If Peter is the “rock” upon which the church is built, why is it that Paul wrote most of the New Testament?
I guess this is sort of an odd question because it assumes that the writing of the New Testament is the role of the person on whom the church is built. Peter did write sections of the New Testament, but it’s true that Paul wrote more than Peter, as did John and Luke. In actuality, I don’t believe Paul wrote most of the New Testament. The other books make up more writing than Paul’s works, and although Paul wrote more letters I believe Luke’s writings take up more actual space despite the fact that he only wrote two books.
But I digress. Paul was simply in a better place to write the things that were necessary for the New Testament by virtue of the fact that he was the traveler of the two and did more missionary work. Paul’s letters covered a lot of ground. Peter being a foundation for the church had nothing to do with literature; it had to do with his actions as recorded in the first twelve chapters of the book of Acts. Peter was the preacher at Pentecost in Acts 2, which is the moment that most people believe the church itself was born. Peter then went on to lead the early church as other leaders were brought up in the faith.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
When you lose someone
Here is the beginning of question answering time. If you asked a question at the Q&A a while back, check in with this blog and Harvey’s blog for answers to your questions.
Q – Why does God take the people you love away from you? Is he punishing you?
A – This is an interesting question because it is only asked in cultures like the United States where we are fairly consumed by individualism. The question is focused on the self, when in reality God taking a loved one away from you has more to do with that loved one than it does you. We often think of our circumstances from a fairly selfish perspective when life actually isn’t about us.
There is an instance in Scripture where loved ones were taken from a man and that man was center stage. Job had his entire family taken away from him and the testing of his faith was the issue at hand. But for the most part, when a person is taken away from you (I’m assuming you’re referring to death), then you need to realize it has nothing to do with you and everything to do with God. God does everything for his glory, and the timing of people’s deaths fall in line with God seeking glory for himself.
When you lose someone you love you can’t take it personally. God’s plans include you but are not limited to you; he is doing things so big we could never comprehend them.
Q – Why does God take the people you love away from you? Is he punishing you?
A – This is an interesting question because it is only asked in cultures like the United States where we are fairly consumed by individualism. The question is focused on the self, when in reality God taking a loved one away from you has more to do with that loved one than it does you. We often think of our circumstances from a fairly selfish perspective when life actually isn’t about us.
There is an instance in Scripture where loved ones were taken from a man and that man was center stage. Job had his entire family taken away from him and the testing of his faith was the issue at hand. But for the most part, when a person is taken away from you (I’m assuming you’re referring to death), then you need to realize it has nothing to do with you and everything to do with God. God does everything for his glory, and the timing of people’s deaths fall in line with God seeking glory for himself.
When you lose someone you love you can’t take it personally. God’s plans include you but are not limited to you; he is doing things so big we could never comprehend them.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
New blog flurry coming soon
Wow, have I been horrible about my blogs lately or what. As I did once before, I am going to re-energize this blog with a flurry of blogs. I have tons of questions to answer from the Q&A we had at Stones recently. However, it must wait until I get home from vacation in one week. Next week expect a new blog almost everyday for a while.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Bland Rice
Lately, I have spent a considerable amount of time pouring into the Old Testament. I am loving it. In the spring I took the Pentateuch class at the Bible College, and since then I have been studying post exilic books like Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah. This was much of the basis of my solitude that I wrote about in my last post.
I am writing about it because I feel that I would be remiss if I did not spend time encouraging more people to study the Old Testament. Many people find the Old Testament to be like fried rice. Some restaurants that serve fried rice serve a delectable and moist treat with meat, eggs, vegetables, and even seafood in the rice. Some fried rice is bland and uninteresting. The best fried rice is among the best food ever, I get excited thinking about it. But when fried rice is bad, it’s uneatable.
The Old Testament however, is less hit or miss than people think. When people have a hard time being intrigued by the Old Testament it’s usually because they are too lazy to put the time in to find out what it is really saying – like people who don’t like fried rice because they are too lazy to find the restaurants that prepare it the best. I don’t care if you have to buy commentaries, create Old Testament study groups, or take classes at the Bible College; you have to pour into this spiritual goodness. The best part is – it is only through an understanding of the Old Testament that one can truly understand the New Testament and Christ himself. Without a balanced view into the whole Scripture, your picture will always be incomplete.
I am writing about it because I feel that I would be remiss if I did not spend time encouraging more people to study the Old Testament. Many people find the Old Testament to be like fried rice. Some restaurants that serve fried rice serve a delectable and moist treat with meat, eggs, vegetables, and even seafood in the rice. Some fried rice is bland and uninteresting. The best fried rice is among the best food ever, I get excited thinking about it. But when fried rice is bad, it’s uneatable.
The Old Testament however, is less hit or miss than people think. When people have a hard time being intrigued by the Old Testament it’s usually because they are too lazy to put the time in to find out what it is really saying – like people who don’t like fried rice because they are too lazy to find the restaurants that prepare it the best. I don’t care if you have to buy commentaries, create Old Testament study groups, or take classes at the Bible College; you have to pour into this spiritual goodness. The best part is – it is only through an understanding of the Old Testament that one can truly understand the New Testament and Christ himself. Without a balanced view into the whole Scripture, your picture will always be incomplete.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Solitude
Three friends of mine and I just got back from a four day trip to the middle of nowhere. We drove out Monday morning and came home last night, spending our time camping, resting in the joy of the Lord, and reading the Scriptures. On this trip, we slept on hard ground, went to the bathroom outside behind rocks and under trees, never bathed and rarely changed our clothes. Sounds awful and un-relaxing right?
While I came home with a soar back and greasy hair, I also came home rejuvenated for the next season of ministry. I came home with a new and channeled insight into the Word of God, and I think a more sanctified heart and mind. On this trip, my friends and I studied the book of Nehemiah, as well as the often debated theme of mission and evangelism in the Old Testament. Our findings were profound, but that is a topic for another post.
Solitude is a must for any Christian. The reason why we haven’t learned to connect with Yahweh or study our Bible properly is because we seldom (if ever) get alone with God and seek his face on the Scripture. I don’t mean an hour in your quiet time, I mean for hours in a day or series of days. While on our trip, we studied the word of God for 7-8 hours a day for four strait days. It was invigorating.
God showed me some amazing things on this trip. Not just about Scripture, but about creation and about my own sin. I got real with God and he got real with me, he spoke to me. Plan time to get away to be with the Savior, even if its not in the middle of nowhere like where we went, just get away. Be intentional about your time with God, and he will be intentional with you. This week was another of the many moments where God touched me in a special way and changed my life.
Thank you Father.
While I came home with a soar back and greasy hair, I also came home rejuvenated for the next season of ministry. I came home with a new and channeled insight into the Word of God, and I think a more sanctified heart and mind. On this trip, my friends and I studied the book of Nehemiah, as well as the often debated theme of mission and evangelism in the Old Testament. Our findings were profound, but that is a topic for another post.
Solitude is a must for any Christian. The reason why we haven’t learned to connect with Yahweh or study our Bible properly is because we seldom (if ever) get alone with God and seek his face on the Scripture. I don’t mean an hour in your quiet time, I mean for hours in a day or series of days. While on our trip, we studied the word of God for 7-8 hours a day for four strait days. It was invigorating.
God showed me some amazing things on this trip. Not just about Scripture, but about creation and about my own sin. I got real with God and he got real with me, he spoke to me. Plan time to get away to be with the Savior, even if its not in the middle of nowhere like where we went, just get away. Be intentional about your time with God, and he will be intentional with you. This week was another of the many moments where God touched me in a special way and changed my life.
