The supremacy of Christ

In our current Family Bible Study curriculum we are studying through the book of Hebrews. As someone who loves Old Testament, I enjoy teaching and studying through Hebrews, since much of the book draws on OT teaching and imagery. Teaching it to elementary students, however, can be a bit of a challenge. Going through the process of preparing lessons for younger learners forces you to think about the essence of what the Bible teaches, and to clarify your own thinking about BIblical passages.

The last several lessons have focused on the comparison between Christ and the OT sacrificial system. Often when adults study through the middle of Hebrews, we get hung up on Melchizedek, how Jesus fulfilled OT types and images, and just to whom Hebrews 6:4-8 is referring. The big picture can get lost in a sea of really interesting details.

What is that big picture? Jesus Christ is superior to all systems of religion. While Hebrews explicitly deals with the OT and with the Judaism of the first century, I think it is fair to take the author's teaching even further and state that Jesus is superior to all other religious systems. There is something genuinely unique about Jesus.

Religion teaches us how we ought to relate to whatever god or ultimate reality is "out there." We engage in a variety of rituals, prayers, sacrifices, and other elements in order to align ourselves with that god. This can even be true of Christians; we can easily fall into the pattern of thinking our standing with God depends on how well we play the religious game.

Despite our best intentions, though, we fail to do everything right, and we have to keep going back again and again hoping to appease our god and to regain a positive standing with him/her/it. Nothing we do can permanently assure us that we are indeed right, or that we have any guarantee of going to heaven or its equivalent.

Jesus is different. First, what He did had nothing to do with what we do. Jesus became both the perfect sacrifice and the perfect high priest, offering the one sacrifice that does have permanent effect. It doesn't matter how we act, what we do, or how religious we are; Jesus' work was done by Him and accepted by the Father apart from anything any one of us has ever done. Second, when we accept Jesus and His sacrifice, and make Him the Lord of our life and our ultimate concern, we are assured we are right with God, since that staus isn't dependent on us and our behavior.

This doesn't mean we live any old way we want to. Hebrews will go on to discuss how the change that Jesus brings to our lives should change the way we live. What it does mean is that I am always forgiven, because the penalty for my sin has been made "once for all." I'm not dependent on my religiosity or works to earn or pay for my salvation. I am dependent on what Jesus has already done, and I can neither add to nor subtract from that.

This fundamental reminder keeps us on the right track as we seek to live our lives for the Lord. It also makes us different from any religious viewpoint (including ones calling themselves Christian) that would tie us to keeping the Law, following rules, or trying to do more good than bad in order to be right with God. As Christians, we should want to do what Christ commands out of love and gratitude, but our relationship with God ultimately begins and ends with Jesus, not ourselves.

Some consolidation

Due to policy changes on some sites I've been using, I'm attempting to pull the information from this blog, the Finding My Way Around the Fathers blog, and the Pastor Steve's Study Wikispace onto a new site. This is a work in progress, and I don't expect to finish anytime soon. (Having two jobs and a family will do that!) I will keep the two blogs intact (and hopefully I'll post on them from time to time), but to have a unified access point you will want to visit this site:

The "new" Pastor Steve's Study

Thanks for all your continued interest and support!

Theology Reading Group suggested reading

We're hoping to get a theology reading group going at my home church. The best way I have of communicating with the group when I need something longer than a Facebook post is through this blog. However, even if you can't (or don't want to) be a part of the group, yo can benefit from reading the works we'll be reading and discussing.

For our first meeting, I think it would be good to get a lay of the theological landscape. I'm suggesting that we all read several of the classic Protestant confessions to familiarize ourselves with the topics of theology and with both the commonalities and differences between the Protestant denominations. (We're a Protestant group, so we're trying to get a handle on our own theological tradition.)

I think the following confessions will give us a fairly broad spectrum of classic evangelical Protestant faith:

The Augsburg Confession, Lutheran, 1530
The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, Anglican (Episcopal), 1571
The Westminster Confession, Reformed/Presbyterian, 1647
 The Methodist Articles of Religion, Methodist, 1784
The New Hampshire Confession, Baptist, 1833

I'd suggest getting a copy of John Leith's "Creeds of the Churches," 3rd edition. You can get it cheap used through Amazon or Barnes and Noble. It's a lot more convenient for reading and reference purposes. (I can get copies for members of the group, if you don't do online ordering.)

Alternatively, you can access these confessions online in Philip Schaff's "Creeds of Christendom" at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library. They might be hard to read, since many of the confessions are printed in two columns, Latin and English translation. But CCEL is a terrific resource; you should become familiar with it. I have links to the specific confessions we'll be reading below. (If you already have Schaff on your shelf, good for you! Go with that.)

The Augsburg Confession (Lutheran): http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds3.iii.ii.html
The Westminster Confession (Reformed/Presbyterian): http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds3.iv.xvii.ii.html
The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (Anglican): http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds3.iv.xi.html
The Methodist Articles of Religion (Methodist): http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds3.v.vi.html
The New Hampshire Confession (Baptist): http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds3.v.ii.ii.html

If you have any comments or questions, just let me know. If you're going to be in the group, you know how to find me.

The best-laid plans...

It's amazing sometimes the way life derails even our best-laid plans. Thus, no blog posts for the past three weeks. Sure, it sounds like an excuse; after all, everyone's busy with the stuff of life. And, in fact, it probably is just an excuse. However, it gives me a chance for some theological ruminations.

We all live out our lives here on earth under the providence of God. For some, this provides the comforting thought that no matter what happens, God is there with us through it all. For others, it provides a level of frustration, since they expect that God's presence should keep all the problems away from us. For many, the providence of God is an uncomfortable or even unwelcome thought. They want to be in control, and if there is a God is means that He has some claim on their lives.

Maybe for most of us all three of these are true at various times in our lives. For instance, we have the innate desire to be in control of what happens to us, to be the captain of our own fate. Further reflection will remind us that this is obviously not true. That's not a fallacious "obviously" that attempts to evade the question; if you think about your life, how much of it happened without your approval? Your physical makeup, your family, where you were born and grew up, the talents you have, many of the circumstances of life- all of these happen without any input on our part. No matter how hard we try or how much we work at it, we can't control much of our lives.

