotional cocoons (and turn off our TVs) long enough to read them.

Next week we’ll examine how the Second Great Awakening and the Finney Revivals contributed to the anti-intellectualism among evangelicals.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Revival of the Mind

2007-02-23T10:14:00.000-06:00

American evangelicals need a revival. By revival, I don’t mean what Webster’s defines as “an often highly emotional evangelistic meeting or series of meetings.” I do mean what Webster’s defines as “renewed attention to or interest in something.” That “something” for evangelicals should be the life of the mind.

In centuries past, Christians pursued the life of the mind with vigor. A quick glance back in Christian history reveals intellectual giants who not only loved God with all of their hearts and souls, but with their minds as well (Matthew 22:37). These great men of God were scientists, scholars, educators, artists, writers, musicians, founders of universities (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, Brown, etc.), college presidents, and pastors who were not just informed about theology, but a wide variety of subjects. Jonathan Edwards, who many still consider the greatest intellect America has ever produced, readily comes to mind. A Congregationalist pastor, Edwards spent twelve to thirteen hours a day in study, not just in theology, but in areas such as science and philosophy. He died shortly after becoming the president of what is now Princeton University. One might suspect that Edwards was so engaged in the life of the mind that his religion was cold and lifeless, but we shouldn’t forget that his preaching was the impetus for the First Great Awakening—Edwards loved God with his heart and his head.

In contrast to Evangelicalism’s rich intellectual history, a dangerous anti-intellectualism has taken hold today. As proof, the average Christian does not know who Jonathan Edwards is, nor do they have any significant understanding of important events in Christian history. The study of biblical theology is considered by many to be boring, irrelevant, and overly divisive, whereas the sale of Christian fiction continues to increase. In some Christian circles—thankfully not all—those who pursue advanced degrees are held suspect. What’s worse, many Christians have no idea how to communicate the Christian worldview and to integrate it into every area of life. A recent Barna poll (Dec. 2006) states that Christians are more attuned to matters of culture and entertainment than matters of faith. If the mind dwells on what the heart deems most important, Christianity is in deep trouble. It’s not that issues of culture and entertainment are bad; it’s just that if matters of faith are not informing these areas, the culture will influence Christianity far more than Christianity will influence the culture. This is clearly what’s happening in America; the salt of Christian thought has lost its savor. As a result, our culture is becoming putrid.

Writing to the church in Rome, the Apostle Paul says, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind…” (Romans 12:2) This is exactly what we need today: a renewal or a revival of our minds. Some may think that intellectual pursuits will lessen a person’s devotion to God, but as the Puritan minister Cotton Mather once quipped, “Ignorance is not the mother of Devotion but of HERESY.”

In the next few weeks we’ll explore the root of this anti-intellectualism. We’ll also offer some possible solutions, and examine what a Christian revival of the mind might look like.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Pragmatic Therapeutic Deistic Consumerism

2007-02-16T10:32:00.000-06:00

When people ask “Does it work?” rather than “Is it true?” it’s a sure indicator that a cultural shift has occurred. This shift, brought to us by the pragmatism of William James, is not only evident in the broader culture, it’s now seen within the Christian community.

In a free-market economy, profitability is the leading indicator of success; for many churches today the leading indicator is growth. However, if church growth is the ultimate goal then truth will inevitably be sacrificed on the altar of success. The sacrifice of truth for the sake of cultural palatability is nothing new for liberal theologians, but it is new among conservative evangelicals. This compromise seems to have two components: the culture viewing the church primarily as a humanitarian organization designed to help solve problems and meet felt needs, and church leaders viewing church growth and evangelism primarily as a marketing problem.

Take for example how most Christians look for a church today. Steeped in consumerism, the typical Christian no longer looks for a church where the Bible is rightly preached and the ordinances (sacraments to my non-Baptist friends) rightly administered; they look for a church with a great children’s ministry, youth ministry, or a good music program (none of which is mandated by Scripture). They will look for a church that will meet their perceived needs, rather than look for a church that will tell them the truth about sin and the cross of Christ.

Churches that view church growth and evangelism as a marketing problem are reinforcing consumerism, and the desires of the consumer will untimely drive church practice. If the consumer wants short therapeutic sermons without all the business of sin and hell, then that’s what they’ll get. The Christian community needs to be reminded again and again that church is not about us; it’s about God, His truth, and His glory.

A couple of years ago, sociologist Christian Smith studied the religious beliefs of American teenagers. At the conclusion of the study, he and his fellow researchers coined the title “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism” to describe the average teenager’s view of God and religion. They discovered that most teens believe in a God who wants us to be good, nice, and fair to each other. They also discovered the average teen believes that the central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself, that God does not need to be involved in one’s life except when there’s a problem, and that good people go to heaven when they die. When pressed to answer crucial questions of faith and belief, many teens responded with a shrug and an apathetic, “whatever.”