Thank you Father.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
The demands of society
Can Morality survive in an age of consumerism?
This is a question being asked by philosophers today, and I believe it is the right question. When philosophical circles began posing this question, it quickly hit me as one of the most important questions of the last forty years. The United States and other like-minded countries are more consumer driven than ever, but as with most things, I don’t believe people ever stop to reflect on the ethical consequences of their life-styles. This is because philosophy isn’t practical enough. While the common man toils away in this life doing common things and assuming that life is in the status quo, the intellectuals who know that the rest of us are killing ourselves with our poor decisions are on high eating ambrosia while sitting on their golden toilets that sing to them as they…ya know. All the while, they are writing books on the most important challenges facing our world, but writing them in such a way that no one will read them except other intellectuals who already recognize the problem. All this serves to do is help smart and informed people affirm to one another how smart and informed they all are, while leaving out 95% of the population in the process. Even if the intellectuals put their heads together to find a consensus in the solution to this problem that only they know about, their solutions end up in the same books read by the same people. While the informed sit about, smiling and toasting themselves at dinner parties because they have solved the world’s problems, the rest of society wouldn’t (and couldn’t) be the wiser.
So then… what about our question from above? Consumers run about all day sucking in everything they can at the least possible cost or sacrifice to themselves, completely oblivious to the fact that they are compromising their character along the way. Integrity, nobility, loyalty, and honor are becoming things of the past because society has gone the way of the consumer. Reporters are trapped in an endless pit of reporting only the negative aspects of their beat, whether in sports, entertainment, or their own neighborhoods—because such reporting is lucrative. The most successful reality shows on television are the ones with the most sex and drama, and television today would be unrecognizable to anyone that has been dead 30 years or more. Why has the debauched become such a big seller, and why have formerly noble aspects of society either been corrupted or gone the way of the dodo? One word: “demand”.
Demand is that word that economists love and loathe at the same time. Demand is what makes the world go around. If the general populous wants something, enterprise will have no choice but to supply it or drown. The world can be a very sink or swim place. Because people demand the things that are generally immoral, suppliers are throwing their principles out of the window to cash in. Unfortunately, the problem is so old now that the sons and daughters of the people on the front-lines of compromise are being raised without this old code—this former sense of morality—because their fathers and mothers left it behind so long ago that it’s barely detectable anymore.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating prudishness. I watch Rated-R movies and see some great benefits in society sort of “relaxing” a bit from its former need for perfection and censorship. But at the same time, I often fantasize about the days when my parents were kids and they could turn on the television to family-oriented shows rather than MTV’s The Real World in Chattanooga (…or wherever they might go next. I think they are running out of earth for that show, so maybe we’ll see Real World: Uranus sometime soon). Why do want to watch people have sex, cheat by having sex with someone else, then hate each other with a passion while living with the pain of betrayal. The answer is simple—sin. Because we have sin, we like to watch other people have it too—and because there is a demand for sin from the consumers and because we live in a consumer driven world—morality gets the backseat or sometimes pushed out of the car entirely.
I’m not looking to be un-American here; I’m not trying to rid the world of capitalism. I’m just crazy enough to want my capitalism with a heavy dose of conscience and character. When consumers are the conscience of our nation, then morality has a hard time surviving. In the end, it can’t survive. This is why moralism doesn’t work and why the Bible rejects moralism so emphatically. Moralism is a philosophy that says that morality is the goal of human life. Intrinsic within this philosophy is that man can accomplish his own sense of morality. The reality however is that humans left to their own morals and no authority or rescue from themselves will always fail to do what is best for society. Because of this, people need the Spirit of God as their conscience and guide. This is also why we can never make the mistake of allowing consumerism into the church. So the next time you find yourself in a church service thinking, “I don’t like the way we do that”, remember one thing: the church isn’t here to meet your demands.
This is a question being asked by philosophers today, and I believe it is the right question. When philosophical circles began posing this question, it quickly hit me as one of the most important questions of the last forty years. The United States and other like-minded countries are more consumer driven than ever, but as with most things, I don’t believe people ever stop to reflect on the ethical consequences of their life-styles. This is because philosophy isn’t practical enough. While the common man toils away in this life doing common things and assuming that life is in the status quo, the intellectuals who know that the rest of us are killing ourselves with our poor decisions are on high eating ambrosia while sitting on their golden toilets that sing to them as they…ya know. All the while, they are writing books on the most important challenges facing our world, but writing them in such a way that no one will read them except other intellectuals who already recognize the problem. All this serves to do is help smart and informed people affirm to one another how smart and informed they all are, while leaving out 95% of the population in the process. Even if the intellectuals put their heads together to find a consensus in the solution to this problem that only they know about, their solutions end up in the same books read by the same people. While the informed sit about, smiling and toasting themselves at dinner parties because they have solved the world’s problems, the rest of society wouldn’t (and couldn’t) be the wiser.
So then… what about our question from above? Consumers run about all day sucking in everything they can at the least possible cost or sacrifice to themselves, completely oblivious to the fact that they are compromising their character along the way. Integrity, nobility, loyalty, and honor are becoming things of the past because society has gone the way of the consumer. Reporters are trapped in an endless pit of reporting only the negative aspects of their beat, whether in sports, entertainment, or their own neighborhoods—because such reporting is lucrative. The most successful reality shows on television are the ones with the most sex and drama, and television today would be unrecognizable to anyone that has been dead 30 years or more. Why has the debauched become such a big seller, and why have formerly noble aspects of society either been corrupted or gone the way of the dodo? One word: “demand”.
Demand is that word that economists love and loathe at the same time. Demand is what makes the world go around. If the general populous wants something, enterprise will have no choice but to supply it or drown. The world can be a very sink or swim place. Because people demand the things that are generally immoral, suppliers are throwing their principles out of the window to cash in. Unfortunately, the problem is so old now that the sons and daughters of the people on the front-lines of compromise are being raised without this old code—this former sense of morality—because their fathers and mothers left it behind so long ago that it’s barely detectable anymore.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating prudishness. I watch Rated-R movies and see some great benefits in society sort of “relaxing” a bit from its former need for perfection and censorship. But at the same time, I often fantasize about the days when my parents were kids and they could turn on the television to family-oriented shows rather than MTV’s The Real World in Chattanooga (…or wherever they might go next. I think they are running out of earth for that show, so maybe we’ll see Real World: Uranus sometime soon). Why do want to watch people have sex, cheat by having sex with someone else, then hate each other with a passion while living with the pain of betrayal. The answer is simple—sin. Because we have sin, we like to watch other people have it too—and because there is a demand for sin from the consumers and because we live in a consumer driven world—morality gets the backseat or sometimes pushed out of the car entirely.
I’m not looking to be un-American here; I’m not trying to rid the world of capitalism. I’m just crazy enough to want my capitalism with a heavy dose of conscience and character. When consumers are the conscience of our nation, then morality has a hard time surviving. In the end, it can’t survive. This is why moralism doesn’t work and why the Bible rejects moralism so emphatically. Moralism is a philosophy that says that morality is the goal of human life. Intrinsic within this philosophy is that man can accomplish his own sense of morality. The reality however is that humans left to their own morals and no authority or rescue from themselves will always fail to do what is best for society. Because of this, people need the Spirit of God as their conscience and guide. This is also why we can never make the mistake of allowing consumerism into the church. So the next time you find yourself in a church service thinking, “I don’t like the way we do that”, remember one thing: the church isn’t here to meet your demands.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Generosity
A question recently sent in at Living Stones asks, “When is it wrong to spend money on things you don’t need?”
Always.
Just kidding.
