Many teachers have become popular by proclaiming that God wants every Christian to have success in life, with good health, material prosperity, and no conflict. That kind of teaching appeals to our fallen human nature with its self-centeredness, but it isn't consistent with what the Bible teaches. Jesus never promised us a life without opposition; in fact, He promises exactly the opposite. So how do we handle the inevitable opposition we will face in this life?
Nehemiah and the Israelites faced opposition in their task of building the wall of Jerusalem. What began with the provision of God and the enthusiasm of the people was seen by their enemies as a cause for fury. We read about the escalating opposition in chapter 4. The enemies of the Jews began by mocking them and their work. They essentially said the Israelites were wasting their time, that their work would prove to be worthless. Nehemiah handled this opposition by praying that the Lord would hear and deal with the insults, then the people simply ignored what their enemies said and kept on working.
This led their opponents to a stronger response. They met together and plotted to disrupt the work. This was more serious, and led to Nehemiah posting guards to watch for signs of trouble. The people would not be stopped from focusing on the work God had given them.
Israel's enemies then stepped up their opposition once again. Word came back to Nehemiah that the Jews would be under attack from their enemies. Their lives were in danger. This was a real threat, and required a serious response. So Nehemiah and the leaders of Israel took measures to watch for danger, planned for the protection of the people, and then kept right on working. While the need to guard against threats may have slowed the work somewhat, the response of the leaders and the people was to work even harder to finish the walls.
In our lives today we will face opposition. It may be simple mockery, belittling our faith and wondering how we could imagine such a thing to be true in our modern times. It may be distraction, seeking to divert our attention from what is important to what those around us consider important, in the process shuffling our faith off to one side. It may be actual threats against us, not necessarily against our lives but against our careers, our families, or our relationships. The world is not aligned with Jesus, and those who follow the ways of the world will seek to detach us from our connection with Him.
How do we handle this? The same way Nehemiah and the Israelites did. We first pray, seeking God's guidance and protection. Then we guard ourselves against whatever might challenge us, preparing to face the challenges in the strength of the God who has the power to guide us through our trials. Finally, we keep doing what He has called us to do, even as we prepare ourselves for whatever may come against us.
Jesus told us we would have tribulation in this world, but that He has overcome the world. (John 16:33) We do not have a Savior who is free from suffering Himself, but one who has suffered and died on our behalf. We can trust Him not only because of His power, but because He understands the tribulations of human life. As we rely on Him, we can stand against our opposition, and remain faithful even in times of trouble.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Saturday, June 25, 2011
The Laughing Jesus
Before I begin, let me say that I do believe Jesus has a sense of humor, and that He no doubt enjoyed Himself on many occasions while here on earth. He was the one who made the "best wine" for a wedding party, after all. So the idea of Jesus laughing is not one I am uncomfortable with.
As I read the Gospel of Judas, I was struck by how often the author of that treatise describes Jesus as laughing. Usually when Jesus laughs, He is laughing at the misconception of the disciples or of Judas, and His laughter seems to be somewhat derisive. It also struck me that a number of those events have Jesus laughing at the concepts held by the orthodox church of that time.
Now, the author of Judas doesn't always appear to have a firm grasp on the orthodox faith of the second century. There seems to be some bouncing around between Christian and Jewish thought, and a few of the times it's hard to say just what the author has Jesus laughing at. This is sometimes due to gaps in the manuscript of the text, and the reconstructions needed to try to fill in as many blanks as possible. Still, there seems to be a gap between what this author considers orthodoxy to teach and what we see in other authors of the second century.
No doubt at least some of this is also due to the unsettled nature of orthodox theology in the second century. While we look back and piece together the commonalities of the writers we have to try to understand what the early church believed, some of the formulations of later times have not yet been worked out. The church, under periodic persecution and with no central organizational structure, was more concerned with survival and evangelism than with producing anything approaching what we might today call a systematic theology.
This fluidity has been used by some to posit that there were multiple Christianities, and that what we today call "orthodoxy" just happened to be the winning form. The authors who contribute essays to the volume I have been reading fall into that camp to a greater or lesser degree. They believe that the Gospel of Judas is a major discovery that shows us what an alternative Christianity looked like.
My take on the presentation of Judas is exactly the opposite. The use of a chronological framework that appears to work around the Passion week accounts of the canonical gospels and the very fact that the author tries to make orthodox thought the foil to the more "exalted" Gnosticism he presents tell me that there was on at least some level an "orthodoxy" that stood opposed to the ideas presented in this treatise. There apparently were some core beliefs that were widespread enough that they touched the locale in which this author wrote.
