Showing posts with label worldview. Show all posts
Showing posts with label worldview. Show all posts

Friday, November 8, 2013

Biblical universes...

     I invested too much in a email theology question on Matt 24:24, so I had to post it...

"For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect."

God's got it all right there, in His palm
      You (my friend) picked a great verse to hone our interpretive edges on...  I think one of the key points/ideas here is that of potentiality, or possible futures.  God knows all things exhaustively, both actual (that which His will has brought or will bring about) and possible (the alternate courses open to His sovereignty that He wisely rejected). 
     Our verse falls into the latter category:  the persuasive power of the false prophets (ordained by God, of course) is such that without the preservative power of the Spirit, the elect would fall away.  We see at least 2 other examples of potentiality in Matt, the 1st just 2 verses earlier (24:22) and the 2nd in 11:21-24;  God knows exactly what would have happened under different circumstances, which He completely controls.
     So the bottom line:  is it "possible" that the elect would/could fall away during the time of Matt. 24?  Arminians would say so, but when we think about what God has ordained from a 30,000 foot view (the previous paragraph), that assumes no other verses about what God does with the elect.  If God did choose this alternate universe where the elect are deceived, the Scripture given after His creation of this universe would differ from ours.  For example... "What shall separate us from the love of Christ?... those pesky false teachers!"  Or "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand... except the deceivers at the end of the age." (Jn 10:28)
     No, with what God says elsewhere, it is not possible for the elect to be deceived;  God has promised to keep them in His power (1 Pet 1:5).  Without it, we would fall, and it is this potentiality that Jesus warns us.  These warnings are another means of preserving grace:  Christ's sheep hear the warnings and flee from false christs.  


Photo courtesy of lauroroger

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Good = ?

When you've got a hard heart, only one thing will break it...
     I have been struggling with bitterness this week;  I was passed over for a promotion at work.  And even worse, the guy who got it is a good friend and a strong believer!  So, my battle with self-pity and dissatisfaction has been severe and recurrent, like a bad case of gastroenteritis. 
     A few days before the hammer of rejection fell on my head, my wife and I were discussing a relative who has been never been married and would very much like to be.  My wife has strong matchmaking tendencies, and expressed her desire to "just see my relative happy!";  I responded with Ps 84:11 & 85:12:

"For the LORD God is a sun and shield; the LORD bestows favor and honor. No good thing does he withhold from those who walk uprightly...Yes, the LORD will give what is good, and our land will yield its increase."

     What my relative needs to do, I explained to my feisty wife, was change their definition of "good";  if God, in His inexpressible wisdom, has providentially denied us something we want, that thing must be bad for us.  In every society, there is a worldly definition of "good"... so when we are presented with the opportunity for more riches, romance, prestige, entertainment or the physical appearance of a 25 year old, the obvious question is "How can God NOT want me to have that???"  This disconnect between our perspective and God's goes all the way back, of course:  "So when the woman saw that the tree was good..." (Gen 3:6).  What God defined as death, Eve, in her sinful desires, defined as good.  Then there are the instances in Scripture where God gives unbelievers "good" things to blind them and accomplish their damnation (Ps 73:17f, Isa 2:7-12, 10:12, Rev 18:2-8). 
     So in the pit of my self-absorbed dejection, God brought to mind this point and I realized a false
Of course God wants me to have this!
seed of redefining "good" had crept into my heart and was sprouting its poisonous fruit.  No matter how much we want a new job, a new spouse, or new children (especially new children!), God knows exactly what circumstances and/or finances will conform us to the image of His Son.  For Paul, the Great Physician prescribed a full dose of suffering and crushing responsibility for His patient (2 Cor 11:23-28).  If anything, we can be happy that we get a little less!  Whatever toy or temporal pleasure He withholds from us must be, by definition, "bad".  So the next time you're frustrated with the allure of something you can't have, ask yourself:  "Is this good for me?"

Photos courtesy of stebulus, 401(K) 2013

Friday, September 27, 2013

"Only Evil Continually..."

"...but the way of the wicked shall perish."
     I've always loved the King James Version... I just finished James White's "The King James Only Controversy", and so I freely admit the translation's shortcomings, but will echo him in calling it "venerable".  The title is from Gen 6:5, and describes unrestrained human sin before the time of the Flood.  So God acted justly, and wiped those naughty folks out, right?  And in these enlightened, more wholesome days, we have transcended our origins, completed our 12-step program for sin addiction and cleaned ourselves up.
     Or not... the only difference between the pre-Flood age and ours is that adjective "unrestrained";  since that little shower, God has been pleased to hamper our destructive desires and pursue His plan of redemption, starting with the tower of Babel and running down through history to the preaching of the gospel today.  Which brings us to the point of my post...
"Have you ever prayed that God would protect you... from you?"
     It's an interesting thought, but it's supremely biblical:  when it comes to reasoning and weighing out the enemies of the elect, Satan and the world usually get top billing.  If there is mention of our inner corruption, we often hear terms like "sin nature" or "the flesh".  And while the latter term at least is seen in Scripture, I am concerned that all too often, we deflect the force of what God must overcome to save us... namely, ourselves (Mic 2:1, Matt 12:34-37, Mk 7:20).  I'll explain:  I had the worst dream last night, and the main thing that terrified me about it was the bad guy.  It was me;  I was doing something horrible to someone I loved, without even thinking about it.  Yeah, I know dreams can be hazy and disjointed, just mental leftovers, all mixed together coming out of our subconscious.  Most of my dreams (and likely yours) are like that;  rather benign visions of flying or scenes from home/work that are too good/bad to be true.  
"You've got mail..."
     But it can be very healthy to be reminded of where we come from... sin really isn't something we do, it's who we are and God is actively holding back and protecting every person in the world from what we really want:  to enshrine ourselves and destroy anyone who won't worship us.  I've watched too many post-apocalyptic movies, and so that's how I picture a world without God's handcuffs.  
     So, think about it, and join me in thanking God on your knees that, for some mysterious reason, He decided to stop you in your tracks with His glorious gospel and rescue you from the bad guy... the one you see in the mirror every morning.

Photos courtesy of freefotouk, Rich Man

Monday, July 8, 2013

The Answer to Child Hunger?