The thought that if God is for us nothing bad should happen to us  is the focus of a lot of teaching these days. (It was also the focus of a lot of teaching throughout history, but we tend to forget that.) By reading certain Biblical passages in a certain way, and taking a few verses out of context, and tying that together with the truth that God does care for us, we think that as long as we're trying to please God we should avoid the bad things that happen in this world. Yet the Bible never promises us that we will avoid problems if we're faithful to God. In fact, it promises just the opposite! (Read Mark 10:30 and James 1:2-4, in context please.)

Ultimately the promise of the presence of God in our lives provides comfort not because it ensures we won't face trials, but because it promises that He goes with us through the trials. One of the salient points of Easter is that Jesus went through suffering on our behalf, so when we suffer we don't go to a God who doesn't understand what we're facing, but One who experienced it all for us. In the end, our peace and comfort come from knowing our loving Father carries us through all the trials of life, so that whatever happens we are not separated from Him.

Or, maybe, I should say that in the end, the trials of life will bring us to the glories of a perfect life, the kind of life we desire and were made for. Life only lasts so long. Unless Jesus comes back first, we're all going to die. (There's an encouraging word for the day!) But, through the suffering and death of Jesus and the promise of His resurrection, we can be restored to life the way God meant it to be. We've wrecked our lives and our world through sin; Jesus broke the power of sin so the life we want to live can be ours through Him. So I'm not complaining (at least, I'm trying not to). I just want to lean on the comfort of the presence of God through my life, until I have the life He promises in Christ.

The Apocrypha and the Hebrew canon

For my Bible reading project this year, I decided for the first time to read through a Roman Catholic translation, including the Apocrypha. I've read through the books of the Apocrypha before, but I thought it would be informative to read through them as they stand in the Bible. I take them in the order they appear in the New American Bible, Revised Edition, which is the translation I have chosen to read. So today I reached the first of these books, Tobit. (I admit that Tobit is a fascinating story, if a bit strange in detail and with a decided emphasis on almsgiving as a means of righteousness.)

Now my friends will hit me from both sides the fence on this reading choice. My Protestant friends will ask me why I bother to read the Apocryphal books at all. (Some might even question why I'd bother with a non-Protestant translation, but I reading through a variety of translations gives me insights into where many of them come from theologically, and the Word of God is powerful in any good translation-and even in many bad ones!) As someone who has a deep interest in the early church, especially the Ante-Nicene period, I know that while these books were generally not accepted as canonical, they were respected as books that provided spiritual insight that could be helpful. In many respects, they are an OT era parallel to books like the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, and 1 Clement, which were valued by the church but were ultimately determined to be non-canonical.

My Roman Catholic friends, on the other hand, would ask why, if I consider them worthwhile enough to read and respect the opinion of the early church that they have some value, I don't consider them canonical. While there are a number of reasons to reject the Apocrypha (and even the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches view them as having a lesser canonical status), there really is one reason that stands out for me: they were not part of the Hebrew canon.

The Tanakh, as it later came to be called, was generally settled by time of the Hasmoneans. (The story that it was set at the Council of Jamnia in the late 1st or early 2nd century has been widely discredited.) The name comes from the Hebrew words for the three sections of the Hebrew Bible: Torah (Law), Nebi'im (Prophets), and Kethubim (Writings). It consisted of 22 or 24 books, depending on who was doing the division and whether they felt the need to have the same number of books as the Hebrew alphabet had letters. Several of our current 39 OT books were combined: the books of Samuel, the books of Kings, the books of Chronicles, Ezra/Nehemiah, and the Twelve minor prophets. (To get 22, you can combine Judges/Ruth and Jeremaih/Lamentations.)

This three-fold division, with its constituent books, was well-attested by Jesus' time. The Apocrypha lay outside of the Hebrew canon then, and continues to be rejected as canonical by Jews to this day. In my view, the establishment of what we call the Old Testament canon should follow the practice of the Jewish people, for whom it was a remains Scripture. For Christians to add to that canon is to place our (often much later) views on a higher plain than the views of those for whom these words were life.

I will continue to read the Apocrypha, and I anticipate that I will find it informative, spiritually uplifting, and helpful as devotional literature. I will still, however, base my beliefs and my theology on those books that I believe, and that the Jews believe, are the ones inspired by God.

The flaw in modern philosophies

Reading the "Comments" section under many online articles can be very entertaining. Most of the time it seems like commenters are just like little kids on the playground- "You're stupid!" "Yeah, well, you're stupider!" "I know I am, but what are you?" (This is especially true on political/news web sites, and even more true on sports web sites.) Sometimes, though, there can be a real exchange of ideas (if by "exchange" I mean an expression of one's thoughts without regard to what the other person is saying). In these instances, you can occasionally see the underlying philosophy that guides someone's thought.

Because I frequent web sites that express Christian viewpoints, I see a lot of dissent from what is being presented in the article. Some of this dissent is emotionally driven assaults on the viewpoint expressed, without much regard for what is actually said. (Let me say here that Christian responses to these posts, or that are posted on other web sites expressing alternative points of view, can be just as thoughtless and vitriolic.) But some set out the poster's reasons for disagreeing with what is stated, with their own resoning for their viewpoint.

One recent spate of posts I read expressed a general disagreement with an article on the motivations of people who invite others to church. Several of the respondents prided themselves on having a "rational" worldview, in which they understood the truth about the gradual evolution of the universe and humanity, and expressed confidence in the essential goodness of people in contrast to what they characterized as an angry, vengeful God. Such ideas certainly are common among many in our culture.

I believe that this kind of thinking, which is found in many modern philosophies (formal and informal), is the biggest flaw in those systems. What's more, I believe that this can be shown to be true without any reference to the Bible or God. The essential goodness of humanity is a false concept that can easily be seen to have no basis in the real world.