Seriously, I spend money on myself all the time and I don’t feel guilty one bit. Sometimes I take that too far though and the Holy Spirit whispers, “Hey, what are you doing?” Essentially what we see in Scripture is a call on the life of the believer to live a life characterized by consistent generosity. Enjoying life through the blessings that God provides is not wrong in and of itself, but when your enjoyment comes at the expense of helping other people when you have abundance but they have a need, then you are flat out in sin. Period.
Generosity is required of you by your God if you follow Jesus. If you are a squanderer, believe it or not but the Scripture says that God removes his blessing from your life (Malachi 3). To seek what God expects from you read passages like Matthew 25, and 2 Corinthians 8 and 9. These are great passages on generosity and how we should use our resources to further God’s Kingdom rather than hold things back out of fear or selfishness.
Always.
Just kidding.
Seriously, I spend money on myself all the time and I don’t feel guilty one bit. Sometimes I take that too far though and the Holy Spirit whispers, “Hey, what are you doing?” Essentially what we see in Scripture is a call on the life of the believer to live a life characterized by consistent generosity. Enjoying life through the blessings that God provides is not wrong in and of itself, but when your enjoyment comes at the expense of helping other people when you have abundance but they have a need, then you are flat out in sin. Period.
Generosity is required of you by your God if you follow Jesus. If you are a squanderer, believe it or not but the Scripture says that God removes his blessing from your life (Malachi 3). To seek what God expects from you read passages like Matthew 25, and 2 Corinthians 8 and 9. These are great passages on generosity and how we should use our resources to further God’s Kingdom rather than hold things back out of fear or selfishness.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
The Nazarite Vow
A question recently asked at Living Stones reads, “Is there a practical reason for not eating grapes in the Nazarite Vow in the Old Testament?”
The Nazarite Vow is described by Moses in Numbers chapter 6. Essentially, the vow would be taken by an Israelite for the purpose of connecting to God during a certain period of time. During this time a person would deal with sin issues or apathy and build on their relationship with God.
During the vow, one of the things that a person would give up was wine and any other grape product. The purpose of the vow was to give up practical things that people experienced as a part of everyday life, things that were seen as normally being blessings from God. Grapes and wine were things enjoyed by Israelites daily and were considered blessings, so they were among the things given up.
The Nazarite Vow is described by Moses in Numbers chapter 6. Essentially, the vow would be taken by an Israelite for the purpose of connecting to God during a certain period of time. During this time a person would deal with sin issues or apathy and build on their relationship with God.
During the vow, one of the things that a person would give up was wine and any other grape product. The purpose of the vow was to give up practical things that people experienced as a part of everyday life, things that were seen as normally being blessings from God. Grapes and wine were things enjoyed by Israelites daily and were considered blessings, so they were among the things given up.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
So you want to be a leader?
A question we received at Living Stones reads, “What are your qualifications for a leader at Living Stones?”
That depends on the level of leadership you aspire to.
At Living Stones we have three basic levels of leaders, the highest form of leadership is the Shepherd Team, then we have a deacon team, and thirdly we have a team of small group leaders. Many small group leaders are deacons and Shepherd Team members.
We strictly follow the guidelines for leaders found in Scripture. To be a member of the Shepherd Team a person must fit the qualifications found in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. To be a deacon or small group leader a person must fit the qualifications found in 1 Timothy 3:8-13.
Essentially we follow these guidelines, test a person to see how willing they are to serve, and check to see if they are an advocate for the church which includes attendance at communions and baptisms. If a person has strong character and serves faithfully in the ministry for an extended period of time, and if that person is willing to lead and take on the burden and responsibility, then they are brought into leadership in some form.
That depends on the level of leadership you aspire to.
At Living Stones we have three basic levels of leaders, the highest form of leadership is the Shepherd Team, then we have a deacon team, and thirdly we have a team of small group leaders. Many small group leaders are deacons and Shepherd Team members.
We strictly follow the guidelines for leaders found in Scripture. To be a member of the Shepherd Team a person must fit the qualifications found in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. To be a deacon or small group leader a person must fit the qualifications found in 1 Timothy 3:8-13.
Essentially we follow these guidelines, test a person to see how willing they are to serve, and check to see if they are an advocate for the church which includes attendance at communions and baptisms. If a person has strong character and serves faithfully in the ministry for an extended period of time, and if that person is willing to lead and take on the burden and responsibility, then they are brought into leadership in some form.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Think more to love more
A question we received on a comment card at Living Stones a while back asked the following, “Do you believe it is the duty of Christians to understand the apologetics of the faith in addition to the Scriptures?”
First of all, you said duty.
And the answer is yes, absolutely, unequivocally, positively, without a doubt it is our responsibility. And not just for some, but for every Christian.
For those that are unaware of what apologetics is, allow me to define it; apologetics is essentially the art of defending the Christian faith. The question is obviously asking about apologetics in forms other than biblical ones, because some apologetics are found in the Scripture themselves. 1 Peter 3:15 tells us to always be “prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you”. This verse is telling us to be prepared to answer the questions of the skeptics. On Mars Hill in Acts 17, Paul quoted pagan poets to prove a point about Jesus.
The only way to truly be ready to answer any question is to study in a broad range of topics. I spend almost as much time studying philosophy and science as I do theology, because my theology will only be taken seriously by the non-believer if they can see that I understand the world outside of the Scriptures enough to point people to the truth. All truth is God’s truth, not just the truth found in Scripture. Scripture is certainly the only concrete, trustworthy, authoritative, and verifiable truth, but God’s truth is everywhere. You can’t go to the Bible to learn that 2+2=4, but God designed mathematical truth.
Sometimes using the truths of science and philosophy and showing their consistency with Scripture is the only way to get a skeptic to see you as a ‘thinking person’ as opposed to a ‘closed-minded fundamentalist’. Most skeptics’ questions won’t have to do with Scripture—they will ask questions about epistemology, science, or metaphysics. If we say, “I don’t know what those are but I know God loves you”, then we lose any effectiveness in evangelism and we disobey the command in Scripture to love God with our entire mind. We are called to be wise in how we approach non-believers (Colossians 4) and engage people in any way we can with the truth without falling into sin ourselves. Anyone who tells you that studying the intellectual disciplines outside of Scripture is sin hasn’t read the Scripture.
This is a call, and we all have a responsibility to it—but most of us just ignore it because we think it’s harder than it actually is.
First of all, you said duty.
And the answer is yes, absolutely, unequivocally, positively, without a doubt it is our responsibility. And not just for some, but for every Christian.
For those that are unaware of what apologetics is, allow me to define it; apologetics is essentially the art of defending the Christian faith. The question is obviously asking about apologetics in forms other than biblical ones, because some apologetics are found in the Scripture themselves. 1 Peter 3:15 tells us to always be “prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you”. This verse is telling us to be prepared to answer the questions of the skeptics. On Mars Hill in Acts 17, Paul quoted pagan poets to prove a point about Jesus.
The only way to truly be ready to answer any question is to study in a broad range of topics. I spend almost as much time studying philosophy and science as I do theology, because my theology will only be taken seriously by the non-believer if they can see that I understand the world outside of the Scriptures enough to point people to the truth. All truth is God’s truth, not just the truth found in Scripture. Scripture is certainly the only concrete, trustworthy, authoritative, and verifiable truth, but God’s truth is everywhere. You can’t go to the Bible to learn that 2+2=4, but God designed mathematical truth.