I don't have the time at present to do so, but it might make for an interesting study (no doubt already done somewhere if I could find it) to try to work out the theology to which the Gospel of Judas is a Gnostic reaction. It certainly appears to me that it is something along the lines of the orthodox, catholic faith we see in the writers of the second century, which was more fully developed in the writings of Irenaeus at the end of that century. It certainly would not be a theology at which Jesus would laugh; I suspect His mirth might be more aptly expressed at those scholars who two millennia later would find a fragmentary Gnostic gospel more exciting than the gospel accounts of Jesus' life.
As I read the Gospel of Judas, I was struck by how often the author of that treatise describes Jesus as laughing. Usually when Jesus laughs, He is laughing at the misconception of the disciples or of Judas, and His laughter seems to be somewhat derisive. It also struck me that a number of those events have Jesus laughing at the concepts held by the orthodox church of that time.
Now, the author of Judas doesn't always appear to have a firm grasp on the orthodox faith of the second century. There seems to be some bouncing around between Christian and Jewish thought, and a few of the times it's hard to say just what the author has Jesus laughing at. This is sometimes due to gaps in the manuscript of the text, and the reconstructions needed to try to fill in as many blanks as possible. Still, there seems to be a gap between what this author considers orthodoxy to teach and what we see in other authors of the second century.
No doubt at least some of this is also due to the unsettled nature of orthodox theology in the second century. While we look back and piece together the commonalities of the writers we have to try to understand what the early church believed, some of the formulations of later times have not yet been worked out. The church, under periodic persecution and with no central organizational structure, was more concerned with survival and evangelism than with producing anything approaching what we might today call a systematic theology.
This fluidity has been used by some to posit that there were multiple Christianities, and that what we today call "orthodoxy" just happened to be the winning form. The authors who contribute essays to the volume I have been reading fall into that camp to a greater or lesser degree. They believe that the Gospel of Judas is a major discovery that shows us what an alternative Christianity looked like.
My take on the presentation of Judas is exactly the opposite. The use of a chronological framework that appears to work around the Passion week accounts of the canonical gospels and the very fact that the author tries to make orthodox thought the foil to the more "exalted" Gnosticism he presents tell me that there was on at least some level an "orthodoxy" that stood opposed to the ideas presented in this treatise. There apparently were some core beliefs that were widespread enough that they touched the locale in which this author wrote.
I don't have the time at present to do so, but it might make for an interesting study (no doubt already done somewhere if I could find it) to try to work out the theology to which the Gospel of Judas is a Gnostic reaction. It certainly appears to me that it is something along the lines of the orthodox, catholic faith we see in the writers of the second century, which was more fully developed in the writings of Irenaeus at the end of that century. It certainly would not be a theology at which Jesus would laugh; I suspect His mirth might be more aptly expressed at those scholars who two millennia later would find a fragmentary Gnostic gospel more exciting than the gospel accounts of Jesus' life.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Sunday sermon: "When God Calls, God Provides"
Often when we seek the Lord's direction for our ministry or service, we seem to hit a wall. Perhaps God isn't answering our prayers the way we expect, or maybe an opportunity hasn't arisen to move ahead. IF you are like me, you may become impatient and plead for God to just get moving. Frustration may set in, and we wonder if we've misunderstood what we are supposed to do.
Yet God is never silent without reason. We see in Nehemiah 2 that Nehemiah did not have an opportunity to speak to the king about his desire to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem for almost four months. I'm sure he kept praying, but to a man as active and gifted as Nehemiah that four months may have felt like an eternity.
Nehemiah understood, though, that God works in His own time. The Lord did not decide that Jerusalem should remain in ruins, or change His mind about Nehemiah leading the project. It simply wasn't yet the time for the work to begin. We are not given a reason in the Bible why this was so. All we know is that Nehemiah exercised patience until the Lord opened the door for him.
When his opportunity came, Nehemiah did not hesitate. He prayed (his natural first response), then made his request to the king. It was carefully worded to avoid alarming the king, but it was also bold, asking for exactly what Nehemiah needed. When every element was in place, God gave him the opening to make his request.
The king responded favorably. Nehemiah was a trusted servant, so the king wanted to know how long he would be gone. He also agreed to provide the timbers needed for the work. In addition, Artaxerxes provided an armed guard for his cupbearer, something for which Nehemiah had not asked. The situation turned out to be as favorable as Nehemiah could expect.
As we seek our place of service, and seek the Lord's guidance for our ministry, we need to exhibit the same confidence and patience Nehemiah had. At the same time, we must be ready to move forward when the time is right and God opens the doors for us. When we trust the Lord and are willing to serve Him, He will provide what we need to successfully minister for Him.