Not the kids we're talking about...
     You've probably seen news stories or been handed flyers with the disturbing message "17 MILLION KIDS GO HUNGRY";  my wife encountered this concern at a local store and received a pamphlet with basic items she could purchase to alleviate this problem.  The items she donated would be packaged into backpacks, and then given to needy kids.  I've often wondered:  in a country where the overweight/obesity rate is 61.8%, how could this be?  I wrote a letter to the manager of this program that follows below, but succinctly, the only way to explain kids going hungry in the richest nation in the history of the world, with ample food stamp programs and food banks in every city, is that their parents just don't care about them.  Such people are so obsessed with their own financial gratification that they can't be bothered to feed their kids... and instead of holding them accountable for such inhuman callousness, we do their job for them.  Imagine telling a wife with 2 black eyes from regular beatings from her abusive husband:  "If your husband isn't treating you right, we'll give you a backpack with a first aid kit... you can use it on your black eyes!"  Any sane person would physically drag that woman out of that house and call the cops... exactly what should happen with kids suffering from neglect.
Dear sir,     My wife recently received an appeal when entering a local store for your program (I'm sorry I don't know the name... it's not printed on the handout).  She was told it was for kids, to fill backpacks for weekend meals.  Is this accurate?  Assuming so, I have heard of similar drives and even proposals by the government to ensure that school-age children are adequately fed.
     Obviously, I have no problem with giving food to kids... it's a lot better than handing out pistols or drugs!  But I did want to ask the question if such programs are doing more harm than good.  "How is this possible?" you might ask.  "Ensuring kids get healthy, hearty meals is something we all agree is necessary and essential!"  And I would agree with that basic statement... but who is responsible to feed kids?  Again, assuming you don't hold radical fascist views on child rearing (i.e. that the government should oversee/control parenting), the clear answer is "Their parents."
     We live in a society where most of the population is fabulously wealthy by world standards:  just about everyone has cable TV and a cellphone, to say nothing of daily nutrition.  But for the rare folks at the bottom of the economic ladder, our governmental programs have removed financial inability as an excuse for child hunger;  anyone with children can get ample government assistance for their meals.  I have several members of my extended family who receive such assistance;  I have a good idea of the amounts involved.
     So the only reason that kids, even of the poorest parents, would not be regularly fed is gross neglect by said parents.  Such behavior should be criminal (and is, I think) and their children should be removed from their care.  So with this perspective in mind, I hope you can see my concern:  programs such as yours assume the best thing for kids in this situation is to feed them and enable their parents to continue neglecting them.  It's likely you have never thought about this point of view.  Instead, I believe the best thing we can do expect adults to live up to their responsibilities, and hold them accountable when they fail to do so.  When you look at the history of our country, you see such personal responsibility at the core of our deepest values as a society.  I applaud your concern for kids and your desire to help where you can;  but I would counsel you towards a wiser approach that trains parents to care their children, rather than training them to expect others to do it for them.
Photo courtesy of FMSC

Friday, June 28, 2013

You let your kids do what???

Okay kids!! Who wants a long one?
     There are some things that are culturally acceptable to leave to parental discretion:  when (or if) to give them a cellphone, clothing guidelines, and what movies to watch.  But there are just as many taboos for the children of those who seek “Good Parent” status:  playing in traffic, handling/throwing sharp objects, and letting your kids listen to/develop a taste for country music (wishful thinking there!).  So there is one thing I must include in the latter list, a parental decision I've heard countless folks talk about as a noble, libertarian step towards growing independent young people capable of free thinking;  but in reality, it is even more dangerous than handing a loaded gun to a little tyke, and if any children do survive it, it is manifest proof of the merciful grace of God.  What is this shocking dereliction of parental duty?  I've heard it put this way...
"Oh yes, we are Christians and believe the Bible, but we don't want to force our religion on our kids.  We permit them to explore other faiths, and when they're old enough, they need to choose what they will believe for themselves."     
      I know you've heard this said, and I must admit that the way it's phrased, it almost seems unAmerican to disagree with this democratic approach.  I mean, the best way to guarantee that kids will hate something is to make them do it, right?  So, a low-key approach to Christianity, to the claims of Jesus and the Bible, is surely the approach with the highest probability of keeping them in the church.
      Yes, I know... playing devil's advocate is a dark gift of mine, one I hope to (but usually fail to) use for good.  So let's explore this idea by seeing what the Scripture says (and if the proponents of the low-key approach truly do "believe the Bible") and then by testing the consistency of "reverse psychology" parenting.
"And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart.  You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.  You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.  You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates." (Deut. 6:6-9)
      I don't know... sounds kinda pushy to me.  I mean, talking to your kids about God and His word all the time?  They'd be sick of it in a week!  But one inescapable conclusion your kids would be forced to at gunpoint is that you take the Bible seriously, that every decision, event, question and even thought is weighed and judged in light of what God says, and that He is the ultimate Determiner of reality and Judge of morality.  What do kids (and everyone else) hate more:  a person whose actions are explained and are true to what they profess, or someone who doesn't explain why they do what they do and/or says one thing and does another?  One of the most winsome qualities, even to the lost, is a willingness to suffer for conviction... thank God in His wisdom to guarantee us suffering in this life (2 Tim 3:12)!  So to stop beating a dead horse,  God commands us to saturate our children in His truth and to protect them from all deception (2 Tim 2:16, 3:5)... end of discussion.  Obviously, we can't convert them, but kids raised in faithful homes will be forever changed, most often for the better, fulfilling God's general promise to sanctify them (1 Cor 7:14)
      Even more succinctly, the consistency of the laissez-faire attitude to religion can be checked by inserting any other potentially fatal activity into the premise:  
I'm sure they're really nice once you get to know them...
"We're not drug addicts/gang members/cult members on a compound in the middle of nowhere, but we want our kids to make their own decisions, so we let them explore other options..."? 
Or "Yeah, we got vaccinated, but our kids don't like shots very much, so we're letting them decide if they want to risk getting polio/smallpox/tetanus"? 
      Just try dropping that line in conversation, and watch your "Good Parent" status get revoked!  What's really at the heart of religious experimentation is the belief that all religions are basically the same/valid;  if you truly believe something is fatal to your children, you do everything in your power to isolate them from it.  False religion has a 100% fatality rate... and it's extremely contagious.

Photos courtesy of Anonymous9000, One lucky guy

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Caution! Well-known Verses Ahead!