I'm sure by now many of you are wondering how I come to this conclusion. It's actually pretty simple. Those who believe that humanity is essentially good have their reasons for the evil (or anti-social, if they prefer) behavior of people. Some say it is due to a lack of knowledge, and that with proper education no one would behave badly. Others argue it is caused by poverty, and if we only give people enough to meet their needs they won't have any reason to do wrong. A third group might argue that it is due to oppression, and that when the existing powers are overthrown and power is given to people, they will use it responsibly. There are several other alternatives given for the existence of evil/wrong/social unacceptable behavior that fit into this same mold.

I don't have space here to counter all of those ideas, except to say that anyone who thinks about it will see that none of these solutions has worked. We've raised educational levels, provided economic assistance, seen revolutions topple dictators, and so on down the line, and the world is not appreciably better behaved. If you argue from our experience of humanity, the goodness of mankind is hard to see.

This is the flaw in most modern philosophies. However, if we flip the statement on its head and argue for the essential selfishness and corruption of humanity, we find that the empirical data support it. We aren't really good at heart; we want what we want, and often shape our beliefs to make that self-centeredness the very rock of our moral and ethical beliefs.

I have often asked this question: "Which do you have to teach a child- to be good and care about others, or to be selfish and self-centered?" If you're a parent, you know the answer. This hurts us, and insults us. We want to think we are better than this, and that our inner nobility just needs a little help to come forth.

Christianity is often thought by those who are not believers to teach that what Christians are is perfect people who look down on the badness of others. This is the exact opposite of the truth. Christians know that we are sinners, self-centered and selfish, and that we are ourselves desperately in need of something or someone to make us right. (OK, I'll confess that I've known some Christians who think they are "all that," but they're just as wrong as anyone else who thinks they're good enough.) No amount of effort, education, government assistance, political power, or anything else is going to suffice to make us right.

The good news is that we don't have to do it ourselves. Jesus took care of that for us by His sacrifice, and through Him and the power of the Holy Spirit we can be good. Our very nature has to change, and this can only happen through Christ. Christianity takes a hard and real look at what we are, and tells us something we don't want to hear. But in the end, it also proclaims to us the only way to overcome our problem.

Why church history matters

I've been doing a study of the second-century Ebionites for an on-again, off-again project I've had simmering for a few years. The term was originally used of Jewish-Christians in general, but came to be applied to groups that were more focused on law, and some of whom even denied the deity of Jesus. Ebionism died out fairly early in the history of the church, but the Ebionites or their predecessors may have been one of the groups Paul criticized in his epistles.

The study of this group is a fascinating study in and of itself, and I certainly don't want to imply that you shouldn't study something just because it fascinates you. Sometimes I think too much of what we study (and by "we" I mean "me" especially) is done for practical purposes. I do a lot of teaching, and some preaching, and I'm always looking at the texts I'm using and digging into them for those purposes. It's fun to study something just for the sake of study. Yet as I looked into the Ebionites and their beliefs, I found that there is still a relevance to examining their beliefs.

The most prominent difference between the second-century Ebionites and orthodox Christians was their focus on the Law. It may have begun as a specifically Jewish observation among those who had become followers of Jesus as Messiah, but it turned into a requirement for salvation. To the Ebionites, it wasn't enough to be saved by faith in Jesus; you also had to observe the Law to be in right standing with God. This belief may have led to some of the more extreme forms of Ebionism, like the groups that denied Jesus' divinity. The Law became far more important than grace.

So why do I find this relevant? You can probably find a church near you that claims to believe in salvation by grace through faith but has its own "law" you have to keep to really be saved. I have been in and around a number of churches that certainly seem to preach salvation by your good works, even as they gave lip service to God's grace. To be a "genuine" Christian, you have to show it by living up to the standards they have set up. Jesus just isn't enough.

That is no more true today than it was in the second century. I don't depreciate the value of good works, since we're told by Jesus that they are evidence of the change in our hearts. But you don't get to heaven by being good, and you certainly don't get to heaven by keeping man-made rules that some church decides are the right ones. I also think that, just like the Ebionites, churches that focus on "law" tend to move theologically away from the truth about the person and work of Jesus Christ. If I need to keep a law or set of rules to be saved, then Jesus' death is essentially irrelevant.

I don't want to go too far in drawing the parallels here, but I think an awareness of the ways the church and groups connected with it have gone astray is a powerful reminder to us that it's easy to put our own ideas in the place of God's Word. Some modern heresies and questionable teachings actually have historical precedents, and it's our ignorance of our own past that allows them to proliferate.

What's the answer? Of course I'm going to say we need to study and learn church history, but even a simple awareness of our own tendencies to wander from the truth should keep us on guard. We need to subject everything to the teaching of the Scriptures. When we focus on the Word Incarnate and the Word revealed we will have strong help in remaining faithful to God. Then we can learn from the mistakes of the past, and set our future to be as faithful to God as we seek to follow Him.

Why theology is cool

I stole the title for this blog post from a Theology Network podcast which I highly recommend to anyone who loves the study of theology. (You'll find it here.) I admit, I never would have thought about Judges 6 as a paradigm for theology, might Mike Reeves makes perfect sense when he speaks about the role of theology as tearing down false gods and building up the worship of the one true God.

What really got me thinking about this, however, is the response to the last couple of posts on this blog. I had been posting Biblical observations that probably tended to be a little more pastoral and devotional this year, until this month. These last posts, however, have been accessed about three times as much as my previous posts averaged. I'm not going to tell you I get a huge number of hits on this blog, but I was surprised by just how much more popular the theological posts were.

Looking back to much older material, I also see more interest when I posted historical and theological material than when I recapped sermons, for example. (Except the Zacchaeus sermon- that's still the #1 post of all time on this blog. I have no idea why.) So I'm making a guess about the readers of this blog- you'd rather read more about theology and history than get your devotional thought for the day here. I don't know if that means I do a better job writing about academic subjects than I do writing devotional material, or if it's just a reflection of the interests of my readers.

I'm going to make an effort to deal with those kinds of topics more often here. I find theological and historical study fascinating myself, so this is no burden on me. I also realize I called this  blog "My little corner of academia," so it fits the original purpose I think I had when I started to write. (I could be wrong about that, since I don't remember what if anything I was thinking back then.)

I apologize for a post that's more about my thought process than any subject of interest to you, but I think I owe it to my readers to let them know the direction I'll be taking.In the meantime, go listen to that podcast. It will be time well spent.