Where did they get such ideas? Most likely these ideas came from their parents, from their peers, from the media, and, quite possibly, from their church. When we understand that the average church attendee is beginning to grey, we should be concerned about the future of the church in America. What our youth and adults need is not more entertainment, therapy, or catering to felt needs; what they need is the truth. I just hope there will still be churches around who will give it to them.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

What Is theTheology of the Cross?

2007-02-09T10:25:00.000-06:00

During the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther contrasted what he called the “theology of the cross” with the “theology of glory.” To Luther, the cross of Christ was the focal point of salvation and of the Christian life. The work of Christ on the Cross is the only basis by which sinful humanity can approach God. Luther said, “The cross alone is our theology,” which sounds much like the Apostle Paul when he wrote, “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” 1 Corinthians 2:2 (ESV)

The theology of the cross is a corrective of the theology of glory, which represents mankind’s attempt, through self-effort, to climb his way into God’s favor. Those who adhere to the theology of glory are marked by a constant striving to climb onward and upward, to be in on the newest thing, whether a new teaching or a so-called new movement of the Spirit. They are constantly looking for a “new level” of spirituality from which they can look down on the poor sinners, the unspiritual, the ignorant people who just don’t get it. The theologian of glory reasons that since Jesus suffered and died on the cross, we don’t have to suffer. We should expect only spiritual blessings of health, wealth, and happiness; in essence, our best life now.

Is this really what the Christian should expect in this life? Are we not confusing the already and the not yet? Aren’t we still looking for the city whose builder and maker is God, and still hoping for heaven where the present sufferings are not worthy to be compared to the glory that awaits us (Rom. 8:18)? The disciples on several occasions argued who would be the greatest in the kingdom of God (theology of glory), but Jesus reminded his disciples that to follow him meant denying themselves and taking up their crosses. The disciples wanted glory; Jesus offered a cross.

Like the disciples, we to want to climb the ladder of glory. We want instant success, instant healing, and instant spirituality; the last thing we expect is suffering. In some circles, to suffer is a sign of insufficient faith, but suffering for the sake of Christ is the mark of a true follower. Philippians 1:29 says “For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake.” In Philippians 3:10-11, Paul says that his goal in life is, “that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.” Romans 7:17 says that we are, “heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.”

The theology of the cross reminds us that the way up is down; the way to exaltation is through humiliation; the way to glory is through suffering. This is the path Jesus took, and it is the path on which he calls us to follow Him (Phil. 2:5-11).

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Can I Really Make Free Choices? pt. 4

2007-02-02T10:21:00.000-06:00

For the last several weeks we’ve discussed the sovereignty of God versus the free will of man. Specifically, we’ve examined the differences between incompatibilism and compatibilism, and have hopefully shown that compatibilism is the more reasonable solution. To conclude this series we will show that compatibilism is supported by Scripture.

Another term often used by theologians when discussing the compatibility of God’s sovereignty and man’s free will is concurrence. The doctrine of concurrence affirms both that God is sovereign and that mankind makes choices for which they are held responsible. This is precisely the testimony of Scripture. Proverbs 16:9 says, “The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps.” And in Proverbs 16:33, “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.” These two verses tell us that God is directly involved in events considered to be matters of human freedom or events seemingly produced by random chance.

Concurrence is also found in Acts 2:22-23: “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” In his sermon, Peter acknowledges Jesus died according to God’s divine plan and foreknowledge, yet Peter also lays the guilt of Jesus’ crucifixion on the crowd. God, in His sovereignty, uses the evil intents of men’s hearts to accomplish His eternal purposes.

Another example is found in the book of Genesis. Out of jealousy, Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery, telling their father that he had been killed by a wild animal. Through a series of divinely orchestrated events, Joseph went from being a slave in Egypt to being a ruler second only to Pharaoh. This providential turn of events saved Jacob and his sons from certain starvation. Years later, Joseph said to his brothers concerning their selling him into slavery, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.” Genesis 50:20 (ESV) Again, God used the evil intents of Joseph’s brothers to bring about his sovereign will. Many more verses could be used (such as the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart before the Exodus), but these verses should be sufficient to show the Scriptural support for the doctrine of concurrence.

The doctrine of concurrence should bring Christians comfort and hope knowing that God is actively involved in our lives, and that evil can never ultimately overcome the good (Rom. 8:28). This is why Paul could write in Philippians 2:12-13, “…work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”
Our choices do matter, but our choices never take God by surprise, nor are they outside His sovereign control (Is. 46:9-10, Eph. 1:11).

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Can I Really Make Free Choices? pt. 3

2007-01-26T10:32:00.000-06:00

Last week we discussed how incompatibilism, which affirms man’s uninfluenced free choice, ultimately leads to the image of a madman who chooses things arbitrarily. We now turn to the alternative, compatibilism.