     I had an epiphany of context today... an insight on a familiar verse.  Any sound bible teacher will
I wonder if they mean works-righteousness?
tell you those verses are the most dangerous:  the ones you know by heart, that you've heard quoted over and over again in a variety of settings.  Every Christian knows them, if not by reference, then by content.  And thus they're often the most misunderstood... this danger is likely the reason America's professing Christians are:
  1.  by majority Arminian ("...that WHO-SO-EVER (!) believeth in Him...";  Jn 3:16), 
  2.  non-confrontational ("Judge not, lest ye be judged.";  Mt 7:1),
  3.  and are beginning to doubt if hell even exists ("...because God is love.";  1 Jn 4:10).  
So obviously, the best way to approach these potential pitfalls is with one eye on the text and the other on our own misconceptions.  I've been reading in Jeremiah and came across the best known verse in the book.  No, it's not 17:9 ("the heart is deceitful above all things..."), or 6:14 ("Peace, peace when there is no peace"), or even 31:31ff ("Behold the days are coming... when I will make a new covenant...").  I am utterly confident that the most famous verse in Jer. is 29:11:
"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope."
     And taking my own advice, I paused and studied the immediate context.   Backing up one verse, I was devastated by the implications of 29:10:
"For thus says the LORD: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place."
This beautiful scenery looks little different from behind bars...
     This has happened to me before (like when one reads the 2nd verse after Jn 3:16, or the 5th verse after Mt 7:1);  and in the grand scheme of things, with a "big picture" perspective, vs. 10 fits perfectly with vs. 11:  it's great news that the exiles would return to the Promised Land and the enjoyment of God's favor.  But look at it again, highlighting one little detail:  this would happen after 70 years.  Put yourself in their shoes...  29:1 says Jeremiah is writing to those exiled with King Jeconiah (or Jehoiachin) which occurred around 597 B.C.  Jerusalem was destroyed in 586, so these expatriates could have been in Babylon a couple years, but not more than 10.  It's safe to say the Jews were not enjoying the warm hospitality of Babylon (Ps. 137:3) or the benefits package of slavery (not exactly that of a CEO).  So a rough paraphrase of Jeremiah's message could be understood like this:
"You're not liking Babylon?  You wanna go back home to your own land?  Too bad!!!  You and your families will be here 60 more years!  You'll probably be cold and dead by the time God has mercy on Israel and restores your people to Canaan (Ezr 3:12)!  Only after decades of toil and heartache and misery will your children return to the homeland... and God is letting you off easy!"
     So do you see how the context of 29:11 should shape our understanding of it today?  Instead of a magic wand waved over our problems to make them disappear instantly, often God's promises have wonderful and beautiful fulfillments that we will not see in our physical lifetimes.  We must apprehend (one of my favorite words... "to grab hold of") these truths and God's hope by faith and trust Him in the dark, depressing (yet temporary) times of our lives.  Only then will we know the power of "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Heb 11:1).

Photos courtesy of williamcho, Fernando Silveira

Saturday, May 4, 2013

The Worst Slur Ever...

     I started a post on 2 Cor (long overdue!), and then was blown away by the most memorable, blatantly offensive accusation by my less-than-Friendly Neighborhood Atheist;  he'd made hints and veiled allusions on this topic before, but this day I was taken aback by the blatant, X-rated insult this man made at the Person of Jesus Christ.  It's so bad I can't actually relate it (Eph 5:4, 12)... I guess the best way to give context is to ask you to imagine an individual who utterly hates God ascribing to His Son the vilest, pornographic intent.  As I tell FNA, I was speechless;  I had no meaningful, truth-conveying response.  I could only gape.  So this is an excerpt from an email, my best after-the-fact attempt to prove something I hope you never encounter:  a slur based on the supposed homosexuality of Jesus.

FNA,

    I gotta admit... you've danced around accusing Jesus of homosexuality before, but I was not expecting the offensive situation you described in profane terms.  Congratulations, I was a bit shocked.  You often switch between arguing a non-theist position and a Roman Catholic one (like yesterday);  how many Roman Catholics would be appalled by that insinuation?  So I'm writing to give you the answer I couldn't yesterday...
     So you also challenged me to prove that Jesus wasn't homosexual, which is another first for me.  Of all the objections to Christianity/the Bible, that's not one I run across much.  After some thought, I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt (is your doubt reasonable?) that Jesus was not gay or involved in homosexuality, and I can do so from the biblical characters who hated him most... the Pharisees.
     These guys despised Jesus for His claims to authority, His popularity and His undeniable power over Which one of you convicts me of sin?" (Jn 8:46).
What lawyer would ignore the strongest evidence?
sickness and demons.  They were the ones, under the High Priest Caiaphas, who orchestrated the trial that ended in the Crucifixion.  The Pharisees had accused Jesus of several things:  dalliance with demons (Mt 12:24), breaking the Sabbath (Mk 3:1-6), and finally blasphemy and plotting to destroy the Temple (Mt 26:61, 65).  None of these things were true, of course, but if you read one of the gospel accounts (have you ever done that?), you are constantly peppered with the Pharisees, scribes and rulers' attempts to concoct any excuse to denounce and execute Jesus.  But for three years, they are unable to do so... no charge would stick!  According to the law, Jesus lived a blameless life, so much so that he could ask (with the expectation of deafening silence in reply) "
     So in a strictly religious, fundamental society where working on the Sabbath was a grievous crime, if Jesus was involved in any sort of homosexuality, why wouldn't His mortal enemies use that as ammunition against Him?  In a society where adultery was punishable by death (Jn 8:1-11), how in the world would a famous man like Jesus be gay and not be executed, as the Law of Moses required?  That was exactly the sort of immorality the Pharisees would drool over, not only to discredit Him, but to drag Him out of the city and stone Him.  Even Herod the king couldn't get away with sexual impropriety without public outcry (Mt 14:3-4).  Instead, Jesus's enemies had to pay people to fabricate crimes against Him, something completely unnecessary if sodomy was an element in the life of Jesus.  So your accusation presupposes religious authorities that are far more open-minded and tolerant of homosexuality than even us crazy fundamentalists today!  You must see that historically, first century Israel was anything but welcoming toward a sexual orientation with Canaanite cult associations and Greek mythological ties... most Jews of the day (especially the pious ones) were fiercely xenophobic and disapproving of anything that hinted of foreigners.
Something you'd never see in Jerusalem...
      So it's clear you've painted yourself into a corner;  you can't just dismiss the Bible as corrupted and unreliable as you've done in the past.  You used information from the Bible (Jesus was surrounded by male disciples, He liked children, etc.) in your accusation!  You can't have it both ways... the Bible can't be reliable enough to throw mud at Jesus, but not reliable enough to exonerate Him.  Since you've already gotten your hands dirty, you must concede that there is no logical reason to think Jesus was homosexual, and every reason not to. 
     The only reason to continue this slander is the atheist's creed, summed up by Doug Wilson:  "There is no God, and I hate Him!"  Admit it... you fervently despise Someone you don't believe exists.

Sincerely,

Brett Schlee

Photos courtesy of Gulliame Paumier, SalFalko

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Do you have Your Best Life Now?