The enormity of sin

A subject that has come up several times in my recent reading and listening has been the way that people, especially Christians, view sin. It's not a topic that many are comfortable with, and some preachers and churches try to shy away from the subject and dwell instead on what they would consider more "positive" aspects of salvation, like God's love and His plan for your life. (This is not true in my own church; our pastor is very clear about sin and its effects on everyone's life.) "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar," they might respond to criticism of their approach.

Certainly some people come to Christ through the revelation of God's love expressed in Him. Still, there has to be some explanation for just how that love was expressed on the cross. This has been an issue throughout the history of Christianity; views of the Atonement have sparked controversy and produced an enormous amount of writings as theologians argued their points. No matter what approach you take, however, you still have to explain how the love of God for us required Jesus to go to the cross.

Part of the problem is that in our contemporary Western society we have lost a sense of the enormity of sin. In American culture, you are more likely to see sin applauded than condemned. People who live for sex, money, power, and vanity are looked up to by many, and what they do to achieve their successes is seen as something to emulate, not avoid. "As long as no one else is getting hurt, why worry about it?" is the question posed to those who would criticize from a Biblical worldview.

I think where the confusion comes is in the difference between the seriousness of the effects of sin here on earth and the enormity of sin in God's sight. We tend to think of sin on a sliding scale: a white lie isn't as bad as shoplifting, which isn't as bad as dealing drugs, which isn't as bad as killing someone, which isn't as bad as genocide. In terms of the temporal effects of those sins, there is some truth to this. However, this scale of sin fails to take into account what eternal effect of sin is.

In the end, all sin results in one dramatic and horrific effect: the nailing of God to a cross. Our sin, no matter what the individual act may have been, resulted in the death of Jesus. Given that effect, all sin is an offense against a holy and loving God. Sin is an infinite offense against an infinite God, and separates us from God by an infinite gulf that we cannot bridge ourselves.

It is because sin is this serious that it took Jesus' infinite sacrifice to enable us to be restored to God. Our sin separates us from the God who loves us, and He is the One who, through Christ, makes it possible for us to be brought back into His family.

To view sin as anything less is to take a human-centric perspective and assume that is reality. Popular religious belief says that if you just do more good than bad in your life, you'll get to heaven. God will give you a pass on your sin if you've done enough good deeds to offset them. If this is true, then there was no need for Jesus to die. God could have simply hand-waved away sin without Jesus having to suffer so much.

To do so, though, He would have to suppress much of who He is. In my previous post about the simplicity of God, we saw how all of God's attributes are of equal, interdependent importance. A God who winks at sin is no longer just or holy, among other things. To remain true to Himself, God has to view sin as it is, and we need to understand, as well as we can, just how serious sin is in His sight.

Once we realize the enormity of our own sin, we can understand out need for divine intervention for the forgiveness of our sin. Then we are open to the good news of Jesus' sacrifice for us, and can respond with hearts that are humbled, contrite, and grateful for all He has done for us. Remembering how serious sin is also helps us to "go and sin no more." True, we will stumble and fall sometimes, but knowing what it cost for those sins to be forgiven ought to at least begin to motivate us to avoid sin out of our love and thankfulness to our Lord and Savior.

The simplicity of God (a complex subject)

I like to listen to theological podcasts while I work out at the gym. (You need something to make 40 minutes on a stationary bike seem like fun.) One topic that came up in a couple of the podcasts I used this week was the simplicity of God. It isn't something we often talk about, unless you happen to be in a theology class. Preachers (including me) don't allude to it much. Yet it may be one aspect of God that helps us poke through some of the tough questions raised about God and His work.

While we use the term "simple" almost as a put-down, in theology it is something that God possesses that is distinctive from His creation. In a nutshell, simplicity means that God is a single unified being, not a being made up of many parts. So all the attributes of God-His omnipotence, omniscience, love, holiness, etc.- are not parts of God, but are all entirely essential to Him. Now to us, this seems a whole lot more like "complex" than "simple." We don't really have a mental capacity for grasping this as finite creatures. But it underscores an important truth that no one attribute of God is more "essential" than another.

One of the reasons the simplicity of God may be neglected is that it is very tough to pin it down without risking making God seems like an impersonal mass of attributes. We do sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of God as what He is rather than who He is. Personality and personal attributes are also a part of His simplicity, however. You can't make God out to be some kind of cosmic impersonal power, or treat Him as if He was a single attribute such as love, without doing violence to the reality revealed to us in Scripture.

If this all sounds like a lot to digest, it is. I'm not trying to pretend that I have a full grasp on this topic, or that I ever will. (At this point in my life I'm quite comfortable with the knowledge that as a finite creature there are just some things I'll never fully comprehend, even in heaven.) What is important about it is how it helps us sort through some theological questions by rejecting arguments that are built on an understanding of God as somehow having some "essential" attribute that takes priority over others.

For example, one of the arguments for universalism, the doctrine that all people will be saved, is built on the love of God as His essential nature. Love triumphs over holiness, righteousness, or anything else, so all people must be saved or somehow God is thwarted. But if the love of God is no more essential than any other attribute, we need to consider how the balanced nature of God would deal with salvation. (It's also possible to go the other way, to make holiness trump love in a way that pushes the love of God aside or stunts it, which leads to other problems.)

We need to make sure that we do our best to understand God as thoroughly as possible, and to analyze what is said about God with the knowledge (however imperfect) that He is everything He says He is equally. Will this solve all or theological problems? No. But it will help us become clearer and more exact in our study and understanding of God and His Word, and keep us from making God less than He really is.

Fad-free Christianity

This week I listened to a podcast from the excellent Theology Network web site called "A Move of God or a Spiritual Fad?". The talk covered ways to determine if a "movement" was truly from the Lord or if it was just some pretty packaging around an idea that wasn't necessarily Biblical. Much of the content was based on Jonathan Edward's Treatise on the Religious Affections, and it was very definitely a helpful guide to using discernment in choosing what popular trends we ought to follow to enhance our walk with God.