Compatibilism is the idea that our choices are influenced by many factors, such as cultural upbringing, character, present situation, and state of mind; we do not make choices in a vacuum. For example, a person (like myself) may be tempted to stop at Starbuck’s; a person who thinks it silly to pay four bucks for a cup of coffee will not be tempted. The choice to stop or not is shaped by internal influences—personal values, upbringing, and a full stomach—and external influences—the existence of Starbuck’s, owning a car, and having only a dollar in one’s pocket. Many influencing factors are beyond our control, but the compatibilist affirms that they are not beyond God’s control.

To compatibilists, man’s free will is not so narrowly defined as to rule out God’s sovereign influence, especially in, but not limited to, salvation. When a Christian prays for an individual’s salvation, he is praying as a compatibilist, asking God to influence the will of that individual. According to theologian D. A. Carson, “Compatibilism is the view that…God is absolutely sovereign but his sovereignty does not in any way mitigate human responsibility; human beings are responsible creatures (i.e., they choose, decide, obey, disobey, believe, rebel, and so forth), but their responsibility never serves to make God absolutely contingent.” In other words, we are free to make choices, we are responsible for the choices we make, but our choices are not necessarily free from God’s sovereign influence.

Compatibilism is soft determinism, but it is not fatalism. Fatalism is the idea that all events are predetermined and our choices don’t matter. The question, “If God knows everything I will do, can I really make free choices?” assumes fatalism. It must be understood that although God knows every choice we will make, we do the choosing and are morally responsible. The Scriptures are full of verses that declare God’s absolute sovereignty (Is. 46:9-10; Ps. 115:3, 135:6; Dan. 4:35; Eph. 1:11). However, the Scripture also affirms that God will hold us responsible for the choices we make.

Some suggest that God chose to limit his sovereignty so mankind could have free will, but there is no verse in the Bible that supports this claim. The idea that mankind is sovereign and God is subordinate to human freedom must be rejected.

The Westminster Confession of 1647 struck, what I believe to be, the right balance: “God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”

Next week we will give Scriptural support for the compatibilist position.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Can I Really Make Free Choices? pt. 2

2007-01-19T09:11:00.000-06:00

Christians generally agree that man has a will and is morally responsible to God for the choices he makes. Many also believe that God is sovereign and nothing, not even human freedom, can keep Him from accomplishing His will (Is. 46:9-10). How can these two truths be reconciled?

Man’s free will has been viewed in two different ways: compatibilism (soft determinism) or incompatibilism (libertarianism). To illustrate the difference, I want you to look up at the ceiling right now. Just now, you chose to look up or not to look up; no one forced you either way. Of course, added to this mix is God’s omniscience; He knew what you were going to do before you did it. A compatibilist would say your choice was not completely free; it was conditioned by a lifetime of cultural influences, personal character, and present state of mind. An incompatibilist believes your choice to look up or not to look up was completely free; nothing determined your ultimate choice.

The incompatibilist position seems to be the most popular, especially among choice-loving Americans, but there are some inherent weaknesses with incompatibilism. Incompatibilists say that our will is only free if our choices are not pre-determined by any internal or external conditions. This means our choices have an element of pure chance, and given the same set of circumstances, we might choose differently every time. But how can one be sure that our choices are free of any internal or external influences, since one of the determining factors in the choices we make seems to be derived from our personal character? Jesus makes this point in Luke 6:45: “The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.”

If the incompatibilist theory is correct, then our choices are based upon uncaused, random events beyond our control. Philosopher Richard Taylor writes, “The conception that now emerges is not that of a free man, but of an erratic and jerking phantom, without any rhyme or reason at all.” We typically don’t associate a mad man with being free. If our choices are based on pure random chance, beyond any internal or external influences, how can we be held responsible for our actions? Even insane criminals can be found not guilty by reason of insanity!

In order to maintain man’s freedom (complete independence from God’s influence), incompatibilists must also limit God’s sovereignty. However, this is impossible, since Paul said, “In Him we live and move and have our being.” (Acts 17:28) Life, including all choices we make, is only possible under God’s sustaining power.

Finally, an incompatibilist must reinterpret or ignore passages like Ephesians 1:11, “…having been predestined according to the purpose of him [God] who works all things according to the counsel of his will.”

Next week we’ll discuss compatibilism.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Can I Really Make Free Choices?

2007-01-12T12:56:00.000-06:00

This question has plagued philosophers and theologians for centuries. The debate centers on the tension between the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. If God is sovereign, that is, has full control over the universe, can man be free to make real cause and effect choices for which he is accountable?

An atheist may stand back and congratulate himself for being above such trifle, but his naturalistic worldview cannot escape a similar problem. As the naturalist philosopher Derk Pereboom states, “Given our best scientific theories, factors beyond our control ultimately produce all of our actions…we are therefore not morally responsible for them.” Pereboom believes that since our brains are completely controlled by the laws of biochemistry, free will is an illusion. The social ramification for this theory is that no one can be held morally responsible for their actions. Who would have guessed that Darwinism could lead to fatalism and a total breakdown of law and justice?