     You know you want it... there's something basic about humanity that, like water, desires and follows the path of least resistance.  I'm talking about a life filled with peace and abundance, ease and happiness, a glee in disdaining hardship and mocking rejection of the possibility of disaster.  Greek philosophers pondered the methods to achieve this utopian existence, and one branch in particular, the Epicureans, theorized that all men should seek and order their lives to minimize pain and maximize pleasure.
     I've been studying in the Psalms for some time now, and I do want to return for more posts in 2 Cor, but
Not on my Top 10 list...
this topic was too timely to ignore.  You probably have heard of "Your Best Life Now" by Joel Osteen, so I want to intrigue you with a new perspective, a "certain point of view" in which the book genuinely and biblically reflects this earthly life for a select group.  That's exactly what I thought as I read these verses:
"For they have no pangs until death; their bodies are fat and sleek.  They are not in trouble as others are; they are not stricken like the rest of mankind.  Therefore pride is their necklace; violence covers them as a garment.  Their eyes swell out through fatness; their hearts overflow with follies.  They scoff and speak with malice; loftily they threaten oppression.  They set their mouths against the heavens, and their tongue struts through the earth.  Therefore his people turn back to them, and find no fault in them.  And they say, "How can God know? Is there knowledge in the Most High?" (Ps 73:4-11)
     Sounds great, huh?  These folks have everything one could want, "more than heart could wish" (vs.7 KJV).  We can easily bring this into a modern context:  big houses, nice cars, beautiful spouses, exotic vacations, unrivalled success in their professions... nothing seems to be lacking in this idyllic picture of "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" (or maybe the show "Cribs" for my MTV generation!).  They have no worries, no concerns, and certainly no stress regarding a divine judgment... they don't even think there is such a Judge (vs. 11).  So it's at this point I have to come clean...  I pulled the passage above out of context to make a point:  the people that Asaph (the author of the psalm) is describing, the only people who have their best life now are the "arrogant" and the "wicked" (vs. 3, 12)
     I guess the best way to sum it up is the proverb "Ignorance is bliss";  in many instances, ungodly people can and do enjoy a period of divine mercy;  this is in addition to what theologians call it "common grace", describing earthly blessings that all sorts of people are given.  Also, the patience of God is showered upon unbelievers as evidence of God's mercy and willingness to pardon sin (Rom 2:4). When He has every right to obliterate all of us in the womb at our first moment of selfishness, instead He graciously grants the wicked decades of life, and many (if not most) are given glimpses of the gospel, given opportunities to hear of the saving power of the blood of Christ.  But to no avail:  the material bounty they enjoy is enough to drown out the appeal of God in Christ (like the "cares of the world";  Mt 13:22).  
Not the place you want to see an old church friend...
     I ran into an old friend a couple of days ago, a sad story of failed discipleship:  at a previous church, I had started meeting with this young man.  He was excited to meet and usually showed up, but I couldn't help but notice he made no real effort in investigating the text of the Bible for himself.  He was full of excuses and had no shortage of free time, but always managed to avoid actually reading the Scripture (like a kid getting out of cleaning his room!).  So I was shocked to see him this week twice in one day:  the first time he was walking into a casino (one of our bus routes runs right in front of one) with another man, and was just finishing a cigarette.  Then about 4 hours later, I was grabbing a snack right in a grocery store before the last run of the night;  I turned the corner and there he was!  I chatted him up for almost 5 minutes... he had a WIC voucher in his cart (Washington's low-income assistance for mothers and young children) and told me that he was working for minimum wage with a wife and baby to provide for.  He was living in a small apartment in the rundown part of town.  I asked him where he was attending church, and surprise, surprise, he told me it had been a while since he darkened the door of a church.  In retrospect, the best thing I could think was "Well, at least he's not rich!".  The worst thing, the most damning thing you could wish for someone in rebellion against God is prosperity. 

Photos courtesy of Amazon, Michael Kappel

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

American Polytheism

King Kamehameha the I
     If I saw that title, I'd probably expect a post on Mormonism... but no, my wife and I are not vacationing in Utah, but Hawaii (or "Hawai'i" if you show off your local flair)  We got in last night, so after almost 24 hrs. here, I can honestly say this is the most religious spot in America I've seen lately (this is likely due to my residence in the region with the lowest church attendance and religious affiliation in the nation!).  I'm sure if I lived in the Bible Belt, I might have a different perception;  so in most places in Hawaii, you see statues, monuments and plaques to historic figures, royalty from the monarchy that ruled the islands until 1893 and continued as important personages into the 20th century. 
     The religiosity of Hawaii is subtle, yet pervasive;  unlike most other states, the native population of the islands continues to influence the culture.  Most of the lower 48 contained tribal peoples, but through the governmental policies of the 1800's (which I am not supporting or condoning), the indigenous culture was largely abolished.  Yet in Hawaii, you have virtually all the hallmarks of a distinct worldview, complete with language and religious beliefs.  So in case any of you have the plans or the privilege of visiting these picturesque green dots in the Pacific, you might benefit from some disjointed spiritual insights gleaned from the museums and historic sites.
     As I started with, Hawaii's native culture is polytheistic ("...for as many as your cities are your gods, O Judah!" Jer 2:28).  It seems to me that there is a great similarity between the animism of Asia and Africa and Hawaiian belief:  most elemental forces (wind, water, thunder, etc.) have a deity, and there are many other hybrids... half-human, half-animal, humans transformed into animals then deified, you name it!  I learned later in our trip that tribal chiefs were considered the descendants of deity, and there was an intricate system of showing reverence called kupu, which was in force until the mid 19th century.  When a chief walked by, everyone fell to their faces;  when entering the home of a chief, one removed their clothing;  even the possessions of the chief were believed to have sacred significance, and must be revered;  violations of kupu were punishable by strangulation, immolation and other unpleasantries you don't see on tourism commercials.
     Everyone has encountered the word "aloha", the Hawaiian equivalent of hello and/or goodbye, and I
Deceiving beauty...
discovered that it also has a connotation of love and affection.  I was educated that this is due to the perception of all humanity as one o'hana ("family").  In conversations with a couple locals, this taint of universalism came up repeatedly, and I suspect that even the climate of the islands works against a true grasp of biblical truth in this area... in a place of stunning beauty, where the people are friendly and taught overt hospitality with their own language, it's awful hard to admit that all humanity is desperately corrupt, and that God is rescuing His elect through the gospel, separating them from Satan's progeny (including all adherents of this welcoming, tolerant religion) into His household.
      After my stay in the 50th state (I'm finishing this on the plane back), and especially after a most educational trip to the Bishop Museum, I am disturbed to admit that my first response to the original beliefs of Hawaii (and it continues to nag me) was conceited arrogance:
"Sure, those kooky islanders had some strange ideas, but America came in and took over.  So now that we're in charge, all those backward natives will and have seen the obvious superiority of American culture and Christianity, they'll convert!"
The "takeover" of Hawaii is a particularly dishonorable bit of history:  a group of American businessmen arranged a military coup and deposed the last queen to further their financial assets;  she showed serene restraint and didn't resist physically for the sake of her people, but instead petitioned and put her trust in the United States to do the right thing, only to be disappointed... the islands were annexed about 5 years later.   
     So such shallow reasoning might've been harder to shake 50 or 60 years ago, but the further we "progress" into a postmodern world that is enamored with any mystical replacement for Biblical truth, the more we must prepare and expect to respond apologetically (instead of egotistically!) with a clear presentation of the distinctiveness of the gospel.  It is interesting that Satan seems to have only a few basic systems of deceit with which he works to obscure/replace the truth (but who can blame him... if it ain't broke...).  The similarities common to most religions occur in Hawaii too, making it simpler for us to hammer home the revealed truth of God's Word, the Creator of all the world.  I can tell you from experience the societal ills in the mainland are present in Hawaii (again, the "entertainment" of 2 prostitutes having a screaming match is hard to find in the brochures!), so the remedy of Jesus offered in Scripture is just as relevant and necessary as everywhere else.

