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.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
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)