What struck me, however, was the list of "spiritual fads" that the audience and the speaker brought up. I remembered many of the trends, having grown up in the church and being active in ministry for much of the time period they could recall. Each of the items mentioned had been prominent to a greater or lesser degree in evangelical Christian circles, and most had caused some controversy and sparked some debate. There were quite a number of these items mentioned.

It wasn't just the list that struck me, however; it was the fact that all of these trends had died out, None of them had a truly lasting impact on the church or the world. While each had probably done some good, and perhaps helped the church deal with some issues that might never have been covered otherwise, they all have gone away, replaced by the next item on the list. These "spiritual fads" may have felt good or at least different for a time, but they left no lasting imprint for the good of the kingdom of Christ.

I suppose one could add many other items to the list of movements that have disappeared without a trace. You could also add a number of hot topics that have left some residual impact on the church, but which themselves no longer exist. I've been around long enough to have gone through quite a number of church growth fads, and while they have indeed brought some valuable insights and practices into the church, it would be rare to find someone in ministry adopting them in whole now.

I think what we really need to develop in our churches is a "fad-free" Christianity. As a student of church history, I find that the basic elements of evangelism, Christian discipleship, and church growth remain fairly stable. There needs to be an application of these elements to the specific cultural situation in which we find ourselves, but that has always been the case. Paul notes in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 how he adapted to his audiences, and we do the same today. However, the core of our beliefs and practice is the same as it has always been.

I'm not talking about forms here. For example, worship should be done in a way that exalts God, can be done by the entire congregation, engages the spirit, and is theologically and Biblically sound. Whether you do that with a chant, organ, guitar, or voices, the underlying principle is the same. There are some fundamentals that are necessary for the church to remain faithful to its mission as given by Jesus. Maybe the "fads" belong to this realm, the elements that can change without altering the core of belief and practice.

My concern is really for those who simply move from fad to fad uncritically, accepting whatever the latest idea is because its "new" and "fresh" without examining whether or not it is also true and glorifying to God. Staying true to what the Bible teaches and reminding ourselves that we are just a part of a glorious historical and global people of God will be more helpful in the long run than any passing trend.

Through the Bible in a Year-just checking in!

For those of you who, like me, have decided to read through the Bible this year, I just want to give you some encouragement. At this point in your reading, depending on what plan you're following, you've probably gotten through one of the toughest stretches of reading in Leviticus and Numbers. If you made it through, congratulations! Once Moses finishes that loooong sermon in Deuteronomy, you get to start on what I think is one of the most exciting stretches of the Bible-the history of Israel, from the conquest of Canaan to the return from the Exile.

If you're doing OT and NT together, you spend much of the early part of the year with the Gospels. I doubt that I need to encourage you much in reading those books, since the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus is not only the core of our faith, but an amazing, riveting read in its own right.

If you have fallen behind a bit, don't get discouraged and quit! You can catch up by adding a chapter or so a day to your reading, without placing a severe burden on myself. (You don't think I never miss a day, do you? I shouldn't, but it does happen.) The value of reading through the Word of God is worth the effort it takes to keep up with your reading.

So congratulations! You've made it this far, so I'll give you a rousing "Ebenezer!" Keep up the good work, and let God speak to you through His divine Word. If you want to let me know how you're doing, you can comment on Facebook under the post for this blog entry. May the Lord richly bless us all as we allow His Word to transform us throughout this year.

The book of Daniel and a supernatural God

Now that I no longer preach every week, when I do get the chance to preach, I often take my text from the Old Testament. I've always been a bit more OT oriented than my classmates and colleagues. (Maybe it's my Jewish blood-my great-great grandfather was a Jewish convert to Christianity who became a Baptist minister.) This morning I started a short, spread-out series of messages from the book of Daniel.

As part of my study, I read the usual discussion on the historicity of the events in Daniel and the date of its writing. There are a few technical issues that are raised by some scholars, but much of the rejection of the historicity of the book revolves around two major issues: the presence of the miraculous and the uncanny accuracy of the prophetic visions. So the miracle stories are written off as legends (or sometimes fiction), while the prophecies are posited to have been written after the events they predict.

Many scholars have dealt with these issues in far more depth than I can go into here. There is another way to deal with these objections, however. These two issues reveal the philosophical inclinations of the student by the way they begin their investigation into them. While the two positions I note here aren't necessarily the entire spectrum of belief, they do break scholarship into two broad camps.

The skeptical camp, which denies the historicity of Daniel and gives it a late date, finds belief in miracles and prophetic prophecy to be problematic. Both of these lie outside the realm of our normal experience, and because they are not subject to "scientific" study they are rejected out of hand. Given a commitment to a purely natural worldview, the ideas that the stories are legends and the prophecies were composed after the facts are really the only solutions to the problems.

I think this view has a serious theological flaw. I don't deny that some who hold to this position are genuine believers in God.  (I have an evangelical commentary on Daniel on my shelf that takes a view similar to this.) But if I were to have the chance to speak with them, I might ask them what kind of a God they believe in. If God isn't capable of performing miracles or providing visions that accurately address the future, is He really an omnipotent, omniscient God? If He can't save Daniel from a den of lions, how could He raise Jesus from the dead?

I would put myself into the supernatural camp. I believe in a God who can perform miracles, and who clearly sees and can reveal the future. If you accept the premise that God is like this, there's nothing in the book of Daniel that should give you any pause. The events recorded in the book are quite possible, so there is no insurmountable objection to its historicity. (As I noted above, there are a few other issues, but they can be discussed and answered fairly well.) The accuracy of Daniel's visions is also perfectly in line with what God can do.

When you read Daniel, I believe you can have confidence that what you are reading is an accurate account of events that really happened, and that Daniel's visions, while perplexing to him, can be seen as actual predictions of what God planned to do in the future. That doesn't mean that we find them easy to understand or interpret, even after the fact, but that we can be sure that they came the way the book recounts them.

Ebenezer

I recently attended a church music conference. One of the subjects that came up during a seminar was the question of updating archaic language in hymns. Some brought up the updating of archaic usages like "thee" and "thou," while others noted that their denominational hymnals occasionally changed lyrics to match the theology they espoused. There was a spirited discussion as to how far you can go in changing lyrics without doing an injustice to the original intent of the lyricist.