Photos courtesy of my ancient, but trusty camera

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

God's Social Security

     It's been an interesting couple of days... a dear brother from out of state had just come back into the area with very little in terms of material resources, and his needs were simple and urgent: a place to stay and employment.  But the responses I encountered when sharing this man's situation showed me how great a disparity still exists between the truly biblical worldview we are called to and the prevailing view, secularism with a Bibley facade. 
     Maybe a good way to start is from the outside in:  Voddie Baucham has a great sermon series on Daniel, and my favorite is on Dan 4;  he explores the possibility that if Nebuchadnezzar lived today, he would be diagnosed as "mentally ill".  At one point in his piercing critique of our inadequate modern perception of mental illness, he put it this way (in a rough paraphrase): 
"If you need help with your marriage, or you're feeling blue, or your kid is
"Electroshock therapy does tingle a little..."
acting up, then go talk to the pastor... he can help.  But if you're dealing with serious depression, or anything we would think of as a psychosis, you need real help... you need a professional."
    The dominant attitude of our society is that religion is a nice thing to have in your life (if you so desire), something to make you feel good and to use as a Band-aid for minor stress.  But in the realm of mental health, to solve real problems, we need someone trained in a pseudo-scientific, materialist field whose formative figures hated religion (Christianity in particular) and consciously strove to exclude any trace of the spiritual from their work. 
      Here's the kicker:  the same principle and dogma rules our approach to helping for the poor and needy.  Go to the church if you need help moving or looking for someone to housesit for you while you're on vacation, but if you're really down and out, if you've lost your job or you're addicted to drugs or you're sleeping on the street with nowhere to go, you need real help... you need the government.  Now for those folks without Christ, we can't be surprised when they look to the only hope they know, the only source of relief:  a series of broken programs that enable indolence and create enslavement to the system for what amounts to table scraps.  But Christians?  What/where should Christians first look to when they are in need?
     THE CHURCH!!!  However well meaning the "mental health" professionals of our day may be, they are not indwelt and empowered by God Himself to help His people.  They are not informed by the truth of God's Word as to the spiritual needs of both the elect and the lost (in fact, their basic presuppositions contradict Scripture,
I'm disabled... check, please!
making a "Christian psychologist" an impossibility).  And as to financial help, the default solution of the government to every problem is to throw money at it, rather than to treat the causes of poverty, ranging from injury or other inability, a lack of education, and to what must be the most prevalent problem in a culture that is 70% overweight... sheer laziness.  So the elders of a Bible-believing, preaching and teaching church are supremely qualified to intervene to help needy Christians.
     My friend was provided a place to stay for a month and the opportunity to find a job (which was more help than he wanted!).  He nailed down steady employment in less than a week... all in all, a success story in the church caring for its own.  I'm sure there are exceptions to the communal care lined out for us in Scripture, but exceptions prove the rule.  A person who looks to the government to solve every temporal problems is likely to accept their spiritual answers as well.

Photos courtesy of AJremix, stefs sick pics

Demon-possessed


     FNA (Friendly Neighborhood Atheist) had an interesting question a few days ago:  "You always hear about people being demon-possessed... how come you never hear about a person being 'God-possessed'?"  We were with one other driver, who started to ponder the question, but I quietly raised my hand to FNA's amazement and scorn:  "You?  You're possessed by God?"  I started to explain the doctrine of the Holy Spirit's indwelling of every partaker of the New Covenant (Ezk 36:26, 1 Cor 6:19-20).  His face remained incredulous... "So why aren't the important people like Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet, you know, people who could really make a difference, why doesn't God pick them to be Christians?"  I had discussed this with him before in a different context, but it was my pleasure to open my Bible to 1 Cor 1 and explain to him that "the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but to them who are being saved, it is the power of God". (vs. 18)  Paul had apparently run into this objection as well:
"For you see brethren your calling, how not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called;  but God has chosen the foolish things to confound the things that are wise, and the weak things to confound the things that are mighty, and the base things and the things that are despised, and the things that are nothing to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh (no person) should glory in God's presence..." (1 Cor 1:26-29).
    It is mind boggling that the God of the Universe, transcendent in splendor and majesty, would send housewives and tentmakers, bus drivers and fast food employees to be His emissaries and prophets to all humanity.  It's almost as ludicrous as Him choosing a shepherd boy to be king over a nation (David), or a coward to mediate His law (Moses), or a racist to preach repentance to his enemies (Jonah).  But craziest of all is God's sending a backwater Carpenter to be the satisfaction His justice demanded for the crimes of His people, and to then sit at His right hand to rule over everything. I guess it's comforting in an odd way:  God is so humble that He doesn't need to impress anyone with His dignity and worth.  And He's so wise and mighty that He can accomplish all He intends with the weakest and most incompetent of servants.
    Don't get me wrong:  incompetence is not something we should strive for or proud of (as seen in the anti-intellectualism prevalent in many churches), but neither should we feel constrained to prove ourselves according to the world's wisdom;  this is the default perception of every human culture... that big things come from big people and impressive messages must come in HD and Dolby Surround Sound (with explosions).  A brother just returned from visiting family in California, and was treated to just such a spectacle:  a church service punctuated with bass and drums and concluded with confetti!  God often speaks with a still, small voice, and we must wait upon the subtle (but no less powerful) "possession" of His Spirit through the gospel to silence those who mock us.
"May my accusers be put to shame and consumed;  with scorn and disgrace may they be covered, who seek my hurt.  But I will hope continually and will praise You yet more and more.  My mouth will tell of Your righteous acts, of Your deeds of salvation all the day, for their number is past knowledge.  With the mighty deeds of the Lord God I will come;  I will remind them of Your righteousness, Yours alone." (Ps 71:13-15)

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Do-it-Yourself Faith...

     I was chatting up a new coworker, and I worked in a reference to my church and the attached Christian
If you could, wouldn't that make you God?
school;  there was that regrettably familiar awkward silence in response, so I took a deep breath and asked if she attended anywhere.  She mentioned she had frequented a local Unitarian fellowship, but had trouble fitting their service times into her schedule.  She then jokingly realised how that sounded, but freely admitted that religion didn't place very high in her priorities.  But there was one attraction at the U.U. gathering that still appealed, a class that she said is pretty standard across other gatherings and one she hoped to attend with her boyfriend (who has a Baptist background!):  "Build your own Theology".  Of course, the irony of this title didn't sink in until later;  I instead closed the conversation with the importance of religion in our nation's history.
     So think about it for a second:  like most compound words, theology is not difficult to understand.  "Theo" means God, and "logy" is taken from the Greek logos, literally meaning "a word on" but also to be understood as "study/science of".  We use words with the "logy" ending every day, so my question is:
"Can you build your own science?"
     Now obviously in some sense, the answer is "yes";  in a new field or in an age of infant scholarship, an individual and their work can be so groundbreaking and formative that they are dubbed "the father of history" (Herotodus) or "the father of geometry" (Ptolemy).  But neither of these conditions apply to theology;  I would likely challenge someone to think of a new field (outside of computers or technical science) that humanity hasn't explored.  So it didn't didn't take long to mentally work through the implications if we did presume to create our own "logy"...
 