Sometimes using the truths of science and philosophy and showing their consistency with Scripture is the only way to get a skeptic to see you as a ‘thinking person’ as opposed to a ‘closed-minded fundamentalist’. Most skeptics’ questions won’t have to do with Scripture—they will ask questions about epistemology, science, or metaphysics. If we say, “I don’t know what those are but I know God loves you”, then we lose any effectiveness in evangelism and we disobey the command in Scripture to love God with our entire mind. We are called to be wise in how we approach non-believers (Colossians 4) and engage people in any way we can with the truth without falling into sin ourselves. Anyone who tells you that studying the intellectual disciplines outside of Scripture is sin hasn’t read the Scripture.
This is a call, and we all have a responsibility to it—but most of us just ignore it because we think it’s harder than it actually is.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Just a theory
Here is a FAQ here at Living Stones – “How do we maintain our faith with mounting scientific evidence of our origins from evolution?”
My answer is easy – show me the evidence.
I was recently accused of being a “narrow minded, ignorant, religious zealot” for stating that there really isn’t any truly compelling evidence that points to evolution. The person told me that I was blinded by a desire for God and that I was ignoring the truth that science was producing. I challenged that person on some things and less than an hour later I had this person completely dumbfounded and struck by the realization that he could not produce a single bit of truly concrete evidence that pointed towards evolution.
It just doesn’t exist.
The theory of evolution isn’t held by idiots. Intelligent people interpreted their observations and created a theory that might lead to something more substantial. More than a century later the evidence that all evolutionists agree needs to be produced has yet to be. The fossil record has produced interesting points of study, but has yet to produce anything that proves that any creature has ever evolved from one phyla of living thing to another. In fact, many former evolutionists have recently jumped ship so to speak, leaving their theory to be defended not by objective thinkers but by scientific fundamentalists.
For me, holding to the faith is easy because God has proven himself while evolutionists have not.
My answer is easy – show me the evidence.
I was recently accused of being a “narrow minded, ignorant, religious zealot” for stating that there really isn’t any truly compelling evidence that points to evolution. The person told me that I was blinded by a desire for God and that I was ignoring the truth that science was producing. I challenged that person on some things and less than an hour later I had this person completely dumbfounded and struck by the realization that he could not produce a single bit of truly concrete evidence that pointed towards evolution.
It just doesn’t exist.
The theory of evolution isn’t held by idiots. Intelligent people interpreted their observations and created a theory that might lead to something more substantial. More than a century later the evidence that all evolutionists agree needs to be produced has yet to be. The fossil record has produced interesting points of study, but has yet to produce anything that proves that any creature has ever evolved from one phyla of living thing to another. In fact, many former evolutionists have recently jumped ship so to speak, leaving their theory to be defended not by objective thinkers but by scientific fundamentalists.
For me, holding to the faith is easy because God has proven himself while evolutionists have not.
Monday, June 2, 2008
The meaning of meaning
Have you ever thought about ‘meaning’? What is meaning? How does a person properly communicate meaning and does meaning mean anything?
Lost yet?
Stay with me, because this is important. Consider the phrase “God is good”. What does that mean? The phrase—standing by itself—could mean many things; but much more needs to be known about the phrase before it has any real meaning. If a Hindu or Muslim used this phrase, it would mean something entirely different that if a Christian said it. A Hindu could be referring to any number of things as God, and a Muslim would be referring to Allah, while a Christian would obviously be referring to Yahweh who is the God of the Bible. Without any background, a Christian might hear this phrase on television or see it in a magazine and think, “Amen, of course he is good.” Then, when that Christian turns off the TV or closes the magazine he or she is reading, he/she may be shocked to realize that he/she is reading a new age magazine who’s god is—well—everything.
For any sentence, phrase, or proposition to carry meaning it needs these integral ingredients. First of all, the words in the proposition need to have a ‘sense’. What is meant by sense is that the words in the sentence can be understood in and of themselves. We need to understand the meanings of the words ‘God’ and ‘good’ to understand that God is good. Second, we need to understand the ‘referent’ of the proposition. In our phrase God is good, we need to know which God is being referred to and what is meant by the word good when it is used as a description of God. Third, we need an ‘assertion’. The assertion is basically the intent behind the phrase, and the assertion can only be understood if we know things about the person asserting the phrase. Who is the person? What are that person’s beliefs? Who is their god and what do they believe goodness to be? Why are they using that particular proposition at this particular time?
Thinking through anything you hear and read with these guidelines is more important than you may think. The reason statements in the media and verses in the Bible are so easily taken out of context and misunderstood is because people do not discipline themselves in their communication to discover true and genuine meaning. All statements have what philosophers call a ‘truth value’. A statement is either true or false, but unless people look into the sense, referent, and assertion of a phrase upon hearing or reading it, a person will be inclined to believe anything that sounds good or tickles the ear, which is something the Scripture strictly warns us about (1 Tim 4:3).
Many philosophers agree that it is not just understanding a proposition that is crucial for the individual, but relaying them is important as well. Imagine if I were to approach you and tell you that God is good. Even if you understand the sense of the word ‘God’ and you know what the word ‘good’ means, and even if you know that I claim to be a follower of Jesus and that he is the God that I am referring to, you have to look at my life and behavior to determine what I mean by the phrase, which would be seeking out the assertion of the proposition. If I drink too much, ignore my children, sleep around with multiple women, and only attend church once or twice a month, what are you going to think I mean when I say that God is good? You might think I mean that I like God and think he is good because he lets me get away with living like an idiot. Then you may think that this is what all Christians mean when they say that God is good, and if that’s the only picture you have of the goodness of the God of the Bible, you have an incorrect picture.
What’s the point of all of this? Meaning matters. If you are lazy in searching for the real meaning and truth value of things you read and hear, you will be led away from truth more often than you realize. If you do not live consistent with what you claim to believe, no one will properly grasp anything you are attempting to communicate. God deserves more from us than our laziness, don’t you agree?
Lost yet?
Stay with me, because this is important. Consider the phrase “God is good”. What does that mean? The phrase—standing by itself—could mean many things; but much more needs to be known about the phrase before it has any real meaning. If a Hindu or Muslim used this phrase, it would mean something entirely different that if a Christian said it. A Hindu could be referring to any number of things as God, and a Muslim would be referring to Allah, while a Christian would obviously be referring to Yahweh who is the God of the Bible. Without any background, a Christian might hear this phrase on television or see it in a magazine and think, “Amen, of course he is good.” Then, when that Christian turns off the TV or closes the magazine he or she is reading, he/she may be shocked to realize that he/she is reading a new age magazine who’s god is—well—everything.
For any sentence, phrase, or proposition to carry meaning it needs these integral ingredients. First of all, the words in the proposition need to have a ‘sense’. What is meant by sense is that the words in the sentence can be understood in and of themselves. We need to understand the meanings of the words ‘God’ and ‘good’ to understand that God is good. Second, we need to understand the ‘referent’ of the proposition. In our phrase God is good, we need to know which God is being referred to and what is meant by the word good when it is used as a description of God. Third, we need an ‘assertion’. The assertion is basically the intent behind the phrase, and the assertion can only be understood if we know things about the person asserting the phrase. Who is the person? What are that person’s beliefs? Who is their god and what do they believe goodness to be? Why are they using that particular proposition at this particular time?
Thinking through anything you hear and read with these guidelines is more important than you may think. The reason statements in the media and verses in the Bible are so easily taken out of context and misunderstood is because people do not discipline themselves in their communication to discover true and genuine meaning. All statements have what philosophers call a ‘truth value’. A statement is either true or false, but unless people look into the sense, referent, and assertion of a phrase upon hearing or reading it, a person will be inclined to believe anything that sounds good or tickles the ear, which is something the Scripture strictly warns us about (1 Tim 4:3).