One example brought up came from a different perspective. The questioner asked about the term "Ebenezer" in "Come Thou Fount." This is a bit different, since the changes that are made to this term are designed to bring out a meaning that may not be evident to the singer. The original line is, "Here I raise mine Ebenezer, hither by Thy help I've come." One example of change I have seen is "This my glad commemoration that 'til now I've safely come." The desire of the editor is to make sense of the original line for the modern Christian.

However, I would argue in this case, and in some others, the effort is a failure on two fronts. First, it may be simply catering to the Biblical ignorance of those in the church, when what is needed is further teaching on the Biblical imagery. This issue may be a little more sensitive for me, since I happen to love to teach on the Old Testament. I don' think it's an exaggeration to say that many contemporary Christians are much less conversant with the Old Testament than the New. What we need to do in the church is to use occasions such as the singing of a hymn (or even a worship chorus!) to elevate the Biblical understanding of the congregation.

Once I was on the worship team of a church that wanted to use this hymn for worship. The pastor insisted that before we sing it, we explain the meaning of "Ebenezer" to the congregation so that they understood what they were singing. We did so, and several people commented that they had not understood the line before and appreciated learning what it really meant. This is one way we can use music to advance the teaching ministry of the church (which is another very large topic I won't get into right now).

The second way this effort to rewrite lyrics fails is that often the Biblical imagery is much richer than the modernized lyrics. Take the example I wrote above. While it catches part of the meaning of the phrase, it leaves out some important concepts. The background of the name "Ebenezer" is found in 1 Sanuel 7, where Samuel sets up the "stone of remembrance" (which is what the Hebrew name means). What is he commemorating? Ebenezer is a reminder that the Lord has helped Israel "thus far," following a rousing victory over the Philistines when they attacked during a ceremony of repentance before the Lord. It was to remind Israel that it is only by God's help that they had the victory, and that remaining in a proper relationship to Him was critical to their future. The change made above leaves out the entire idea of arriving safely only through the help of God. (And I double-checked the context of that version; the idea doesn't come up in the next line, which only refers to the future, not the past.) I think that eliminates a very significant point Robert Robinson, the original lyricist, wanted to make.

I'm not opposed to modern editing of hymn lyrics in general. I do think that we need to be careful that we do make every effort to retain the original meaning of the writer, which makes me cautious about changing lyrics for theological reasons. I also believe that we need to let the Biblical imagery of the song speak for itself, and if that means we need to teach people about that meaning then let us teach.

The joys of used books

I own a Nook, and I use it fairly regularly. In fact, for the past three years I've done the bulk of my daily Bible reading on it. It's convenient, and takes up less space than a paper Bible in my briefcase. I also like the ability to carry a small library with me in its memory. I do a lot of my studying on the computer, and I just finished doing some Sunday school preparation using Bible study software. I leave a couple of my Bibles at the church because I don't use them during the week for study.

That said, I'm still more partial to "real" books in general. I"m still a little leery about the permanence of my e-book files. I do have backups and all that, but I guess I'm just a little paranoid. It is true that paper books aren't permanent either (I've lost a number of volumes in basement floods), but there is a sense of ownership you just don't get with an e-book. I like the aesthetics of books-the way they look on the shelf, the feel of a book, the ability to flip easily back and forth. (I know e-books have search features, and in some ways that can be quicker, but there are times when finding a specific location isn't as easy as the PR makes it sound.)

I went to a church  music conference today at my son's school, Cairn University. One of the side pleasures of attending events at the school is visiting the bookstore, which maintains a decent selection of used books. I love to search through the shelves for book on specific subjects,  and occasionally find one on a subject I hadn't thought about but sounds interesting. All of those were true today. I picked up several books on the patristic period, a couple of commentaries, and a book on a subject I hadn't really thought about lately. At the prices I paid, it was a bargain!

Now I have lots of material to read. Not that I didn't before- the number of books on my shelves crying out for reading is pretty staggering. It's just that the trip to the bookstore stocked me up and gave me some incentive to pursue some lines of reading I wasn't engaged in at present.

I like book stores in general, but books do tend to be fairly expensive in general. (I find a lot of e-book bargains, but my biggest disappointment with my Nook is that many more recent books aren't much cheaper than their paper counterparts, and I have nothing but pixels to show for that price.) Used books enable me, and bibliophiles like me, the enhance our collections and our horizons for much less. That's why I enjoy my visits to the used book section, or, when I can find one, a used book store.

I hope you don't mind this little excursus off of Biblical and theological topics. I hope you also can find pleasure in diving in to a good used book, gaining knowledge and enjoyment for a bargain price.

Following when God leads

At the end of Numbers 9, we have a description of the way the Israelites moved through the wilderness under the direction of the Lord. The pillar of fire and cloud served as a visible sign of the presence of God with Israel. It remained over the Tabernacle, which was in the center of the Israelite encampment, and I'm sure it was visible to everyone by day and by night. (Which brings up another question: With such a visible reminder of the Lord's presence, why did Israel so frequently complain, rebel, and sin? Maybe I'll take up that question sometime later.)

The passage tells us that Israel moved when God moved. If the pillar lifter the morning after the encamped, they broke camp and moved on. If it remained for many days, they waited until it lifted to break camp. This is described in verse 20 as following the Lord's command. The travels of Israel were determined by God, and they neither moved while He remained nor stayed when He moved.

This passage triggered an interesting question in my mind. We often speak about moving where the Lord leads us. This is true both of individual Christians and of churches. Our prayers often revolve around asking God to show us where He wants us to go. The "where" may not geographical, but missional, vocational, or theological. These prayers, however, show us a preoccupation with the goal, rather than with how we arrive at that goal.

I have been part of many churches in my life. Some have been thriving, growing churches, while others struggled (and some no longer exist). Some were ministry oriented, while others were survival oriented. Almost all were concerned with what God wanted them to do. Even when God revealed a direction, however, there was often a rush to get to that point no matter what. We are an impatient people  in our culture, and we want to reach the goal as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Maybe sometimes the Lord shows us where He wants us to go, but then asks us to get there by a route He chooses that defies our sense of efficiency. Even had Israel not rebelled when told to enter Canaan, it took them over a year (at least) to arrive at the Jordan after leaving Egypt. In fact, when Israel leaves Egypt, the Bible explicitly states that God did not take them by the quickest route. because of the difficulties along that route (Exodus 13:17-18). The time they spent getting to the Promised Land was crucial to their future existence as a nation and as God's chosen people.