Yet God is never silent without reason. We see in Nehemiah 2 that Nehemiah did not have an opportunity to speak to the king about his desire to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem for almost four months. I'm sure he kept praying, but to a man as active and gifted as Nehemiah that four months may have felt like an eternity.
Nehemiah understood, though, that God works in His own time. The Lord did not decide that Jerusalem should remain in ruins, or change His mind about Nehemiah leading the project. It simply wasn't yet the time for the work to begin. We are not given a reason in the Bible why this was so. All we know is that Nehemiah exercised patience until the Lord opened the door for him.
When his opportunity came, Nehemiah did not hesitate. He prayed (his natural first response), then made his request to the king. It was carefully worded to avoid alarming the king, but it was also bold, asking for exactly what Nehemiah needed. When every element was in place, God gave him the opening to make his request.
The king responded favorably. Nehemiah was a trusted servant, so the king wanted to know how long he would be gone. He also agreed to provide the timbers needed for the work. In addition, Artaxerxes provided an armed guard for his cupbearer, something for which Nehemiah had not asked. The situation turned out to be as favorable as Nehemiah could expect.
As we seek our place of service, and seek the Lord's guidance for our ministry, we need to exhibit the same confidence and patience Nehemiah had. At the same time, we must be ready to move forward when the time is right and God opens the doors for us. When we trust the Lord and are willing to serve Him, He will provide what we need to successfully minister for Him.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Curiously Uncritical
I have been reading the Gospel of Judas, with several supporting essays, from the National Geographic publication of 2006. I recall the hype that surrounded the publication of this work, and the claims that this was the most significant archaeological find of the past half-century. I confess that I am seldom swayed by popular clamor over Biblically-related discoveries, whether the promotion comes from liberal or conservative circles. I find it's best to allow some time for careful, scholarly assessment and critique.
What I found most intriguing in this book was not the text of the Gospel of Judas, which perhaps deserves further study but appears to be a more or less typical Gnostic treatise. It was comments in the essays that piqued my interest. In particular, the essays by Marvin Meyer and Bart Ehrman expressed opinions and ideas that demonstrated a marked contrast in the way they handled ancient material.
When writing about the books of the New Testament, these essays follow the general lines of mainline Protestant scholarship. The dates given for the NT documents are relatively late, and Ehrman in particular states that some of these books were not written by the authors claimed for them. They adopt the critical view of the NT that is accepted among their peers, while allowing no attention to conservative scholarship.
Yet when their attention is turned to Gospel of Judas, their critical stance mysteriously disappears. A date in the early-to-mid-second century is accepted to match the conclusion that this is the Gospel of Judas mentioned by Irenaeus, even though the match is far from exact. The possibility of textual emendations or alterations is almost summarily dismissed as unlikely. The portrait of Judas, while not claimed as historical, is accepted a giving insight into the place of Judas in Jesus' inner circle, while the accounts in Matthew and Acts are subtly questioned.
This leads to a question that I think is seldom if ever asked about "critical scholarship": why are scholars more skeptical of the canonical writings than of non-canonical writings? While I can't speak with certainty, I believe that this attitude is the result of a fundamentalism of liberalism that is every bit as real as the fundamentalism of conservatism. There are simply some beliefs that are accepted and no longer questioned, with contrary arguments ignored or dismissed,
This may seem harsh, and certainly puts me outside the so-called "mainstream" of Biblical scholarship. Yet we must take it into account when examining Biblical and historical discussions. Too often evangelical scholars are belittled due to their positions on Biblical authority, while liberal scholars are portrayed as open to whatever the evidence says. This is not an accurate assessment of either side; both have their fundamental beliefs that are accepted based on each scholar's own studies, and both need to be examined in light of all evidence. (I know that their are those on both sides who simply accept what they are taught and hold it without much examination, but I am more concerned with the realm if scholarly debate.)
So it is important to understand that our assumptions and presuppositions can color our views no matter where we fall on the theological spectrum. While it is comfortable to simply accept a few favored authors, a broader perspective will help us avoid letting what we believe to be colored too strongly by what we want to be true without examining it.
What I found most intriguing in this book was not the text of the Gospel of Judas, which perhaps deserves further study but appears to be a more or less typical Gnostic treatise. It was comments in the essays that piqued my interest. In particular, the essays by Marvin Meyer and Bart Ehrman expressed opinions and ideas that demonstrated a marked contrast in the way they handled ancient material.