The Christian dilemma of God’s sovereignty and man’s free will does not have an easy solution. The history of the church and of Christian denominations can be traced by how this question is answered. There is much at stake here; not only God’s sovereignty, but his omnipotence and omniscience, as well as other attributes. For example: What if God knows that tomorrow at noon you’re going to run a red light and miss a collision by inches. Because God is omniscient (he knows everything), He knew before the foundation of the world that this was going to happen. If this event is already in God’s knowledge, then the event must happen. How, then, do you have a choice in the matter? Where is your free will?

Many Christians believe any kind of determinism rules out human free will and responsibility. Theologian Keith Ward believes the universe must be indeterministic in order for humans to be truly free. Arthur Peacocke argues that the free will of man rules out the possibility that God knows the future. Clark Pinnock agrees and suggests that God only knows what can be known; since the free choice of man cannot be known in order for the choice to be truly free, God does not know what anyone will choose in the future.

The problem is that these opinions do not square with Scripture. Isaiah 46:9-10 says, “…remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.’” This and many other verses show that God is sovereign and in full control of human history. Fulfilled biblical prophecy is also clear evidence that God knows the future, including every choice that everyone will make.

Next week we’ll begin to discuss the two major views of free will and compare both views to the biblical understanding of God’s sovereignty.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Can A Man Know He'll Go To Heaven?

2007-01-05T16:23:00.000-06:00

The popular sentiment in our culture is that everyone will go to heaven, except for very bad people like Hitler or Saddam. This sentiment comes from the belief that if we do more good deeds than bad over the course of our lives, we are assured of heaven. However, if going to heaven is based on good deeds, we must not set the bar too high. In our self-centered society one can readily spot evil in others, but it’s almost impossible to spot evil in one’s own heart.

Today, religion is viewed as a kind of therapeutic self-help. In the market place of religion, the perceived end goal of all religions is to make us good, and therefore worthy of heaven. If you ask most people in America if they are going to heaven when they die, they’ll likely answer “yes.” A man once told me that he though he would go to heaven because he had never killed anyone. But his answer was not drawn from the authority of the Bible; it was drawn from the authority of his own opinions and wrong ideas of what qualifies a person for heaven.

The Bible gives us a very different picture concerning the fate of mankind. In Matthew 7:13-14, Jesus tells us that very few people are on the narrow path to heaven—most are on the wide road to destruction. The Bible states that there is no person on earth that is good enough to go to heaven. Romans 3:10-12 says “…None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” (see also Rom. 3:23)

No one will go to heaven because of their good deeds. Heaven cannot be earned; it must be received as a gift (Ephesians 2:8-9). Salvation comes only through Jesus, who died for our sin, was buried, and rose again on the third day. Trusting in Jesus and his perfect work on the cross is the only way to heaven (Acts 16:30-31; John 3:16, 18; Rom. 10:9-10). The Apostle Peter says, “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12) Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (Acts 14:6)

Confidence in our salvation cannot be based on our own opinion; it must be based on the authority of God’s Word and faith in Jesus Christ. According to the Apostle John we can know for sure that we will go to heaven when we die: “Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.” (1 John 5:12-13)

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Was it Possible for Jesus to Sin?

2006-12-29T10:08:00.000-06:00

The teaching of Scripture and the orthodox position of Christianity is that Jesus Christ never sinned. However, the question of whether or not Jesus could have sinned is entirely different—on this issue the orthodox theologians have been split.

The term ‘peccability’ is a theological word meaning that it was possible for Jesus to sin, while the term ‘impeccability’ means that it was not possible for Jesus to sin. Those who argue against the impeccability of Christ believe that it would render his temptation meaningless. Theologian Charles Hodge wrote, “Temptation implies the possibility of sin. If from the constitution of his person it was impossible for Christ to sin, then his temptation was unreal and without effect and He cannot sympathize with his people.” This is a very important objection, especially in light of Hebrews 4:15: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.” However, before a conclusion can be drawn, another factor must be taken into account.

The solution to this problem must rest on the person and nature of Christ. The historical position is that Jesus Christ had a divine nature and a human nature and each had its own will and desire. The human nature of Christ could be tempted, but his divine nature could not (James 1:13). Even though Jesus had two natures, he was still one person. If Jesus had sinned, God would have sinned, which is an impossibility. Therefore Jesus must have been impeccable.

What, then, is the significance of his temptation? Christ’s impeccability does not render his temptations meaningless; His temptations were demonstrations of his sinlessness. How could we know that Jesus was sinless unless he was tested? Jesus temptations were powerful yet he fully resisted.

We must also determine who better understands the full power of a temptation. Is it the one who yields to temptation, or the one who resists it fully? Surely the one who resists temptation knows better about the power of temptation than the one who submits.