Many philosophers agree that it is not just understanding a proposition that is crucial for the individual, but relaying them is important as well. Imagine if I were to approach you and tell you that God is good. Even if you understand the sense of the word ‘God’ and you know what the word ‘good’ means, and even if you know that I claim to be a follower of Jesus and that he is the God that I am referring to, you have to look at my life and behavior to determine what I mean by the phrase, which would be seeking out the assertion of the proposition. If I drink too much, ignore my children, sleep around with multiple women, and only attend church once or twice a month, what are you going to think I mean when I say that God is good? You might think I mean that I like God and think he is good because he lets me get away with living like an idiot. Then you may think that this is what all Christians mean when they say that God is good, and if that’s the only picture you have of the goodness of the God of the Bible, you have an incorrect picture.
What’s the point of all of this? Meaning matters. If you are lazy in searching for the real meaning and truth value of things you read and hear, you will be led away from truth more often than you realize. If you do not live consistent with what you claim to believe, no one will properly grasp anything you are attempting to communicate. God deserves more from us than our laziness, don’t you agree?
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Its been a while
Hello readers,
It has been nearly two months since my last post. Part of this was because I was re-evaluating my approach to writting, and I wanted to make sure that I was going to be able to write engaging things that would provoke thought and challenge people. I didnt want to write for the sake of writing.
The other part had to do with a crazy season for me where I felt like there were no spare minutes in a day - blogging was the thing that had to give.
Im back with a considerable amount of things to discuss, and I imagine I will be posting multiple times a week from this point forward, so please check back. I will be taking a break from June 7th - 14th because I am speaking at Grace Church's high school camp all week, but aside from this there will really be no more interuptions.
Please post responses to what you read, I would love to hear your thoughts.
It has been nearly two months since my last post. Part of this was because I was re-evaluating my approach to writting, and I wanted to make sure that I was going to be able to write engaging things that would provoke thought and challenge people. I didnt want to write for the sake of writing.
The other part had to do with a crazy season for me where I felt like there were no spare minutes in a day - blogging was the thing that had to give.
Im back with a considerable amount of things to discuss, and I imagine I will be posting multiple times a week from this point forward, so please check back. I will be taking a break from June 7th - 14th because I am speaking at Grace Church's high school camp all week, but aside from this there will really be no more interuptions.
Please post responses to what you read, I would love to hear your thoughts.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Book Recommendations
In light of my last post I have been asked to recommend some things to read. Here are a few things that I’ve read recently and been deeply effected by…
Humility by Andrew Murray
Love Your God with All Your Mind by J.P. Moreland
Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life by Donald S. Whitney
This Beautiful Mess by Rick McKinley
The Word of God and the Mind of Man by Ronald Nash
The Universe Next Door by James W. Sire
The second, fifth, and sixth books on this list are fairly tough reads, but the others are light reading with major impact. If you’re looking for a good read in the fiction genre I strongly recommend a novel called The Kite Runner.
Humility by Andrew Murray
Love Your God with All Your Mind by J.P. Moreland
Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life by Donald S. Whitney
This Beautiful Mess by Rick McKinley
The Word of God and the Mind of Man by Ronald Nash
The Universe Next Door by James W. Sire
The second, fifth, and sixth books on this list are fairly tough reads, but the others are light reading with major impact. If you’re looking for a good read in the fiction genre I strongly recommend a novel called The Kite Runner.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Leaders and Readers
I once heard it said that “leaders and readers are usually the same people.” I have to say, I couldn’t agree more.
I struggle quite a bit when I hear people in leadership, or aspiring leaders say things like, “I’m just not a big reader.” Reading isn’t about personality, talent, gifting, or some genetic makeup set aside for a select group. Reading is a discipline. Especially in Christianity, most of the people I run into at conferences throughout the country who are doing big things in the Kingdom of God say they spend a lot of time reading the Bible and many, many other things.
Disciplines aren’t meant to be easy. It’s difficult to find time to read and if we aren’t naturally inclined to read then getting good at reading takes practice. What people usually fail to realize is that with practice reading is just like anything else—you improve over time. The things you read become more understandable and you can move onto more difficult reading; usually, people pick up speed the more often they read as well.
Most of the leaders at Living Stones are required to read. This isn’t us being legalistic (at least we don’t think so), this is us training leaders. Most of the growth I’ve gone through in my walk with God was a result of being changed and effected by something I read. People who ignore great Christian writing are ignoring a great chance to be sanctified by God through some timeless truth told in a new or impactful way.
Remember—leaders and readers are usually the same people.
I struggle quite a bit when I hear people in leadership, or aspiring leaders say things like, “I’m just not a big reader.” Reading isn’t about personality, talent, gifting, or some genetic makeup set aside for a select group. Reading is a discipline. Especially in Christianity, most of the people I run into at conferences throughout the country who are doing big things in the Kingdom of God say they spend a lot of time reading the Bible and many, many other things.
Disciplines aren’t meant to be easy. It’s difficult to find time to read and if we aren’t naturally inclined to read then getting good at reading takes practice. What people usually fail to realize is that with practice reading is just like anything else—you improve over time. The things you read become more understandable and you can move onto more difficult reading; usually, people pick up speed the more often they read as well.
Most of the leaders at Living Stones are required to read. This isn’t us being legalistic (at least we don’t think so), this is us training leaders. Most of the growth I’ve gone through in my walk with God was a result of being changed and effected by something I read. People who ignore great Christian writing are ignoring a great chance to be sanctified by God through some timeless truth told in a new or impactful way.
Remember—leaders and readers are usually the same people.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Faith and the Founding Fathers part 3
If you haven’t read parts 1 and 2 scroll below and read those first.
Part 3….
Although many of the key founders focused on many things that drew them away from Jesus, the question must be asked – Is there anything we can learn from the founders about how to be a better Christian? What should our focus be rather than trying to Christianize America?
I think the “disinterest” of the founders discussed in part 2 is a great place to start. Because the founders cared so deeply for the success of the nation, they found a way to put all biases aside and they evaluated all things according to the greater good. What is the greater good of our church and our faith? How often do we ask ourselves this question as opposed to reacting without reflection to the things happening around us in our churches and in our country? When we don’t like the way the church approaches music, or evangelism, or church discipline, we often grow bitter and frustrated – approaching the church with a critical spirit – rather than evaluating things not based on our preferences but rather on the effectiveness that certain approaches have for others involved. We need to learn to remove our own interests and see how things affect the rest of our community. My belief is that very few of us in our church do this well.
The same goes for our approach to our country. We get all worked up because prayer is not in schools; how much time have we spent evaluating whether or not prayer in schools changes hearts and leads people to Christ? People often correlate prayer in schools with the trends in the nation’s crime rate, but I don’t think Jesus is as interested in the crime rate as he is in regenerated souls. When it comes to genuine faith, numbers show that prayer in schools did little to lead people to the savior but did a great job of alienating people from the truth that was forced down their throats rather than communicated to them with love and grace. It also contributed to a Christian sub-culture in many parts of the country that rose up many uninterested, luke-warm moralists and not many sold out followers of Jesus.
I think the next thing we have to do is deal with the source of our identity. The reason we want to Christianize everything is because we are looking for a security that was secured at the Cross of Jesus. This isn’t a Christian country – deal with it – neither is China and thousands of people experience regeneration there every day. Our identity isn’t in our nation, it’s in our God. I’m not anti-patriotic, I love my country. But I’ve learned to love my country for what it is rather than trying to pretend that it’s something its not. Colossians says that we have been delivered from the domain of darkness and transferred into the Kingdom of the living God. Our ultimate citizenship lies with him—lets be satisfied in that.