When writing about the books of the New Testament, these essays follow the general lines of mainline Protestant scholarship. The dates given for the NT documents are relatively late, and Ehrman in particular states that some of these books were not written by the authors claimed for them. They adopt the critical view of the NT that is accepted among their peers, while allowing no attention to conservative scholarship.
Yet when their attention is turned to Gospel of Judas, their critical stance mysteriously disappears. A date in the early-to-mid-second century is accepted to match the conclusion that this is the Gospel of Judas mentioned by Irenaeus, even though the match is far from exact. The possibility of textual emendations or alterations is almost summarily dismissed as unlikely. The portrait of Judas, while not claimed as historical, is accepted a giving insight into the place of Judas in Jesus' inner circle, while the accounts in Matthew and Acts are subtly questioned.
This leads to a question that I think is seldom if ever asked about "critical scholarship": why are scholars more skeptical of the canonical writings than of non-canonical writings? While I can't speak with certainty, I believe that this attitude is the result of a fundamentalism of liberalism that is every bit as real as the fundamentalism of conservatism. There are simply some beliefs that are accepted and no longer questioned, with contrary arguments ignored or dismissed,
This may seem harsh, and certainly puts me outside the so-called "mainstream" of Biblical scholarship. Yet we must take it into account when examining Biblical and historical discussions. Too often evangelical scholars are belittled due to their positions on Biblical authority, while liberal scholars are portrayed as open to whatever the evidence says. This is not an accurate assessment of either side; both have their fundamental beliefs that are accepted based on each scholar's own studies, and both need to be examined in light of all evidence. (I know that their are those on both sides who simply accept what they are taught and hold it without much examination, but I am more concerned with the realm if scholarly debate.)
So it is important to understand that our assumptions and presuppositions can color our views no matter where we fall on the theological spectrum. While it is comfortable to simply accept a few favored authors, a broader perspective will help us avoid letting what we believe to be colored too strongly by what we want to be true without examining it.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Sunday sermon: "Taking Responsibility"
The Bible teaches us that all Christians are gifted by the Holy Spirit and called to serve the Lord. If this is true, why does it seem so many churches are not effective in their ministry? I believe that many Christians (and many churches) miss an important step in ministry: taking responsibility for using their gift for Christ's glory.
Our American culture does not seem to place much value on responsibility. We seek to deflect responsibility for our actions; witness the vast amounts of money spent on psychiatrists and psychologists, and the overwhelming number of lawsuits filed in this country. Each of these certainly has value in the right circumstances, but too often they are used to blame someone else for what has happened to us.
Nehemiah certainly faced the challenge of getting the people of Israel to take responsibility for rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. He had his own plan, developed in Susa from the report he was given, but he knew more effort would be needed to carry out the task than he alone could give. In Nehemiah 2:10-20 we see the steps he took to bring the people together to carry out this mission.
He began by assessing the situation. Although he had heard the reports brought to him, Nehemiah wanted to see for himself the extent of the project. He quickly discovered there would be opposition, so even this step was done secretly. He inspected the walls, discovering that the damage was severe. With the information he gathered, he prepared to begin the job.
Calling the leaders and people together, Nehemiah presented the situation to them. His words are hard: "You see the trouble we are in." He later describes the situation as a "disgrace." The Israelites faced danger with their protective walls in ruins. Not only that, but by allowing this to continue they brought disgrace on themselves and on God. Nehemiah encouraged the people to take on this task by telling them what God had done for him and how the king had given his approval.
While churches in our culture are no generally at risk of destruction of their property (although that risk is real in many parts of the world, and is not entirely absent here), I think the the greater risk we have as God's people is that of disgracing the name of Jesus. When we refuse to use our gifts to honor the Lord, the world around us can look at us and say, "Their God must not matter much if they don't think it's worth their effort to serve Him." When we take up our responsibility, we cannot guarantee that the world will like or appreciate it, but we can be sure they will take notice.
The Israelites responded enthusiastically to Nehemiah's call to rebuild. Immediately their enemies sought to discourage them, but Nehemiah reminded everyone involved of one additional factor: God was in charge of this project. While Nehemiah had been called to lead and the people called to labor on this building project, it was ultimately God who would give them success. Nehemiah had faith that the Lord would see to it that they succeeded in rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem and bringing honor to his name.
As we work for the Lord, seeking to build up the church and expand the kingdom of Jesus Christ, we need to remember that it is God who is in charge. We are called to use the gifts He has given us to do the work of His kingdom, but our success is in His hands. As we serve the Lord faithfully, and take on the responsibility He has entrusted to us, I believe we will see the results that God wants for us, and that will be the success that we show the world to honor Jesus Christ.