Finally, it must be understood that Jesus chose not to rely upon his divine nature for obedience (Phil. 2:5-8). Jesus submitted himself to his Father’s will (see Matt. 26:39). He met every temptation with his human nature under the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit (the very same spirit available to all Christians). Wayne Grudem writes, “The moral strength of his divine nature was there as a sort of ‘backstop’ that would have prevented him from sinning in any case (and therefore we can say that it was not possible for him to sin), but he did not rely on the strength of his divine nature to make it easier for him to face temptation…”

Because Jesus was both God and man he was impeccable, however he completely understands the power of temptation having resisted it fully and completely. Since it is impossible to fully explore this question in one article, we will revisit this issue next year.

Why Did God Become a Man?

2006-12-27T13:24:00.000-06:00

The Incarnation of God in the person of Jesus is the true meaning of Christmas. There are numerous passages in the New Testament attributing words, actions, and titles to Jesus that could only be true of deity. In Matthew 1:23, His title “Emmanuel” means “God with us.” Colossians 1:19 says, “For in him [Jesus] all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,” and Colossians 2:9 says, “For in him [Jesus] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.” In spite of the clear teaching of Scripture, many (including some who claim to be Christians) reject the doctrine of the Incarnation.

People reject the Incarnation for three main reasons: a rejection of the Bible as the inspired Word of God; a commitment to the philosophy of naturalism, resulting in the belief that miracles are impossible; a belief that mankind is basically good and does not need a savior. All three beliefs are in direct opposition to Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16, Heb 2:1-4, Rom. 3:23) and underscore the primary reason the Incarnation is rejected—the refusal to recognize the authority of Scripture.

Only the Scriptures can fully explain why the Incarnation was necessary. The Scriptures teach that as a man Jesus could represent mankind before God the Father. Adam, the first man, disobeyed God and plunged humanity into sin. But Jesus, the “last Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45) believed God and obeyed him perfectly, bringing righteousness back to the human race (Rom. 5:18-19). Because Jesus lived a sinless human life he could die in our place and pay the penalty for our sins. Because he was God he could pay the infinite price for mankind’s sin against an infinitely holy God.

Jesus, as both God and man, is the perfect mediator, representing man to God and God to man. 1 Timothy 2:5 says, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

The Scriptures also suggest that God became a man to fulfill God’s original purpose of mankind ruling over creation (Gen 1:26), to be a sympathetic High Priest (Heb. 4:15-16), and to be an example to follow (1 John 2:6).

Jonah 2:9 says, “Salvation is from the Lord,” meaning man is incapable of doing anything to save himself from eternal death. Salvation must come from God, a process which began when Jesus came to earth. The angel appeared to Joseph and announced that, “[Mary] will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” (Matt. 1:21)
Why did God bother with us? Why didn’t he just destroy us and start over? In John 3:16, Jesus gives us the answer: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”

We at Trinity wish you a very merry and Christ-centered Christmas!

a pdf version of this entry is available here

What is the Doctrine of the Incarnation?

2006-12-19T09:49:00.000-06:00

The doctrine of the incarnation is the central truth of the Christian faith and the real meaning behind Christmas. The word incarnation comes from two Latin words, ‘in’ and ‘caro,’ which means ‘in flesh.’ The doctrine of the incarnation teaches that God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, took on human flesh. Not only is the incarnation central to the Christian faith, but as C. S. Lewis wrote, “If the thing happened, it was the central event in the history of the Earth.”

Why must Christians believe in the incarnation? The Bible, God’s revelation, teaches that Jesus was both God and Man. This doctrine is so essential to the Christian faith that if any group or sect denies either the humanity or the deity of Jesus, it is not Christian. In the first few centuries of Christianity there was a tendency among certain groups to deny the humanity of Jesus. Docetism was an early Christian heresy that taught that Jesus was God, but He only ‘appeared’ to be human; in essence, his humanity was not real. The Apostle John wrote against this heresy in 1 John 4:2-3a: “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God…”

In today’s post-enlightened world, there is a tendency to deny the deity of Jesus (Arianism), despite the many verses in scripture that teach both His deity and humanity. The Apostle Matthew understood Isaiah 7:14 (Matt. 1:23) to be a prophecy concerning the birth of Jesus: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” This verse teaches both the virginal conception (essential to the doctrine of the incarnation), and that the child would be called Immanuel, which means ‘God with us.’ In Isaiah 9:6 the child is identified: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” The prophet announces that a child is born (to humanity), but at the same time a Son is given (the Son of God from heaven). Among the names of this child born to humanity are ‘Mighty God’ and ‘Everlasting Father’ (a reference to Christ as the creator, not the first person of the Trinity). John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” followed in verse 14 by, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” This is the essence of the incarnation and the reason we celebrate Christmas.

Next week we’ll give further scriptural support for Christ’s deity, and answer the question of why God became a man.

Why Do Christians Believe the Bible?