Part 3….
Although many of the key founders focused on many things that drew them away from Jesus, the question must be asked – Is there anything we can learn from the founders about how to be a better Christian? What should our focus be rather than trying to Christianize America?
I think the “disinterest” of the founders discussed in part 2 is a great place to start. Because the founders cared so deeply for the success of the nation, they found a way to put all biases aside and they evaluated all things according to the greater good. What is the greater good of our church and our faith? How often do we ask ourselves this question as opposed to reacting without reflection to the things happening around us in our churches and in our country? When we don’t like the way the church approaches music, or evangelism, or church discipline, we often grow bitter and frustrated – approaching the church with a critical spirit – rather than evaluating things not based on our preferences but rather on the effectiveness that certain approaches have for others involved. We need to learn to remove our own interests and see how things affect the rest of our community. My belief is that very few of us in our church do this well.
The same goes for our approach to our country. We get all worked up because prayer is not in schools; how much time have we spent evaluating whether or not prayer in schools changes hearts and leads people to Christ? People often correlate prayer in schools with the trends in the nation’s crime rate, but I don’t think Jesus is as interested in the crime rate as he is in regenerated souls. When it comes to genuine faith, numbers show that prayer in schools did little to lead people to the savior but did a great job of alienating people from the truth that was forced down their throats rather than communicated to them with love and grace. It also contributed to a Christian sub-culture in many parts of the country that rose up many uninterested, luke-warm moralists and not many sold out followers of Jesus.
I think the next thing we have to do is deal with the source of our identity. The reason we want to Christianize everything is because we are looking for a security that was secured at the Cross of Jesus. This isn’t a Christian country – deal with it – neither is China and thousands of people experience regeneration there every day. Our identity isn’t in our nation, it’s in our God. I’m not anti-patriotic, I love my country. But I’ve learned to love my country for what it is rather than trying to pretend that it’s something its not. Colossians says that we have been delivered from the domain of darkness and transferred into the Kingdom of the living God. Our ultimate citizenship lies with him—lets be satisfied in that.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Two guys you should know
Part three of Faith and the Founding Fathers is still coming, but I wanted to take a minute to bring something else to everyone’s attention.
In life, God always raises up a few great leaders for every generation to look to for wisdom, insight, profound biblical teaching, and honest perspective. Two of these great leaders of our time that I feel you all should know about and respect are D.A. Carson and John Piper. If you aren’t familiar with these two, you should become so; if you are familiar but only in part, I encourage you to seek their wisdom to a greater degree.
D.A. Carson is a biblical scholar. I heard one scholar say that he was sort of like the “scholar to other scholars”, a first among equals. I heard another great Bible teacher once say that Carson was the only living scholar that was on par with the scholars of the enlightenment. I have read many of Carson’s books and I would recommend them all. He’s not Jesus or anything, but he knows his stuff.
John Piper is a pastor in Minnesota. He has written dozens of books and each of them have had a profound influence on the leadership of Living Stones. I once heard a great preacher say that Piper was basically the “pastor to other pastors” around the world. His biblical insight and passionate words in his books, as well as his sermons (which can be downloaded online) have helped to shape the way that many pastors here at our church see God and life. His website is www.desiringgod.org.
If you don’t know these guys, get to know them. They have been used by God to change my life.
In life, God always raises up a few great leaders for every generation to look to for wisdom, insight, profound biblical teaching, and honest perspective. Two of these great leaders of our time that I feel you all should know about and respect are D.A. Carson and John Piper. If you aren’t familiar with these two, you should become so; if you are familiar but only in part, I encourage you to seek their wisdom to a greater degree.
D.A. Carson is a biblical scholar. I heard one scholar say that he was sort of like the “scholar to other scholars”, a first among equals. I heard another great Bible teacher once say that Carson was the only living scholar that was on par with the scholars of the enlightenment. I have read many of Carson’s books and I would recommend them all. He’s not Jesus or anything, but he knows his stuff.
John Piper is a pastor in Minnesota. He has written dozens of books and each of them have had a profound influence on the leadership of Living Stones. I once heard a great preacher say that Piper was basically the “pastor to other pastors” around the world. His biblical insight and passionate words in his books, as well as his sermons (which can be downloaded online) have helped to shape the way that many pastors here at our church see God and life. His website is www.desiringgod.org.
If you don’t know these guys, get to know them. They have been used by God to change my life.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Faith and the Founding Fathers part 2
If you have not read part one of Faith and the Founding Fathers, scroll down to read that before reading this one.
Part 2….
Ultimately, true Christianity is not about Christian structure and government, it’s not about prayer in schools or monuments of the 10 commandments in court houses, and it’s not even about morality or church attendance. True Christianity is about abiding in Christ and centering him as the substance of all that a person does. Forcing kids to pray in school or forcing biblical morality on someone isn’t going to save their soul, and in many cases it will only serve to push them away.
The founders may have used the Bible to write the laws of our country, and it’s even true that there were founders who were Christians and that even the non-Christian founders admitted to having a deeply rooted respect for the Word of God; but as was stated in part 1, most of the key players didn’t know God at all. For them, the Bible presented a guideline for laws that seemed to work, and that’s the extent many of the founders went in their interaction with Christ. In fact, the standard for life and relationship set by the founders was anything but Christian. Rather than basing their relationships on love and grace, they based their relationships on status. They weren’t concerned with monetary status or hereditary nobility like the British; the founders were, however, deeply concerned with talent, education, and charisma. Even among the elite there was an elite, there were the leaders and then there were the firsts among equals. There were leaders and then there were what the founders called “gentlemen”.
In the late 18th century being a gentleman wasn’t what it is today. When we think of a gentleman, we think of a nice guy, maybe someone who stands when a lady walks in the room or opens doors for people. For the founders, being a gentleman was what separated you from everyone else, and the qualifications needed for earning such a title in the social structure of that day were extensive. “Gentility”, as they called it, included politeness but certainly wasn’t limited to it. Being a gentleman was a holistic approach to being the best kind of man—the model founder, so to speak—and they lived by this with all the zeal that they could muster. Gentility included things like education, virtue, tolerance, reasonableness, wit, and the ability to be frank, candid, outspoken, opinionated, and sincere without ever crossing the line of being obnoxious. Gentility also included honesty and integrity which was the standard for what made you socially trustworthy and acceptable. Meekness was not admirable, rather than seeing such a thing as humble as many do today, they saw this as a weakness rooted in pride, the sort of pride that would cause a person to hold back from social engagement out of fear rather than better motives.
The standards for gentility in the late 18th century were so strict and elusive that many historians believe that no more than 5% of the colonies’ population at that time was considered to be gentlemanly. Many had the virtue and personality, but not the education, an obstacle only a man as great as the very uneducated George Washington was able to overcome. Men like Aaron Burr had the education but lacked the character. In most cases, the entire package was required. Gentility for the founders was a discipline that they spent their entire lives trying to perfect. They wasted no days; each knew morning brought an opportunity for them to perfect the craft of being better than everyone else.
Surprisingly, the key virtue of gentility in the late 18th century was none of the things listed above; it was actually a characteristic that few today would even recognize because it has been relatively flushed out of our society. The characteristic most cherished by the founders was something that they called “disinterest”. Let’s not confuse disinterest with uninterest. To be uninterested in something is to essentially have no interest, which the founders would frown upon. They believed that all men should be educated and interested in all areas. Disinterest is different; it is the ability to be incredibly interested in all things, but to set aside your own interests for the good of all others. Essentially, disinterest was the founder’s discipline of removing bias for the good of the new nation that they were seeking to create, despite ones feelings and passions, and despite the pain it might cause a gentleman to do so. This played itself out mostly in politics. For a politician in the founder’s day to be successful, he must first retire from all private vocations and pursuits so as not to be biased towards business in his politics. Decisions needed to be made for the good of the people as a whole, not for the good of the voting politicians private inquiries.