    Scientific studies show this guy's really quite friendly!
  • We could build our own zoology, and decide that black widows aren't poisonous or that Bengal tigers aren't carnivorous.

  • We could build our own astronomy and discover that the moon really is made of green cheese, or reinforce the belief that the position of the stars determines whether or not you're going to win the lottery today.

  • We could build our own geology and declare that the gravel in my driveway is gold, then drag a sack of it down to the local jeweler and try and sell if for $300 an ounce.

   Now any of these attempts would be shot down immediately... they're ridiculous!  Why?  Because there's an established body of knowledge in those fields that contradicts these ideas.  It's exactly the same in theology:  if you treat the Bible as the foundation for our knowledge of God, you will quickly find yourself coming to the conclusions of orthodox, historic Christianity.  The only way you can build your own theology is to jettison the Bible completely as source material, or even worse, treat it as one of many sources to be selectively chosen from or consulted.
     The whole point of true science is that it doesn't determine truth... it uncovers truth by observation, inquiry and examination.  Theology is no different;  God has declared what is true in His Word... we discover it through patient study, consideration of context and acknowledgement of the consistent unity of Scripture.  To do otherwise is like building your own nuclear physics and throwing out that crazy idea about radiation.

Photos courtesy of Doug88888, GARNET

Monday, March 11, 2013

Socialism in the NT... or More continuity!

Socialism in the Church = biblically required generosity for the needy
     Faithful readers of the blog (all 2 of you!) will remember that in our jaunt through the last third of Leviticus, we ran into an interesting principle that was the driving force to several commands:  the idea that while money and other financial assets were private property, they were gifts of God to be used for the betterment and support of the needy, not to be spent on the latest chariot with rims and 12" subwoofers (or however big they are).  The uncomfortable truth is that this economic model might be closer to socialism than capitalism;  I know when I stopped to consider the possibility that God might not be a capitalist through and through, I had to take a deep breath and remind myself that I'm a Christian first and an American second.  Whatever benefits our traditional capitalist structure has (and there are many), they do not trump God's revealed will for His people.
     But I know what you're thinking... "But that's the Old Testament!  And even more disqualifying, it's the Law for the nation of Israel!  We're not under Law, but grace!"  So buckle up for what Paul says and expects for New Covenant believers in Gentile churches:
"For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of fairness, your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness.  As it is written, "Whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack." (2 Cor 8:13-15)
     So let's take it by the numbers and just go through the passage slowly, trying to get off the formula of those weaned conservative capitalist theory and just think like Christians...
     Sometimes the best way to describe something is to start with the disclaimers, to say right off what you're not saying;  after describing the exemplary Macedonians and acknowledging the intent of the Corinthians in the past, Paul reestablishes why we have any possessions at all (the grace of Jesus Christ) and then shoots down one huge misunderstanding of Christian charity/obligation:  that the "redistribution of wealth" (to use a conservative pariah!) is meant to pave the way for Jewish indulgence, while the rest of the Church finances this gravy train of greed.  No, no... the Jewish believers were starving to death under the boot-heel of persecution, and desperately needed help.  The Corinthians lived in a relatively prosperous region, and had more than enough.  This is why Paul deals with Macedonia first:  it's assumed that they didn't have enough, that they were just scraping by, but they were so moved and driven by Christian love they begged and pleaded Paul to take their gift to Judea (8:4). 
"IT'S NOT FAIR!!!!"
     So just like the O.T. covenant community of Israel, God often blesses us with more than we need, not to spend it upon our lusts, but to enable us to be channels of grace to other believers first, and then society at large.  "Fairness" (vs. 14 in the ESV) can be a dangerous word:  usually when kids use it, it means "I get what I want, and you get what I don't want"!  But Paul's meaning is clear:  abundance given to the Body of Christ is to meet the needs of the Body of Christ, wherever that local Body may be.  According to the symbolism in his Mosaic quote, God created the molecular structure of manna to train Israel to generosity:  if they tried to store it, it went bad and was useless (Ex 16:18-20).  So there was every reason to share the excess they gathered, and no reason to keep it.  The narratives in the O.T. usually have didactic ("educational") value for us, as lessons for life (1 Cor 10:6), and Paul says manna is no exception. 
     But whatever God has established, man can corrupt.  There are two not-so-subtle dangers with socialism on a national level that arise from an secularization of what we see in the first century church:  the first is a confusion of church and state.  Just because God has established socialist principles in His church does not mean that He demands them of the state, or even that socialism is the divine ideal for society;  we mustn't forget that the Church is largely filled with people who have been radically transformed by God's Spirit to obey Him and strive toward holiness (the exception being the goats who think themselves, or want to be thought of as sheep), while human society, i.e. the state, is largely filled with depraved, selfish sinners to need no encouragement to exploit, oppress and abuse their fellow man (the exception being the Christians sprinkled as salt throughout society).  Our forefathers were wise enough to structure our government not on wide-eyed utopian idealism, but revealed truth from God about human nature;  and so we have all the freedom sanctification through the Spirit could wish for ("against such there is no law" Gal 5:23) and all the restraint that depraved criminals need.
Socialism in society  = recipe for disaster

     The second is much more insidious, and has already greatly shaped the American consciousness:  a replacement of the church by the state.  Around the turn of the 20th century, socialism was becoming much more acceptable politically, and like most cultural trends, bad theology was developed to blend/mimic the ideals that Marx and others propagated into Christianity.  You might not have heard of "the universal fatherhood of God" or "the universal brotherhood of man", but I know you've heard somebody promoting gay marriage, women's rights or decrying discrimination of any kind say "We're all God's children!"  This fatal misunderstanding of the dividing line between the world and church (namely, that there isn't any!) creates a false church (all of humanity) with a false gospel ("We just need to love each other...") and a false Messiah (whatever political leader has the power to enforce this "utopia" on the rest of us).  So when self-centered people, radically corrupted by sin, don't love each other, the only solution is to make them:  you take their property, money and freedom, and entrust them to the state to dole out.  Oh darn, I forgot... the state is run by self-centered people, and they just use all that stuff for their own benefit and/or cementing themselves in power. 
     The church is Christ's, and He will build it (Eph 5:23, Matt 16:18).  The world is (temporarily) the devil's, and he will do everything God permits him to use it as a weapon against the church  (1 Jn 5:19, Eph 6:12).  If we properly understand the difference between them, and the value/extent/danger of collectivist principles for the people of God, we will "destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." (2 Cor 10:5).