2006-12-07T17:05:00.000-06:00

The Christian faith rests upon the truthfulness of the Bible. If it could be shown that the Bible is false in its claims, then the Christian faith would be discarded on the trash heap of history. However, the Bible has stood the test of time and continues to withstand the continual attacks of modernity, and for very good reason.

Christians believe the Bible is true, first and foremost, because the Bible claims to be the Word of God. Second Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness…” Second Peter 1:20-21 says, “Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” Many have pointed out that the Scripture’s claim to be the Word of God is a circular argument. No doubt this is true, but if the Bible is the Word of God, to what higher authority can one appeal? When one arrives at an ultimate authority, there is no higher authority, so all appeals to an ultimate authority must necessarily be circular. However, there are other reasons why Christians believe the Bible to be true.

The Bible has been under such scrutiny in modern times that very few stop to consider what an amazing book it really is. It was compiled over sixteen hundred years and written by over forty different authors. The historical circumstance of each writer differed greatly, yet there is a unity and common theme that runs through the whole Bible that is nothing short of miraculous.

The Bible is also a book of prophecies. No other religion in the world even attempts the amount of prophecies found in the Bible, and certainly no religion can match the amount of accurately fulfilled prophecies. The fulfillment of predictive prophecy was one of the early church’s greatest apologetics, the premise being that only God can perfectly predict the future. We hear this apologetic at work in the New Testament. In Acts 3:18 Peter said, “But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled.” In 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 Paul wrote, “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…”

Other evidence concerning the truthfulness of Scripture includes the evidence from archeology, the enormous amount of ancient biblical manuscripts available, and the millions of changed lives and transformed societies throughout history.

Theologian John Stott gave an excellent answer to this question in a lecture given at Wheaton College some years ago. He asked, “Why do we believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God?” He answered very simply, “Because Jesus did and taught that we should.”

What is a Christian Worldview, part 4

2006-12-01T11:17:00.000-06:00

When the tests of reason, consistency, coherence, comprehensiveness, simplicity, empirical fit, and livability are applied to various worldviews, we can see marked differences between them.

Naturalism is a philosophy committed to a godless universe. It explains the appearance of design and the complexity of life (including minds) as a result of blind random chance, forcing the observer to deny what seems empirically obvious. Naturalism must also deal with the problem of the good—why and how humanity developed a moral conscience and why the good is preferred. Naturalists have no foundation for morality; in fact, a naturalist can certainly live a moral life, but he must borrow the moral categories of good and evil from the Christian worldview. If the naturalist is consistent in his worldview, he would affirm that there is no such thing as good and evil—a position that cannot be consistently held. Any worldview that cannot explain the nuances of human existence such as morality, guilt, love, and reason also fails the test of comprehensiveness.

The New Age movement holds to the idea that the most important conception of humanity transcends the laws of logic. This means the New Age advocate is committed to relativism, which denies the law of non-contradiction. However, when the New Age teacher speaks or writes, she assumes the law of non-contradiction; her point of view is intended to be understood in a non-relativistic way. Shirley MacLaine said, “Everyone has his own truth, and truth, as an objective reality, doesn’t exist.” MacLaine is attempting to make a true statement about the non-existence of truth (she is attempting to invalidate the law of non-contradiction by using the law of non-contradiction). From there, the problems with the New Age movement continue to mount. In the end, the New Age movement turns out to be nothing more than the age-old quest of humanity to be its own god.

The biblical worldview fits the world that we know. It explains why the universe appears to be designed and fine-tuned. It explains why mankind is superior to the animal kingdom. It explains why man is a moral being, knowing the difference between right and wrong; capable of doing such good, but guilty of such evil. It answers the longing in our hearts for forgiveness. It explains death and the desire to live forever. The Christian worldview so empirically fits the world we live in and the needs and longings of the heart that many label this view the product of wishful thinking. However, skeptics need to consider the possibility that the Christian worldview fits so well because it’s true. This does not mean that the Christian worldview is without difficulties. The problem of evil and the sovereignty of God verses the free will of man are examples of some difficulties that have been the topic of conversation for almost two thousand years. None of these difficulties have proven fatal to Christianity; in fact, with serious study some very good answers can be found.

When compressive tests are applied to all worldviews, the Christian worldview will rise to the top.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

What is a Christian Worldview, part 3

2006-11-24T10:14:00.000-06:00

This week we’ll analyze the worldviews of Christianity, naturalism, and the New Age movement. We haven’t the space to do a thorough analysis, but we can employ a grid that every worldview attempts to answer: Where did I come from? What is the matter? What is the solution? Where am I going?