Perhaps you face a decision today, and you're trying to figure out where God wants you to go. I would encourage you to also ask when. I firmly believe the Lord directs our lives and our churches, and He knows where He plans for us to go. But He also arranges the timing, so that when we "arrive" we will be ready for the place to which He has called us. Don't lose sight of the goal, but be ready to move when God moves, and to wait when God stays. The blessing on your "arrival" will be even greater when you leave it all in His hands.

God-sized prayers

Our church began a 30 day prayer emphasis this morning. My pastor preached on the subject, challenging us as individual Christians, families, and as a church to renew and deepen our prayer lives for the next 30 days.

He encouraged us to pray "God-sized prayers." I think this point is well-taken in our culture. We often pray little prayers: help in some circumstance of life, meeting a specific need, changing some small aspect of our character, or divine intervention in some immediate crisis. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of these prayers; we are encouraged in Scripture to bring everything before our Father in prayer. The problem is when that is all we pray about.

I freely admit to struggling with prayer. I am an "ADD pray-er" (probably because I am ADD). I admire, even envy, great prayer warriors like Martin Luther or George Muller. Yet, despite my best efforts, I cannot focus on a single prayer session for long. My mind wanders as various subjects flit through it, brought in sometimes by the very prayers I am praying. I have to conclude my prayers, get up, and come back later to regain that focus. And we all know what can happen when we walk away from a time with the Lord.

With someone like me, the urgent often crowds out the important. I pray for what is immediately on my mind, or for needs that are brought to my attention, but leave out the "routine" prayers for ongoing situations in our world. Maybe you are like that, too. How do we remain focused long enough on what is so critically important in our world when so much draws our attention away?

This is where "God-sized prayers" come in. When I sit down to pray, I want to pray in a way that shows I believe that God is an awesomely powerful God who cares about our world and about me, and who wants to answer prayer to show His power and His love. I want to pray not for what seems to be a manageable task for God, but for what seems from my human perspective to be impossible except for God. I want prayers that stretch the boundaries of faith.

This isn't to say I want to challenge God, to test Him and see if He's up to the challenge. No, I want to challenge myself, and see if I can at least have faith enough to believe God can do amazing things in our world today. Prayer doesn't stretch God, but it does stretch me. I believe one reason so many Christians struggle with faith is that we don't exercise it much. We say we believe in a powerful and loving God who cares about us and our world, but we pray like God is inconvenienced by listening to us and only answers prayers grudgingly. Worse, sometimes we pray like we believe God can't do what we ask.

We don't want to be presumptuous. One of the flaws in the theology of those who preach a prosperity gospel is the teaching that God must give us what we ask for, no matter what it is or what His will for our life is. Jesus reminds us to pray for the Father's will to be done in the Lord's Prayer, and we need to remember that when we pray. Prayer is not a demand session to get what we want, but a communication with our Heavenly Father. We do occasionally pray for things that would not bring Him glory, or even for things that would be destructive to us. Since He is our Father, He knows what we need, and what is best.

With that in mind, though, let's make our prayers bigger. I challenge you to use prayer to stretch yourself. What's a big need in your life? What's a big need in our world? What can't change unless God intervenes? Let those be your prayers. As you you pray, watch, and wait, you will see many prayers answered, but you will also see yourself stretching your faith and growing stronger in your confidence in the Lord.

Leviticus

I began reading through the Bible in a year about 30 years ago. Although there were some years I chose to pursue a different devotional approach, I think I can safely say I've read through over a dozen different translations (some, like the NIV, more than once). While I make no claims at being an expert at reading through the Bible, I think I do have some insight into the discipline it takes to read through God's Word.

When reading through on a "straight through in order" plan, such as I'm following this year, you find a few critical points at which the project may break down. The first of these is usually the book of Leviticus. Sure, there are the genealogy passages in Genesis, and the details of the Tabernacle in Exodus, but Leviticus is where the Old Testament legal system starts to become a bewildering place for many contemporary Christians. Offerings, sacrifices, dietary laws, sanitary laws-it can be a bit of a "wilderness" for us to wander through.

I just started Leviticus in this year's reading, and I must say that over the years the book has grown on me. Partly this is due to my growing love for the OT in general. But a bigger part is the desire each year to examine all of the laws, especially the sacrificial laws, with an eye to the bigger picture they paint about God and our relationship with Him. If you are reading through this book, let me make some suggestions.

First, look at how serious sin is. When an Israelite sinned, even inadvertently, it required a specific offering done in a particular way to atone for that sin. This was true even more so for the priests and leaders of the nation. When we think about the Tabernacle and later the Temple, we think of the beauty and majesty of the furnishings and decoration. Yet I'm guessing that what might have stood out to people who went to those holy places was a smell like a butcher shop, combined with the constant aroma of burnt meat. The contrast between those two sensory experiences would put our position before the Lord in perspective.

Second, look at what sin cost the sinner. The one who offended had to take one of the best animals from his flock or herd, or the best of his produce, to make an appropriate offering. Repeated sin was expensive. Perhaps it caused people to think of how much of what they had could be consumed just in trying to pay for their sins. Sin is costly, and later when Jesus paid the price once for all that piece of good news had to strike the average Israelite as unbelievably gracious.

Third, look at how carefully God's people had to live in order to remain in a condition in which they could come into His presence. While many modern scholars look at the sanitary and dietary laws as God's way of keeping His people healthy, they would indeed impose a burden on any person who wanted to remain ritually clean. Purity in God's sight wasn't easy.

All of these help us see just how radical the good news of Jesus Christ was. He truly lifted the burden off the back of people who wanted to remain right with God, and in His mercy removed all of the ritual requirements of the law while making us right with His Father.