Photos courtesy of mira66, simonella_virus, xoclate

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Fear and Trembling pt 3

Meet Sam, the world's ugliest dog!
     So with an intro on the subject with 2 types of fears (dread and veneration), and a post on the first, let's finish up with the second.  Remember the clear analogies provided by Al Martin:  dread is the feeling a little boy feels when confronted by of the neighborhood bully, a fear of pain and damage done to his frail body; and veneration is the awe that same little boy feels when thrust into the presence of the President of the United States:  a sense of the dignity and majesty of the man before him, and he is honored and privileged to be in his presence.
     And that's probably a good place to start... you see, dread is repulsive.  No, I don't mean that it's ugly or hideously deformed;  I mean that dread pushes away its subject from the object of his terror.  The little boy has no desire to stay near the bully;  quite the opposite.  But if the President asks the boy to stay in the Oval Office for a while and see how he runs the country, wild horses couldn't pull him away.  This perfectly explains the response of both believers and the lost to God:  while the lost can get a taste of the dread of God, due to His holiness and hatred of sin/sinners, they flee away from Him in the vain hope of escaping His wrath (Isa 2:19-21).  Believers have even a better grasp of the consequences of sin and the punishment of hell, but they are divinely granted the second type of fear as well (Jer 32:40) and are drawn to God as their only hope of rescue and relief.  So we see that while all people can glimpse the recompense of sin, and dread God's punishment, only the elect are blessed with the proper sense of respect and humble adoration in view of God's Person, drawing them closer to this incredible Being.
     To helpfully define veneration, Mr. Martin has a couple prerequisites: 
  • We must have correct concepts of God's character, particularly His immensity, His transcendence, His majesty and His holiness.  We in America are crippled in this:  we have no royalty, very little pomp and circumstance, and a dangerous lack of respect for our divinely appointed magistrates.  Yes, I know we elect them, but they are God's ministers unto us for good (Rom 13:1-6) and we are commanded by the One who rules over all to "honor the king" (1 Pet 2:17).  If we can't muster up some respect for the rulers we can see, it's evident how much we dishonor the God who is over all principalities and dominions.  There are several passages in Scripture designed to instill and renew an appropriate sense of speechless wonder at the majesty of God:  Ps 50 portrays God in matchless beauty, over all things and dependent on none for anything.  Isa 40 asks numerous rhetorical questions to showcase how powerful, wise and immense He is.  Ezk 1 helps us to understand how pitiful our powers of comprehension are... we can barely scratch the surface of Who and What He is.  And Rev 19 reveals a triumphant Godman, splendid in might and terrible in judgment.
  • We must have a pervasive sense of the presence of God.  I know I personally struggle to remember God is omnipresent... when surrounded by family, coworkers, or even strangers, I instinctively present a Christian display, but when I am alone, I struggle not to be the man Paul describes in Rom 7, doing the things I don't want to do.  So Pastor Martin counsels us to be saturated by an awareness that God is there;  Ps 139:7-11 vividly tells us there's nowhere to get away from God, and one of my favorites is Amos 9:1-4.  An ever present God, right there looking over your shoulder, must always be reckoned with.
  • We must have a constraining awareness of our obligation to this God.  We are not free and independent, as we are so often told in our society today.  We are obliged to the One who has created us, who sustains us (putting every breath in our lungs!), and who can very easily end us.  Martin puts this in perspective by laying out all our relationships to all other things:  angels, demons, other men, inanimate objects, etc.  Over and above all these is our relation to God:  this is the bond that must define every other tie and supersede them.  Jesus says that anyone who loved their father or mother or son or daughter more than Him was not worthy of Him (Matt 10:37).  I love my wife for many reasons, but the best and most important reason I must love her is because God commands me to;  this keeps the most important human bond I have subordinate to the supreme relation of all.  So since we are, as His creatures, His slaves and His children, in a status of owing ultimate allegiance, consideration, fealty, and love to God, the person who fears God gives these to Him!  And not grudgingly or solely out of duty, but with a rejoicing that can't be matched...
"Oh sing to the LORD a new song; sing to the LORD, all the earth!  Sing to the LORD, bless his name; tell of his salvation from day to day... Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name; bring an offering, and come into his courts!  Worship the LORD in the splendor of holiness; tremble before him, all the earth!"  (Ps 96:1-2, 8-9)
     Fear gets a bad rap these days;  I think it's offensive to people who think they're in charge of it all, who are "empowered" and "liberated" and believe they have nothing to fear.  The tragedy is that these folks will be afraid of God one day, the Day that they "see the one they pierced" (Zech 12:10) and He returns to judge us all.

Photo courtesy of spierzchala

Sunday, March 3, 2013

Fear and Trembling pt 2

Hmmm... are you sure?
     To recap last time, we established the centrality of the concept of the fear of the Lord in Scripture (we'll explore some specific examples soon) and distinguished between the two basic types of fear described: one of terror and dread and one of honor and veneration.  Today I hope to carefully assign these two categories of fear to the two basic types of humanity: the regenerate/converted and the unregenerate/unconverted. 
     First our favorite:  sheer bowel-loosening terror.  As a side note, I am convinced that the reason Americans have a fascination with horror, in movies and in other forms, is that we do not understand what it is to be afraid.  In our protected, pampered country, insulated from the vast majority of humanity's basic ills (invasion, famine, disease, etc.), we don't have much to terrify us.  This was not the case with the peoples of Bible times:  along with their vulnerability to these ravages, without exception, Israel and its neighbors were intensely religious, if we can, for the moment, overlook the false targets of their religious affections.  So, when war or pestilence came along, the ancient man instantly wondered:  "What have we done to anger our god(s)?"  I believe this is a common grace reflection of the first type of godly fear;  the link between calamity and God's displeasure is a good reflex to have.

A fear of gravity is healthy!