You might be sitting there, reading all of this and wondering, “What’s the point?” “Why pose all of these questions?” “What does all of this have to do with me besides trying to convince me that we aren’t a Christian country?” “What about the questions he posed at the end of part one to this post that haven’t been answered?” I’m sorry to do this to you, but wait a couple of days for part three and all of your dreams will come true and your questions will be answered.
Part 2….
Ultimately, true Christianity is not about Christian structure and government, it’s not about prayer in schools or monuments of the 10 commandments in court houses, and it’s not even about morality or church attendance. True Christianity is about abiding in Christ and centering him as the substance of all that a person does. Forcing kids to pray in school or forcing biblical morality on someone isn’t going to save their soul, and in many cases it will only serve to push them away.
The founders may have used the Bible to write the laws of our country, and it’s even true that there were founders who were Christians and that even the non-Christian founders admitted to having a deeply rooted respect for the Word of God; but as was stated in part 1, most of the key players didn’t know God at all. For them, the Bible presented a guideline for laws that seemed to work, and that’s the extent many of the founders went in their interaction with Christ. In fact, the standard for life and relationship set by the founders was anything but Christian. Rather than basing their relationships on love and grace, they based their relationships on status. They weren’t concerned with monetary status or hereditary nobility like the British; the founders were, however, deeply concerned with talent, education, and charisma. Even among the elite there was an elite, there were the leaders and then there were the firsts among equals. There were leaders and then there were what the founders called “gentlemen”.
In the late 18th century being a gentleman wasn’t what it is today. When we think of a gentleman, we think of a nice guy, maybe someone who stands when a lady walks in the room or opens doors for people. For the founders, being a gentleman was what separated you from everyone else, and the qualifications needed for earning such a title in the social structure of that day were extensive. “Gentility”, as they called it, included politeness but certainly wasn’t limited to it. Being a gentleman was a holistic approach to being the best kind of man—the model founder, so to speak—and they lived by this with all the zeal that they could muster. Gentility included things like education, virtue, tolerance, reasonableness, wit, and the ability to be frank, candid, outspoken, opinionated, and sincere without ever crossing the line of being obnoxious. Gentility also included honesty and integrity which was the standard for what made you socially trustworthy and acceptable. Meekness was not admirable, rather than seeing such a thing as humble as many do today, they saw this as a weakness rooted in pride, the sort of pride that would cause a person to hold back from social engagement out of fear rather than better motives.
The standards for gentility in the late 18th century were so strict and elusive that many historians believe that no more than 5% of the colonies’ population at that time was considered to be gentlemanly. Many had the virtue and personality, but not the education, an obstacle only a man as great as the very uneducated George Washington was able to overcome. Men like Aaron Burr had the education but lacked the character. In most cases, the entire package was required. Gentility for the founders was a discipline that they spent their entire lives trying to perfect. They wasted no days; each knew morning brought an opportunity for them to perfect the craft of being better than everyone else.
Surprisingly, the key virtue of gentility in the late 18th century was none of the things listed above; it was actually a characteristic that few today would even recognize because it has been relatively flushed out of our society. The characteristic most cherished by the founders was something that they called “disinterest”. Let’s not confuse disinterest with uninterest. To be uninterested in something is to essentially have no interest, which the founders would frown upon. They believed that all men should be educated and interested in all areas. Disinterest is different; it is the ability to be incredibly interested in all things, but to set aside your own interests for the good of all others. Essentially, disinterest was the founder’s discipline of removing bias for the good of the new nation that they were seeking to create, despite ones feelings and passions, and despite the pain it might cause a gentleman to do so. This played itself out mostly in politics. For a politician in the founder’s day to be successful, he must first retire from all private vocations and pursuits so as not to be biased towards business in his politics. Decisions needed to be made for the good of the people as a whole, not for the good of the voting politicians private inquiries.
You might be sitting there, reading all of this and wondering, “What’s the point?” “Why pose all of these questions?” “What does all of this have to do with me besides trying to convince me that we aren’t a Christian country?” “What about the questions he posed at the end of part one to this post that haven’t been answered?” I’m sorry to do this to you, but wait a couple of days for part three and all of your dreams will come true and your questions will be answered.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Faith and the Founding Fathers
Human beings are born with an inherent desire to know who they are. We have a desire for an identity, and most people search for theirs with such zeal that if they can’t find their identity it often drives them into depression and low self esteem. This is why people build family trees, research their national origins, and ask the oldest members of their family about their own deceased parents and grandparents. Often, connecting to the past is a way for us to find out more about who we are. I, for example, became far more infatuated with beer when I found out how German I was, and I became far more infatuated with green grass, Irish literature and film, and potatoes when I found out how Irish I was. Did I love these things before I engaged in the knowledge of my family’s roots, yes to a degree, but my passion for these things accelerated dramatically when I felt connected to a history of people who embraced these things as a culture. This is really an odd thing—why should my habits change based on a loose connection to old dead people from countries I’ve never been to? How do I even know if my distant relatives from these lands ever engaged in these prototypical cultural dinstinctives? It’s possible that I could be starting a tradition rather than continuing one.
Because I enjoy literature—and because Ireland has produced some of the greatest literature the world has ever known—I like to picture some Irish relative sitting next to a fire, staying out of the rain, eating a potato cake, pounding a beer, and reading a classic novel. If my relatives didn’t engage in such activities I might be disappointed. I have created a revisionist history of my family in my own mind to accommodate my search for identity.
Today is one of my heroes’ birthday. I am an admirer of George Washington, I’ve studied his life and leadership, as well as his thought, and I have spent some time this week meditating on his contributions to our country. Thinking through this habit that most of us have of identifying with our past to define the present, and meditating on the significance of what today is, I felt it appropriate to discuss the American tendency of revising history to feel connected to something bigger than ourselves, to find an identity. I feel strongly that of all of the societies of America, Christians are guiltier of these revisions than any.
I can’t tell you how many paintings I have seen in Christian bookstores of George Washington reading a Bible or standing next to a horse with a Scripture verse under the scene. I can’t tell you how many books I have seen on Christian bookstore shelves around the 4th of July that point out that our country was founded by Bible-believing Christians. Worst of all, I can’t tell you how many Christians I have heard call this country a Christian one, or say that “all of the founders were Christians”, or say specifically that George Washington was a believer. In reality, none of these things are true. In fact, of all of the men commonly regarded as our key founding fathers—Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Burr, Monroe, Paine, and Madison— none of them were followers of Jesus in the Spiritual sense, save Hamilton; and he did not come to Christ until he was on his death bed. Washington was a deist and a mason and believed that the Bible was a simple moral guideline for building legislation and bringing peace, he did not see it as a book that brought forth the words of life. A few of the men listed above were atheist, and one was even hostile towards all religion … especially Christians.
So why are we as Christians so guilty of revising history and creating tall tales of a Christian past that doesn’t exist? I think that this is partly because our country was indeed founded on the principles of the Bible, but being founded on the Bible and being founded on Jesus is not always the same thing. I think the other major reason is because we are searching for an identity. We as Christians want to identify with our founders as deeply as possible so that we can build an identity that involves our dual citizenship, our citizenship in heaven and our citizenship on earth. Because all of America is infatuated with wanting to know what the founding fathers thought of any issue in current debate, if Christians can claim a powerful Christian past then we can attempt to claim a powerful Christian future as well. The problem is that in the process we are putting ideas in the minds of the founders that were never there while they were alive. We are claiming people for the cause of Christianity who themselves never claimed Jesus for the cause of saving their souls. Ultimately the question must be asked, why do we do this to begin with? Is it necessary?