Our American culture does not seem to place much value on responsibility. We seek to deflect responsibility for our actions; witness the vast amounts of money spent on psychiatrists and psychologists, and the overwhelming number of lawsuits filed in this country. Each of these certainly has value in the right circumstances, but too often they are used to blame someone else for what has happened to us.
Nehemiah certainly faced the challenge of getting the people of Israel to take responsibility for rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. He had his own plan, developed in Susa from the report he was given, but he knew more effort would be needed to carry out the task than he alone could give. In Nehemiah 2:10-20 we see the steps he took to bring the people together to carry out this mission.
He began by assessing the situation. Although he had heard the reports brought to him, Nehemiah wanted to see for himself the extent of the project. He quickly discovered there would be opposition, so even this step was done secretly. He inspected the walls, discovering that the damage was severe. With the information he gathered, he prepared to begin the job.
Calling the leaders and people together, Nehemiah presented the situation to them. His words are hard: "You see the trouble we are in." He later describes the situation as a "disgrace." The Israelites faced danger with their protective walls in ruins. Not only that, but by allowing this to continue they brought disgrace on themselves and on God. Nehemiah encouraged the people to take on this task by telling them what God had done for him and how the king had given his approval.
While churches in our culture are no generally at risk of destruction of their property (although that risk is real in many parts of the world, and is not entirely absent here), I think the the greater risk we have as God's people is that of disgracing the name of Jesus. When we refuse to use our gifts to honor the Lord, the world around us can look at us and say, "Their God must not matter much if they don't think it's worth their effort to serve Him." When we take up our responsibility, we cannot guarantee that the world will like or appreciate it, but we can be sure they will take notice.
The Israelites responded enthusiastically to Nehemiah's call to rebuild. Immediately their enemies sought to discourage them, but Nehemiah reminded everyone involved of one additional factor: God was in charge of this project. While Nehemiah had been called to lead and the people called to labor on this building project, it was ultimately God who would give them success. Nehemiah had faith that the Lord would see to it that they succeeded in rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem and bringing honor to his name.
As we work for the Lord, seeking to build up the church and expand the kingdom of Jesus Christ, we need to remember that it is God who is in charge. We are called to use the gifts He has given us to do the work of His kingdom, but our success is in His hands. As we serve the Lord faithfully, and take on the responsibility He has entrusted to us, I believe we will see the results that God wants for us, and that will be the success that we show the world to honor Jesus Christ.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
A Rough Week
I apologize for the lack of posting this week. My family has had a difficult time this week, and I have not had time to post here. I have a couple of posts in me- I realize I haven't posted last Sunday's sermon, and I have been reading the Gospel of Judas with some supporting essays which deserve comment- so expect my activity to pick up this week. I also hope to have a wikispace update this week, as I took a little time to catch up on a couple of articles to post there.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
How Much Truth Is Enough?
In my rather unsystematic excursion through the second century, I came across the life and works of Bardesanes, the Syriac poet and author from Edessa. Although we have little of his work extant, what we know about his life and his writings certainly makes him an intriguing figure. Depending on whom you consult, the various influences of astrology, Christianity, and Valentinian Gnosticism land Bardesanes a place among the faithful, the fallen, the heretical, or the badly confused.
This leads to a question with which Christians of all stripes have to wrestle, and which does not lend itself to an easy answer: How much truth is needed to lead to an authentic faith? I am not one to teach that the content of faith doesn't matter, just the sincerity of the seeker. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life," and it is not for us to say otherwise. So the question becomes, "What does it mean to have faith in Jesus as Savior and Lord?"
Maybe another way to put it is, Is Bardesanes [or your favorite questionable figure] a believer?" Christianity took some unusual forms in the second century, and it takes some unusual forms today. Which of these forms retain enough of the truth to ensure the salvation of their adherents?
We often put this question into a denominational form: Are Baptists/ Catholics/ Lutherans/ Episcopalians/ Orthodox/ Pentecostals/ whomever truly saved? The answers range from the fanatical assertions that the only true church is "us" to the extremely broad "God loves everyone." As a student of church history and a friend of Christians whom I believe are born again even though they belong to a denomination other than mine, I want to answer this carefully.
In the end, only God knows for certain who are His. I believe that we need to walk a fine line between recognizing that He may work in many different ways and through many different groups to draw people to Jesus and remaining faithful to Jesus' own teaching that He is the only way. I believe that those whose faith is in Jesus (not the church, a denomination, a particular teacher, or a vague notion of God) are bound for heaven, even if we are not exactly correct in every point of doctrine. This doesn't excuse us from studying and seeking to refine our beliefs to conform to the Bible, but it does provide some needed humility.