So don't let Leviticus get you down. Look at just what we are set free from by Jesus. The narrative will resume soon enough in Numbers, and then it's pretty smooth sailing until the beginning of 1 Chronicles. (Maybe when I get there I'll post some help for that section, too.)

Being a servant

I've been preparing some deacon training materials for my church. Part of that process is going through the passages in the New Testament that discuss, directly or indirectly, the office and ministry of the deacon. Whether you see the Seven as the first deacons as is common, or believe the diaconate arose sometime later, we have clear NT evidence that the office was an integral part of church life and ministry in the early days of the church.

The role of the deacon and its definition varies considerably throughout Christendom. Denominations take a variety of views as to the position and role of the deacon. In some it is essentially a first step in ordained ministry. In others, it is a position of decisive leadership. Still others see deacons as primarily servant-ministers. There isn't even agreement as to whether a deacon should be ordained or not. My own church (and many, if not most Southern Baptist churches) do ordain deacons, but I grew up in a Baptist tradition that did not. (For the record, I am an ordained Southern Baptist deacon as well as an ordained minister.)

As I prepared for the session this week, I came across an intriguing quote from a book I was using: "There are no duties in the Scriptures specifically and exclusive assigned to the deacon." (Naylor, The Baptist Deacon, p.61) The author examined what we know deacons did in the early church, and pointed out that all those duties are assigned to the church and Christians in general.

So why have deacons? As we look at the qualifications for a deacon in the New Testament, what impresses me most is that the chief concern is for character over function. Looking at the selection of the Seven in Acts, as well as 1 Timothy 3:8-13, we see a list that largely consists of elements of personal faith and integrity. What the Spirit called for, and the church sought, was men who were sensitive to His leading, mature in their faith, and of impeccable reputations.

So why have deacons? I believe the chief purpose of the deacon is to be an example of Christian service for the church. This in no way minimizes the ministries deacons do. In whatever way the church calls its deacons to serve, they need to carry out their ministry effectively for the glory of Christ. But the Biblical picture of a deacon is someone who truly lives out the Christian life, and has done so consistently and publicly for some time.

This is contrary to the way some churches choose deacons. I've been a member of churches that look at how successful a man is in his profession, or what skills he might bring to the position. Sadly, I've seen some men elected deacons who lacked the spiritual criteria that the Bible emphasizes. Those men failed to provide solid spiritual leadership, and a few even damaged the churches they were called to serve.

Maybe this should also be a broader lesson for Christians. While it is important to serve the Lord, it is more important to live for Him. Our service should follow our spiritual growth. As we become the people God created us to be, whether we serve in any particular office or not, we will become more effective in ministry, and I believe as we do that we'll see our churches become stronger and grow.

Growing fruit

My pastor just started a study on the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) on Wednesday nights. As part of our study last night, we had table discussions covering several questions he posed. In our discussion, we wrestled with the questions of which fruit of the Spirit do each of us find the hardest to "cultivate," and how can we better grow that fruit in our lives.

My thoughts went out of the book of Galatians to the gospel of John. While seeing the fruit of the Spirit in our lives is a sign of growth as a Christian, we need to know where the fruit comes from. It obviously can't come from ourselves; Paul spends the verses just prior to verses 22-23 examining the fruit of our human nature. Our natural inclination is to grow fruit that is self-serving and self-pleasing, so what the Spirit does to grow His fruit on our lives is not the result of our own strength or effort.

I think that this passage ties into John 15. That is where Jesus speaks of Himself as the vine, and His followers as the branches. We cannot bear the fruit of the Spirit unless we are connected to Jesus and remaining in Him. All of the power needed to see these fruits blossom and grow comes from Him, through the Holy Spirit.

So how do we see the fruit of the Spirit grow in our lives? Remain in Christ. Those are simple words, but often hard to put into practice. To spend the time studying and meditating on the Word and in prayer is often hard for us. Yet when we drift away from our time with the Lord, we often find ourselves missing the love, joy, peace, and other "fruit" we want for our lives. It really comes down to a matter of making our time with Jesus our priority each day.

This is why the world fails to find love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness and self-control. You can read every self-help book ever written, go to a parade of therapists, make all the resolutions you can, or even try pharmaceutical means, but none of them have the power to bring that fruit into your life. Only Jesus can give us these, and only by remaining in Him will we find them growing in our lives.

Want to see more of the fruit of the Spirit in your life? Spend time with Jesus, and you'll see it start to grow.

A New Year's Resolution-not

I normally only make one New Year's resolution a year. It's the same one every year-"I will not make any New Year's resolutions." Besides being useful and very easy to keep, I like the paradoxical form it takes. It also spares me the kind of self-examination needed to make a truly meaningful decision to effect a change in my life.

Now don't get me wrong- I'm not opposed to either self-examination or to effecting change in my life. I just don't like to do it based on the accident of the calendar turning over just after winter begins. If I wanted to make changes based on a calendar, I'd probably use the liturgical calendar instead, and make those "resolutions" during either Lent or Advent. (Good thing most Baptist don't observe Lent!) I believe the process of making commitments to change your lifestyle, beliefs, or actions needs a better reason than what time of year it is.

I firmly believe that there are many aspects of my life that could use change. I expect that I will indeed reflect on my life and will make some changes. Like most people, I will succeed at some, and fail at others. But I don't want to simply stagnate and go on pretty much as usual when I see the need for reform in my own life.

For Christians, personal change is about much more than self-fulfillment or feeling better about ourselves. It should be directed to two ends. First, we should want to grow more like Christ, and to live a life that reflects Him in the middle of our desperately needy world. Second, we should seek to find ways to extend the kingdom of Jesus Christ in that world. In 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 Paul reminds the Corinthians, and through them us, that "You are not your own; you were bought at a price." (NIV) Since this is true, I ought to work to make my life one that honors the One who bought me with His own blood.

One change I do intend to make this year coincides with my beginning a new ministry opportunity. I plan to have some regular "office hours" during the week, and one of the things I plan to do is to post to this blog at least once a week. I'll probably be touching on themes I'm teaching during the week, and occasionally on my academic pursuits if I have time to actually pursue them. So I hope you will come along with me for the ride in 2014, and see what the Lord is going to do in each of our lives this year.