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.
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Saturday, March 22, 2014
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.
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.
Monday, March 17, 2014
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.
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.
Saturday, March 15, 2014
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
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.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)