So was Bardesanes a Christian? Will we see him in heaven? My opinion (and it is just that) is that yes, he was a genuine believer who tried to fit what he knew to his faith, sometimes stumbling. (As opposed to someone like Valentinus, who I believe was not a Christian despite the Ehrman/Pagels arguments, but whose belief used Christian terminology to cloak something entirely different.) I'll find out someday, when I get to heaven and join all who truly trusted Jesus around His throne.
This leads to a question with which Christians of all stripes have to wrestle, and which does not lend itself to an easy answer: How much truth is needed to lead to an authentic faith? I am not one to teach that the content of faith doesn't matter, just the sincerity of the seeker. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life," and it is not for us to say otherwise. So the question becomes, "What does it mean to have faith in Jesus as Savior and Lord?"
Maybe another way to put it is, Is Bardesanes [or your favorite questionable figure] a believer?" Christianity took some unusual forms in the second century, and it takes some unusual forms today. Which of these forms retain enough of the truth to ensure the salvation of their adherents?
We often put this question into a denominational form: Are Baptists/ Catholics/ Lutherans/ Episcopalians/ Orthodox/ Pentecostals/ whomever truly saved? The answers range from the fanatical assertions that the only true church is "us" to the extremely broad "God loves everyone." As a student of church history and a friend of Christians whom I believe are born again even though they belong to a denomination other than mine, I want to answer this carefully.
In the end, only God knows for certain who are His. I believe that we need to walk a fine line between recognizing that He may work in many different ways and through many different groups to draw people to Jesus and remaining faithful to Jesus' own teaching that He is the only way. I believe that those whose faith is in Jesus (not the church, a denomination, a particular teacher, or a vague notion of God) are bound for heaven, even if we are not exactly correct in every point of doctrine. This doesn't excuse us from studying and seeking to refine our beliefs to conform to the Bible, but it does provide some needed humility.
So was Bardesanes a Christian? Will we see him in heaven? My opinion (and it is just that) is that yes, he was a genuine believer who tried to fit what he knew to his faith, sometimes stumbling. (As opposed to someone like Valentinus, who I believe was not a Christian despite the Ehrman/Pagels arguments, but whose belief used Christian terminology to cloak something entirely different.) I'll find out someday, when I get to heaven and join all who truly trusted Jesus around His throne.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
The Purpose of the Church
I was listening to a lecture on "What Does a Theological Church Look Like?" by Carl Trueman of Westminster Theological Seminary as I drove to church the other day. In this lecture, Trueman made an thought-provoking analysis of the purpose of the church; he said that in a very basic sense, the job of the church was "to prepare people to die."
Having recently finished a series on the functions of the church, I found his comment intriguing. Certainly we cannot understand it without having a grasp on the whole Biblical teaching on the church. Yet the statement is true on a very fundamental level. This life, no mater how wonderful or terrible it may be, is only a blip on the screen of our life. The Bible teaches us that human beings are destined for eternity. That can either be an absolutely wonderful prospect, or an absolutely terrifying one.
When I read that comment in light of what I just taught my congregation about the church, I see how each of the functions of the church really do prepare people to die. Evangelism is about proclaiming the good news that death is not the end, and that eternal life is found in Jesus. Worship is aligning ourselves in a right relationship with God, and prepares us to spend eternity in His presence. Fellowship reminds us that our eternal life will be spent with others who share our relationship with Jesus. Discipleship is growing into the people we were created to be, the ones who will be perfected when we stand before our Lord. Ministry begins a life a service that will continue when we reach heaven. The ministry of the church in this life prepares us for the life we will live in eternity.
Trueman's statement also speaks to the preoccupation many churches have with the here and now. They focus on the current plight of people not as a part of reaching them with the love of Jesus, but as the entire purpose of their ministry. Some churches see hell as the troubles and inequalities of life, and heaven as having God meet our needs here and now. They lack, or at least seem to lack, any sense of what lies beyond this life. In a few cases this may be because, despite retaining a Christian name and language, they no longer believe there is anything beyond. In most cases, though, I think it is that meeting current needs is more easily seen as "doing something" for the kingdom of God.
We can engage in many kinds of ministries that may look exactly the same as those of churches focused on the now, but do it with our eyes on eternity. Jesus said, "What is a man benefited if he gains the whole world, yet loses or forfeits himself? " (Luke 9:25, HCSB) We need to make sure that we do not seek to meet people's temporal needs at the expense of their souls. As a church, our mission is to "make disciples," and our goal is to help people find their way into eternity.