According to the Christian (or biblical) worldview, God created the heavens and the earth, including plants and animals. God also created man in His own image and gave them dominion and stewardship over the earth. The Bible describes a moral and spiritual fall in which the first man and woman used their free will to rebel against God by desiring to be like God. After this rebellion, mankind fell into a moral tailspin; hatred for God and hatred for one’s neighbor (including murder) became commonplace. The solution is redemption and forgiveness of sins by the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ. On the cross He bore our sins, suffered, died, was buried, and rose again. Those who trust in Him receive Christ’s righteousness, are restored to a right relationship with God, and will live in His presence forever. Those who trust in themselves will be separated from God forever.

The naturalist worldview postulates that we are a product of blind random chance. Naturalism denies there is a creator (there is nothing outside of nature), so any appearance of purpose or design in the universe is merely an illusion. It affirms that all living things are the result of random mutations happening over millions of years and that mankind is nothing but a cosmic accident. Naturalists believe that although man is basically good, they are rapidly destroying the environment which, if not corrected, will bring an end to life on this planet. The solution is to reshape man’s collective thinking through education, and enforce global environmental laws. There is no afterlife to the naturalist; death is the cessation of existence.

The New Age movement is pantheistic, meaning that everything and everyone is god. The New Age movement is a fusion between western naturalism’s commitment to Darwinian evolution and Eastern religion’s rejection of human reason as the means to understand the world. It asserts that mankind has not achieved ‘cosmic consciousness,’ which is the realization that mankind is god. The solution to achieving ‘cosmic consciousness’ is to open the ‘door’ through drugs, meditation, biofeedback, music, channeling, crystals, spirit guides, etc. In the New Age movement, reincarnation is a positive part of the cosmic cycle of evolution and will end when the collective cosmic consciousness is achieved and mankind realizes they are the sovereign god.

When analyzed through the same grid, these competing worldviews are shown to be vastly different. Even this brief analysis demonstrates the contradictions. Based on the law of non-contradiction, we can draw the conclusion that all three of these worldviews cannot be correct.
Next week we’ll conclude this series with some closing comments concerning these three worldviews.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

What is a Christian Worldview, part 2

2006-11-17T10:18:00.000-06:00

A worldview is a comprehensive philosophical lens though which we attempt to make sense of the world. Everyone possesses a worldview (whether he realizes it or not), and everyone’s ethic is shaped by his worldview. With so many competing worldviews, how can we decide which is correct?

When analyzing a worldview, one must first ask, “Is there a correct view of the world? Is there a particular worldview that is true?” To understand the importance of this question, consider the following summary of a popular Hindu story: There were several blind Hindus that came across an elephant and each described what an elephant was like. One touching the elephant’s leg said, “An elephant is like a tree.” The one holding the elephant’s tail said, “An elephant is like a rope.” Another holding the elephant’s ear said, “An elephant is like a leaf.” One holding the elephant’s trunk said, “An elephant is like a snake.” This story is told to illustrate that no single worldview is totally correct; all philosophies, religions, or worldviews are only partially describing certain aspects of reality. However, the storyteller fails to see that there is one correct, comprehensive view in this story; the view that understands that all of the blind Hindus were describing an elephant. We can call this God’s view.

The foundation of the Christian worldview is that only God has the proper view of the world (He made it, and He alone knows it perfectly) and He has communicated essential truths to mankind through the Scriptures. As Francis Schaffer said, “God is there and He is not silent.” The Christian worldview does not begin with human reason (i.e. Descartes) but with God’s revelation. However, this does not mean that human reason is unimportant.

The first of several possible tests used when analyzing the truth claims of a worldview is the test of reason. Specifically, does the worldview in question violate the law of non-contradiction? For instance, when a relativist says there is no such thing as absolutes, she is violating the law of non-contradiction by making what she believes to be an absolute statement. In the same manner, a skeptic who is certain about his skepticism violates the law of non-contradiction. The presence of logical contradictions should be a red flag and may indicate a fatal error in a worldview.

Other tests include consistency, coherence, comprehensiveness, simplicity, empirical fit, and livability. In his book “Worldviews in Conflict,” Ronald Nash suggests four tests: The test of reason, the test of outer experience, the test of inner experience, and the test of practice. In light of these tests Dr. Nash writes, “When faced with a choice among competing touchstone propositions of different worldviews, we should choose the one that, when applied to the whole of reality, gives us the most coherent picture of the world.”

Next week we’ll compare Christianity with a couple of other competing worldviews.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

What is a Christian Worldview, part 1

2006-11-10T10:23:00.000-06:00

The term worldview (Weltanschauung) first appeared in Immanuel Kant’s “Critique of Judgment” in 1790, and describes an individual’s or group’s comprehensive perspective on the nature of reality. Christian philosopher Ronald Nash writes, “A worldview contains a person’s answers to the major questions in life, almost all of which contain significant philosophical content. It is a conceptual framework, pattern, or arrangement of a person’s beliefs.” Simply put, a Christian worldview is a worldview from a biblical perspective.