The answer is no—it’s not. China is communist today and has no Christian background, yet they are far more influenced by true Christianity than we are. Why is that? Where should we find our identity? Stay tuned for part two.
Because I enjoy literature—and because Ireland has produced some of the greatest literature the world has ever known—I like to picture some Irish relative sitting next to a fire, staying out of the rain, eating a potato cake, pounding a beer, and reading a classic novel. If my relatives didn’t engage in such activities I might be disappointed. I have created a revisionist history of my family in my own mind to accommodate my search for identity.
Today is one of my heroes’ birthday. I am an admirer of George Washington, I’ve studied his life and leadership, as well as his thought, and I have spent some time this week meditating on his contributions to our country. Thinking through this habit that most of us have of identifying with our past to define the present, and meditating on the significance of what today is, I felt it appropriate to discuss the American tendency of revising history to feel connected to something bigger than ourselves, to find an identity. I feel strongly that of all of the societies of America, Christians are guiltier of these revisions than any.
I can’t tell you how many paintings I have seen in Christian bookstores of George Washington reading a Bible or standing next to a horse with a Scripture verse under the scene. I can’t tell you how many books I have seen on Christian bookstore shelves around the 4th of July that point out that our country was founded by Bible-believing Christians. Worst of all, I can’t tell you how many Christians I have heard call this country a Christian one, or say that “all of the founders were Christians”, or say specifically that George Washington was a believer. In reality, none of these things are true. In fact, of all of the men commonly regarded as our key founding fathers—Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Burr, Monroe, Paine, and Madison— none of them were followers of Jesus in the Spiritual sense, save Hamilton; and he did not come to Christ until he was on his death bed. Washington was a deist and a mason and believed that the Bible was a simple moral guideline for building legislation and bringing peace, he did not see it as a book that brought forth the words of life. A few of the men listed above were atheist, and one was even hostile towards all religion … especially Christians.
So why are we as Christians so guilty of revising history and creating tall tales of a Christian past that doesn’t exist? I think that this is partly because our country was indeed founded on the principles of the Bible, but being founded on the Bible and being founded on Jesus is not always the same thing. I think the other major reason is because we are searching for an identity. We as Christians want to identify with our founders as deeply as possible so that we can build an identity that involves our dual citizenship, our citizenship in heaven and our citizenship on earth. Because all of America is infatuated with wanting to know what the founding fathers thought of any issue in current debate, if Christians can claim a powerful Christian past then we can attempt to claim a powerful Christian future as well. The problem is that in the process we are putting ideas in the minds of the founders that were never there while they were alive. We are claiming people for the cause of Christianity who themselves never claimed Jesus for the cause of saving their souls. Ultimately the question must be asked, why do we do this to begin with? Is it necessary?
The answer is no—it’s not. China is communist today and has no Christian background, yet they are far more influenced by true Christianity than we are. Why is that? Where should we find our identity? Stay tuned for part two.
Friday, February 8, 2008
The whole Jesus - He's not what you think.
Christians are in love with the idea that Jesus is their Savior. We cherish the concept—we tell stories about his saving work including our own testimonies of the day we "got saved", we plead with people to come to Christ as they are and receive Jesus as their "personal Lord and Savior". Too often this recognition of Jesus as Savior remains simply cognitive. For this saving concept to transcend the conceptual and become efficacious in a believers life, Jesus needs to be viewed with a more holistic approach.
Jesus did not simply come to earth in a human suit to be your Savior; he came to be your King and to issue a fuller form of the Kingdom of God than what was in place under the old covenant. Numbers 23:21 declares Yahweh to be the King of his people, which at this point was directed solely at Israel. In the book of 1 Samuel, Israel rejects God’s reign over them and demands a human king. Samuel warns the Israelites that this is a bad idea; why would anyone reject a perfect and good King to take on a fallen and finite one?
Since Israel’s rejection of Yahweh—really since the fall of man in the Garden—human history has been about one thing. American Christians are often arrogant enough to think that it’s about us. Silly us. Human history is about Jesus, not only redeeming the debt of his people because of sin, but restoring the Kingdom to the King. For the Kingdom to be restored the same sin that led Israel to reject the king in the first place had to be dealt with, thus the need for Jesus’ sacrificial death on the Cross.
While on earth, Jesus said things like, “The Kingdom is at hand”, and that the Kingdom was “the purpose for which I have come.” Jesus arrived on earth to reveal a progressive nature and fuller consummation of the Kingdom so that people would not only seek salvation to save their own tails, but so that they would realize that there is a King who deserves to be worshiped, obeyed, and engaged in relationship. Jesus isn’t saving people to pack churches full of hypocrites—he’s saving people to advance a Kingdom that he already reigns over as King.
Would any of you walk through an American mall sporting a shaved head and wearing burlap and sandals? Of course not, because you’re not a post war Japanese monk, such attire would be normal for them but freakish for us. Why is it so easy for us to obey the customs of our American culture, but when it comes time to obey the King in his own Kingdom we either ignore him or symbolically spit in his face by showing no regard for his commands? Jesus’ Kingdom is of another world (John 18), but it also includes this world. The Scriptures say many things about God ruling from sea to sea and owning all things, including humans. Do we want to be guilty of rejecting the King like the Israelites in 1 Samuel? If you think they were foolish, look in the mirror.
Jesus did not simply come to earth in a human suit to be your Savior; he came to be your King and to issue a fuller form of the Kingdom of God than what was in place under the old covenant. Numbers 23:21 declares Yahweh to be the King of his people, which at this point was directed solely at Israel. In the book of 1 Samuel, Israel rejects God’s reign over them and demands a human king. Samuel warns the Israelites that this is a bad idea; why would anyone reject a perfect and good King to take on a fallen and finite one?
Since Israel’s rejection of Yahweh—really since the fall of man in the Garden—human history has been about one thing. American Christians are often arrogant enough to think that it’s about us. Silly us. Human history is about Jesus, not only redeeming the debt of his people because of sin, but restoring the Kingdom to the King. For the Kingdom to be restored the same sin that led Israel to reject the king in the first place had to be dealt with, thus the need for Jesus’ sacrificial death on the Cross.
While on earth, Jesus said things like, “The Kingdom is at hand”, and that the Kingdom was “the purpose for which I have come.” Jesus arrived on earth to reveal a progressive nature and fuller consummation of the Kingdom so that people would not only seek salvation to save their own tails, but so that they would realize that there is a King who deserves to be worshiped, obeyed, and engaged in relationship. Jesus isn’t saving people to pack churches full of hypocrites—he’s saving people to advance a Kingdom that he already reigns over as King.
Would any of you walk through an American mall sporting a shaved head and wearing burlap and sandals? Of course not, because you’re not a post war Japanese monk, such attire would be normal for them but freakish for us. Why is it so easy for us to obey the customs of our American culture, but when it comes time to obey the King in his own Kingdom we either ignore him or symbolically spit in his face by showing no regard for his commands? Jesus’ Kingdom is of another world (John 18), but it also includes this world. The Scriptures say many things about God ruling from sea to sea and owning all things, including humans. Do we want to be guilty of rejecting the King like the Israelites in 1 Samuel? If you think they were foolish, look in the mirror.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