How much different would our lives be if we lived them with our goal in mind? To think about eternity and where we will spend it is not morbid; it is to realize that this life is just the prelude to the life we are destined to live as God's children. We should live and serve in such a way that we call others to prepare themselves for their own eternity.
Having recently finished a series on the functions of the church, I found his comment intriguing. Certainly we cannot understand it without having a grasp on the whole Biblical teaching on the church. Yet the statement is true on a very fundamental level. This life, no mater how wonderful or terrible it may be, is only a blip on the screen of our life. The Bible teaches us that human beings are destined for eternity. That can either be an absolutely wonderful prospect, or an absolutely terrifying one.
When I read that comment in light of what I just taught my congregation about the church, I see how each of the functions of the church really do prepare people to die. Evangelism is about proclaiming the good news that death is not the end, and that eternal life is found in Jesus. Worship is aligning ourselves in a right relationship with God, and prepares us to spend eternity in His presence. Fellowship reminds us that our eternal life will be spent with others who share our relationship with Jesus. Discipleship is growing into the people we were created to be, the ones who will be perfected when we stand before our Lord. Ministry begins a life a service that will continue when we reach heaven. The ministry of the church in this life prepares us for the life we will live in eternity.
Trueman's statement also speaks to the preoccupation many churches have with the here and now. They focus on the current plight of people not as a part of reaching them with the love of Jesus, but as the entire purpose of their ministry. Some churches see hell as the troubles and inequalities of life, and heaven as having God meet our needs here and now. They lack, or at least seem to lack, any sense of what lies beyond this life. In a few cases this may be because, despite retaining a Christian name and language, they no longer believe there is anything beyond. In most cases, though, I think it is that meeting current needs is more easily seen as "doing something" for the kingdom of God.
We can engage in many kinds of ministries that may look exactly the same as those of churches focused on the now, but do it with our eyes on eternity. Jesus said, "What is a man benefited if he gains the whole world, yet loses or forfeits himself? " (Luke 9:25, HCSB) We need to make sure that we do not seek to meet people's temporal needs at the expense of their souls. As a church, our mission is to "make disciples," and our goal is to help people find their way into eternity.
How much different would our lives be if we lived them with our goal in mind? To think about eternity and where we will spend it is not morbid; it is to realize that this life is just the prelude to the life we are destined to live as God's children. We should live and serve in such a way that we call others to prepare themselves for their own eternity.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Sunday sermon: "The First Response"
In Nehemiah 1:11, Nehemiah almost casually mentions that he was the "cupbearer to the king." Often our picture of a cupbearer is one of a lowly servant, forced into a job that could cost him his life, probably someone who was expendable to the court. A Persian cupbearer was anything but that. Nehemiah had to be an accomplished, talented, and highly trusted man to be made the cupbearer. In addition to literally having the king's life in his hands, he would also have been an advisor, part of the king's council. From a human standpoint, Nehemiah was everything our society admires: powerful, skilled, well-placed, and (as the rest of the book implies) wealthy.
Yet when faced with the shocking news from Judah that the walls were fallen and in disrepair, Nehemiah's first response was not to see what he could do about it. The news, which probably reflected a relatively recent event, struck Nehemiah deeply. He broke down and mourned for at least three months. During that time, he took what he felt was the most important step he could: he went to God in prayer.
This is the opposite of what we often do when faced with a problem. We do everything we can do, use all of our talent and skill, then, if we can't solve it, turn to prayer. Nehemiah realized that anything he could do would be meaningless if it was not first of all God's will.
Nehemiah's prayer is instructive in another way. As he faces a serious problem, we expect that his first cry would be for help from the Lord. Instead, he begins by exalting God. This is a significant emphasis; if Nehemiah is going to ask the Lord for His help, he recognizes that he needs to be asking a God who is capable of helping, one more powerful than Nehemiah, King Artaxerxes, or the opposition back in Palestine. God is greater than all, "awe-inspiring," and thus a worthy God to be petitioned.
Even then, Nehemiah doesn't jump right into his request. He laments and confesses the sin of himself and his people before God. Again this is a recognition of who God is by Nehemiah that leads toward his request. The reason that Judah is in crisis is their own sin. Nehemiah, though living in Persia and not of the generation that went into exile, includes himself in this confession of failure to keep God's covenant. He understands who he is in light of the greatness of God, and will not request God's help until he is sure that his relationship with the Lord is unhindered.