Studies have shown that the Christian worldview is losing ground not only in our society at large, but also within the Christian community. According to pollster George Barna, only nine percent of Christian adults have a Christian worldview. His study also revealed that only two percent of Christian teenagers posses a Christian worldview. If we understand that one’s ethic is shaped by one’s worldview, it should come as no surprise that many Christians are not acting christianly; their worldview is determining their actions. In other words, people live what they believe.

G. K. Chesterton understood how important one’s worldview is when he wrote, “But there are some people, nevertheless—and I am one of them—who think that the most practical and important thing about a man is still his view of the universe…. We think the question is not whether [one’s] theory of the cosmos affects matters, but whether, in the long run, anything else affects them.” Most conflicts between individuals or nations can be traced to conflicting worldviews. There are many in our society who have attempted to pronounce all worldviews correct to eliminate conflict, but this attempt has merely established another worldview—the view that all truth is relative. Even the relativists believe their view of the world is the correct view.

There are many competing worldviews in our culture. A Christian who wants to engage the culture with the truth claims of Scripture should have a good understanding of each of these worldviews: theism (Christianity, Islam, Judaism), deism, naturalism (atheism, humanism, secularism, materialism, nihilism, existentialism), pantheism (New Age, Eastern religions), polytheism, and animism. The default worldview in our culture, especially in our educational system, has become naturalism.

Every worldview differs in the way it attempts to answer certain essential questions: Is there a God? What is the nature of man? What is the nature of reality? How do we know things? What is the meaning of history? How should we behave? Some have reduced these down to four main questions every worldview seeks to answer: Were did I come from? What is the matter? What is the solution? Where am I going? The Bible answers all of these questions.

Since Christianity is a comprehensive worldview, it should affect every area of the Christian life, from jobs to ethics, from art to politics. There should be no separation in the Christian mind between the “sacred” and the “secular.” Jesus said in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life…” It is only through Jesus that we can posses the right view of the world.

Next week we will discuss how to analyze competing worldviews.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Original Meaning of 'Separation of Church and State', part 2

2006-11-03T10:28:00.000-06:00

Contrary to the beliefs of the historical revisionists of our time, our founding fathers did not intend to create a government that was anti-religious. They understood that the liberties guaranteed to the citizens of the United States were based upon a Christian worldview. The Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights…” It was important to the founding fathers that this government recognize a higher authority than itself. They understood if our rights were endowed by the government alone they could not be permanently guaranteed.

In 1781 Thomas Jefferson wrote, “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

James Madison, known as the Chief Architect of the Constitution, and the fourth President of the United States, wrote in 1785, “Religion [is] the basis and Foundation of Government.” That same year he wrote, “It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage…Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.”

Samuel Chase, a Supreme Court appointee of George Washington and a signer of the Declaration of Independence, stated, “By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of the Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.”

George Washington signed into law the Northwest Ordinance in 1789. Article III reads, “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

John Adams, the second President of the United States, wrote, “Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.”

In 1952 the United State Supreme Court stated, in the case of Zorach v. Clauson, “We are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being…” In the case of Lynch v. Donnelly in 1985, the Supreme Court stated, “There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgement by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life…The Constitution does not require a complete separation of church and state. It affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions and forbids hostility towards any.”

Many more citations could be given to show that Christianity and the Bible are the axioms upon which our government is based. However, many today are adamantly denying this connection. If our government refuses to acknowledge the authority of our Creator who has endowed us with certain inalienable rights, then the erosion of our rights and liberties will surely follow.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Original Meaning of 'Separation of Church and State', part 1

2006-10-27T10:34:00.000-05:00

In the last few weeks we’ve discussed how the idea of religious liberty began with the Anabaptists and continued with the Baptists. This idea ultimately led the United States to become the first nation in world history to recognize religious liberty as a basic human right. However, after the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut was still concerned that these rights were not permanent. In a letter to the newly-elected President Thomas Jefferson they wrote, “Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.” They then expressed concern that religious liberty was merely a grant by the government rather than a right given by God. They wrote, “…Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of State) we enjoy as favor granted, and not as inalienable rights.” In other words, if the right of religious liberty was merely a grant of the state rather than an inalienable right endowed by our Creator, then the state could decide in one act of legislation to take that right away.

In Jefferson’s reply, he agreed that, “Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God…” and then he wrote, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.” Jefferson assured the Danbury Baptists that religious liberty was a natural right, divinely endowed, rather than a right merely granted by the federal government.

Today, many use the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ as the impetus to cleanse the American government of all vestige of religion, including religious symbols. The separation of church and state is now interpreted to mean freedom ‘from’ religion, not freedom ‘of’ religion. The original intent was not a federal government that was anti-religious, but a federal government that would not favor one Christian denomination over another. Jefferson and the other founding fathers certainly did not think the federal government should be atheistic. Those who believe the government should default to atheism in all governmental institutions, including our schools, ignore the fact that atheism is a religious belief and therefore violates the establishment clause.

Next week we’ll give some more specific examples of our founding fathers original intent.

a pdf version of this entry is available here