    So to quote our tutor, Albert N. Martin, speaking of feeling dread:  "There is no virtue in this fear of God by itself..."  That's right;  it doesn't take a special work of grace opening the eyes to figure out that hell isn't a nice place and that you'd rather not go there.  Even more appropriately, when unbelievers witnessed the mighty, supernatural judgments of God in the Bible, they more often than not responded in a manner to avoid further affliction.  The Egyptians said "No thank you!" to an 11th plague and hurried Israel to their borders.  Why?  The previous 10 had rightly frightened them.  How did the folks in Jericho feel about Israel coming to visit?  "And as soon as we we heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any courage in any man, because of you;  for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above and in earth beneath." (Josh 2:11)  Ditto with the Gibeonites (Josh 9:24), and who could forget how David's neighbors felt about his intimacy with God?  "And the fame of David went out into all lands, and the LORD brought the fear of him upon all nations." (1 Chr 14:17) 
     OK, so of course, those dirty heathens should be afraid of God... they've got it coming!  But we're under grace, covered by the blood of Christ!  Surely a Christian need not fear his Abba, right?  The completion of the Martin quote is "...though there is no evidence of grace if you have this fear, it's doubtful if you have any grace if you don't have this fear."  Pastor Martin then goes on to reference many men in good relation to God, justified by grace through faith, but when confronted with the Presence of the Almighty, they break down and quiver.  He speaks of Isaiah and his lament (6:5), Peter after the greatest fishing day ever (Lk 5:8), and John when granted a vision of the glorified Christ (Rev 1:17).  I am reminded of Daniel's reaction to the derivative glory of the angel (10:6,8) and Habakkuk (3:16).  This is why Christians are commanded to fear God and are motivated in Scripture by His fierce punishments.  No mere human was more spotless in God's sight than Adam before the Fall, but he is motivated to obedience with a threat of the consequences of disobedience!  Why does anyone threaten someone?  To make them afraid...  so Christ tells His flock to fear the God who throws people into hell (Matt 10:28), the Hebrews are strenuously warned of God's wrath (10:31, 12:28-29), and Peter portrays the final burning of all things to exhort us toward holiness (2 Pet 3:11-12).
Prison is an effective deterrent... People are AFRAID of it.

     This is probably a good place to take a break... to conclude for now:  despite all our culture proclaims, fear can be a good, healthy thing.  Anyone with a firearm at home fears his kids getting ahold of it, so he locks it up.  Anyone crossing the street doesn't want to get run over, so he looks both ways first.  Anyone considering sin needs to call to mind a vivid picture of the damned, writhing in agony, so he runs from sin like Joseph escaping from Potiphar's wife.  We'll explore veneration next.

Photos courtesy of Ed 37, Dar

Friday, March 1, 2013

Fear and Trembling pt 1

She's afraid, but not of God...
     If you read the Bible for any length of time and explore the history and development of theology, it's hard not to work up some "pet doctrines": you know, verses, passages and teachings that impact us greatly and that we feel are vitally important and that we and those around us get right, both intellectually and practically. I bet if we were to ask John the Baptist, he'd zero right in on repentance (Matt. 3:7-11). John the Apostle might zoom in on love (1 Jn 4:7-21). A conversation with Paul would be dominated by justification by faith (Rom 1-8). So one of mine is the concept of the fear of the Lord: I think many those of who profess Christ have heard this idea and healthy (and necessary) response to God grossly neutered and distorted. I just finished an email to a friend who has been concerned about 1 John 4:18 and the connection/distinction between perfect love (God's and ours for Him) and fear. The book I mentioned last time ("Future Grace" by John Piper) includes a great concise definition of the fear of the Lord we all are commanded to, which is a great place to start: "In other words, 'fear the Lord' means 'fear the terrible insult it would be to God if you do not trust His gracious promises of power and wisdom on your behalf.'" I've been greatly taught by a series by Al Martin on this doctrine, and I used one of my rare opportunities to teach at church to draw my brothers and sisters into a truer and deeper grasp of just what the Bible means by this fear.  According to Pastor Martin, there are between 150-175 explicit uses of the term "fear of God/the Lord" and dozens of texts where it is implicitly referenced, so this is not a topic we are permitted to brush off or treat lightly.  Martin uses 2 broad categories to dip our toes into understanding godly fear and uses analogies we are all familiar with...
 
God's got us right where He wants us...
1.  The Fear of Terror and/or Dread:  This is the most obvious and common meaning:  when a 9 year old boy turns the last corner between school and his house and is confronted with the neighborhood bully, a 14 year old giant weighing in at 5'10" and 170 lbs, the boy is gripped with an intense fear of the damage the bully is capable (and more than willing!) of doing and the pain associated with that damage.  We all have felt this, and when applied to God in Scripture, it is usually linked with the force of His wrath against evil and evildoers, often along with appropriate examples from prior revelation.  One great example is every reference to Sodom and Gomorrah:  implicit in the use of Gen 19 is the horrific consequences of God's righteousness against all who defy Him.
    
2.  The Fear of Reverence and Awe:  The lesser known fear, this concept is seen in the honor, submission, and respect that we are to have for those superior to us.  Pastor Martin uses that same boy, but tells of him on a school field trip to the White House in Washington D.C.:  while his class is listening (or pretending to listen) to the tour guide drone about the West Wing or the Lincoln bedroom, a Secret Service agent comes in and calls out this boy's name.  He is shaken from his education and stares at the agent with wide eyes.  The G-man focuses on the little boy and says "Are you So-and-so?  The president wants to speak to you."    Now the trembling really starts, and the boy has to be pulled by the scruff of his neck along with the agent.  Now he's not dreading a physical beating by the president... he rightly fears the prestige and power of the highest executive in the land.
 
     We'll develop this a bit more next time, but there's two common problems that I've encountered with the fear all men are commanded to offer to God, one for unbelievers and one for believers:  
 
  • Unbelievers, especially in America, are trained by our political system and increasingly by a broad cultural disdain for authority to regard all fear as coercive and tyrannical.  Any resort to or mention of the dignity and submission due authority (and the consequences of disobedience) is seen as something only a Neanderthal would stoop to.  We shouldn't fear anything, especially our leaders.  Obviously, every person will be held accountable by God one day... Martin paints out the picture of a man on a train track with a locomotive 100 feet behind him going 60 mph.  For the man to be there, only seconds away from a squishy death, he is either unaware of the danger (unaware that "after this comes the judgment"; Heb 9:27), or he is insane:  he is incapable of linking the sight of the train with the potential it has for destroying anything in front of it.
If this guy was tickling your neck, would you "honor" him?
  • Believers, on the other hand, are aware of the judgment of God and rightly grasp its consequences... but many, consciously or unconsciously, operate under the idea that if a person is washed in the blood of Jesus, they have no reason to be afraid of God.  Respect yes, but these folks are still brainwashed by the aforementioned cultural bias (only a despotic Neanderthal would want people to fear him) and drastically downgrade the majesty of God.  This flies in the face of texts we'll explore at length next time (Isa 6:5, Rev 1:17, Matt 10:28).  I remember talking with a man on the bus:  he saw me reading the Bible and started a conversation.  I found out he attends a local "prosperity gospel" Christian center (not "church", thankfully!) and the last question I asked him was on this topic:  he automatically replaced "fear" with "respect/reverence" in any text he ran across.  He had used some Greek earlier, so I told him the Greek word for fear:  "phobos", used in English as "phobia".  So as he stepped off at his stop, I asked him "Does a person with arachnophobia respect spiders?"  This is where we'll pick up next time.
"The fear of God is the soul of godliness." John Murray

Photos courtesy of alvaro tapia hidalgo, allie, John from Canberra