Finally Nehemiah prays for favor from God. Even now he does not ask for a great miracle to be done, but for favor in the eyes of the king. Nehemiah reaches the place where he can, after months of prayer, offer himself as part of the solution to the problem, under God's providential care.
As we face the challenges and problems of our lives, what is our first response? If we have not yet learned that it is prayer, then we need to learn from what Nehemiah teaches us. I confess to often failing in this regard, and I know that I need to glorify God, confess my sin, build my relationship with Jesus, and then seek the Lord's will and His power to overcome the issues of life. If we all learn to do this, how much more can we accomplish for the kingdom of God by the grace of God?
Friday, June 3, 2011
The Old, the New, and Online Study
There is often a real paradox in the use of commentaries in Bible study. As a theological student, I was trained (whether consciously or unconsciously by my teachers) to seek out and use the very latest commentaries on whichever book of the Bible I was currently studying or teaching. Those works would have the latest information on language, archaeology, and the state of scholarship, and would also distill the best of earlier studies. So I diligently spent my scarce student dollars only on recent commentaries.
As I have continued to study, I found many of newest works lacking in one area. While they did indeed bring me up-to-date on historical and linguistic developments, they often were seriously deficient in theological reflection. Many respected commentary series (including those which I use) spend the bulk of their space on issues of textual reconstruction; their focus is determining how the text we have was composed. This can be an interesting study, but often simply is speculation that doesn't really add much to understanding what God is saying to us through His Word.
After my father retired, he gave me his pastoral library. I became acquainted with some of the older commentators. Not all of them were what would be called scholarly, but many of them contained keen insights I found missing in the more current writers. (There were also some pretty wild stretches, but that's why we study and sift.) I later subscribed to the release of the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, which made it easier to find what the church fathers said on passages I was studying.
When studying online, this issue can be magnified. A lot of online resources are older works which are in public domain, and if you believe only the latest works are of value you'll avoid online study resources. However, many of these older resources are valuable in their own right. There are, of course, the classic materials like the works of the church fathers or Calvin's commentaries, which are still recognized for their value. Many other older sources are available online, and I would encourage anyone to examine these to see if they are useful for your study.
It takes some careful analysis, but as scholars, even erstwhile ones, we shouldn't be afraid of a little work. I go to several online sites and look at a wide variety of sources, and can often find useful insights into Scripture. (I have links here on my blog page, and a few more over on the wikispace version.) I've created a very useful online Bible study suite that enables me to do quite a bit of my teaching and sermon prep on my netbook, all using free sites. I supplement that study with current material from my library (which I only wish was free!), which gives me a very well-rounded study experience.
The Internet makes it possible for even those under budget constraints to engage in serious Bible study with quality materials. With multiple translations, commentaries, and other study aids available for free, you can take advantage of the wisdom of generations of Christian teachers to enhance your own learning and to pass on to those whom you teach.
As I have continued to study, I found many of newest works lacking in one area. While they did indeed bring me up-to-date on historical and linguistic developments, they often were seriously deficient in theological reflection. Many respected commentary series (including those which I use) spend the bulk of their space on issues of textual reconstruction; their focus is determining how the text we have was composed. This can be an interesting study, but often simply is speculation that doesn't really add much to understanding what God is saying to us through His Word.
After my father retired, he gave me his pastoral library. I became acquainted with some of the older commentators. Not all of them were what would be called scholarly, but many of them contained keen insights I found missing in the more current writers. (There were also some pretty wild stretches, but that's why we study and sift.) I later subscribed to the release of the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, which made it easier to find what the church fathers said on passages I was studying.
When studying online, this issue can be magnified. A lot of online resources are older works which are in public domain, and if you believe only the latest works are of value you'll avoid online study resources. However, many of these older resources are valuable in their own right. There are, of course, the classic materials like the works of the church fathers or Calvin's commentaries, which are still recognized for their value. Many other older sources are available online, and I would encourage anyone to examine these to see if they are useful for your study.
It takes some careful analysis, but as scholars, even erstwhile ones, we shouldn't be afraid of a little work. I go to several online sites and look at a wide variety of sources, and can often find useful insights into Scripture. (I have links here on my blog page, and a few more over on the wikispace version.) I've created a very useful online Bible study suite that enables me to do quite a bit of my teaching and sermon prep on my netbook, all using free sites. I supplement that study with current material from my library (which I only wish was free!), which gives me a very well-rounded study experience.
The Internet makes it possible for even those under budget constraints to engage in serious Bible study with quality materials. With multiple translations, commentaries, and other study aids available for free, you can take advantage of the wisdom of generations of Christian teachers to enhance your own learning and to pass on to those whom you teach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)