Heart, Mind, and Soul

Reflection Upon Lent

2011-03-09T11:48:00.000-08:00

Today begins Lent. For some this is a religious ritual to be performed every year, for others it means absolutely nothing, and for many others, it is an intentional, heart-felt time of reflection upon the cross of Jesus Christ. As followers of Christ, we do not simply toss out 2000 years of church tradition as meaningless in order to embrace a hipper, more relevant type of Christianity. The history of the Christian church, for better or worse, should be instructive and should lead us more fully to the throne of grace. Our Mediator, the one who bled and died for each one of us, should be honored year round, but the Lenten season offers us a rhythm, an extended period of reflection before the celebration of the Resurrection. Yes, we flow within the rhythms and movements of the Spirit, but the Spirit uses tradition. The Spirit uses the community of the faithful throughout the history of time. When we disdain church history and tradition, we also disdain the community of the faithful not realizing that we are a member of the Church universal throughout time, not just in the present moments of life. Perhaps during this Lenten season, we might realize more deeply what it means to be the timeless, eternal Body of Christ. So that we "may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible [we] may attain the resurrection from the dead" (Phil. 3:10-11).

From Paul Tillich's The Courage to Be

2009-12-12T12:53:00.001-08:00

Just as relevant now as it was in the early 1950s:

"The anxiety which . . . is potentially present in every individual becomes general if the accustomed structures of meaning, power, belief, and order disintegrate. These structures, as long as they are in force, keep anxiety bound within a protective system of courage by participation. The individual who participates in the institutions and ways of life of such a system is not liberated from personal anxieties but he has means of overcoming them with well- known methods. In periods of great changes these methods no longer work. Conflicts between the old, which tries to maintain itself, often with new means, and the new, which deprives the old of its intrinsic power, produce anxiety in all directions."

Wendell Berry on "Going Green"

2009-11-29T20:03:00.000-08:00

"Abstraction is the enemy wherever it is found. The abstractions of sustainability can ruin the world just as surely as the abstractions of industrial economics. Local life may be as much endangered by those who would 'save the planet' as by those who would 'conquer the world.' For 'saving the planet' calls for abstract purposes and central powers that cannot know--and thus will destroy--the integrity of local nature and local community. In order to make good ecological sense for the planet, you must make ecological good sense locally. You can't act locally by thining globally" (Berry; Sex, Freedom, Economy, & Community; 23).

My Opening Statement at Skepticon II Debate, Missouri State University on the Question: Does God Exist?

2009-11-25T19:11:00.000-08:00

“Religion must die for mankind to live.” This quote comes from Bill Maher’s concluding soliloquy to his film Religulous. I would fully agree with Maher, but not in the way he intended. In a published series of sermons entitled The Word of God and the Word of Man, 20th century theologian Karl Barth writes, “Religious arrogance permits itself simply everything . . . experience becomes its own enjoyment, its own sufficiency, its own end” (68). He goes on to write, “We long for the righteousness of God, and yet we do not let it enter our lives and our world . . . we know what the one thing needful for us really is, but we set it aside [until] better times—in the meanwhile making ourselves sick with substitutes” (299). In Barth, Maher finds an unlikely partner in the battle against religion. Barth rails against the small-minded religious pursuits of humanity while maintaining a belief in the God who is above all religion.
What we must recognize is that the failures of religion are no more a disproof of God’s existence then the failures of government officials are a disproof of the principles upon which a country like America was founded. Can we disprove the goodness of the principle simply by looking at the failures of those who represent this principle? I would strongly argue that we cannot. The failures of those in religious power including sex scandals, ignorance, and a disgusting lack of humility; the gross justification of war and violence through the invocation of the gods of religion; the deceitfulness of those who would extort money in the name of their god of religion; the apparent contradictions in the words and actions of the religious—these do not disprove the existence of God. They simply prove that humanity is bent toward destroying itself. We only need look around us to determine this.
Is theism the cause of this? Well, there is no doubt that religion has often participated in this self-destruction. However, the thesis that theism is somehow behind all the violence of this world is false and a gross generalization. If we are intellectually honest, we will realize that all of us are religious, whether or not we are theists. Religion is after all, not necessarily associated with theism, but is rather “the beliefs, attitudes, emotions, behavior, etc., constituting a man’s relationship with the powers and principles of the universe” (Funk and Wagnalls). I think of the Cult of Reason established after the dechristianization of France during the French revolution. I think of the religion of communism and a man like Joseph Stalin who was one of the bloodiest despots in modern history terrorizing and killing millions of people. Perhaps religion, in the sense of extreme ideology and a twisted, disgusting lust for power, is the cause of most of the violence in the world; but one should never make the error of equating religion and theism.
So, if we are able to move past our critiques of religion, and move past Feuerbach’s assessment that the question of God is nothing more than a question of anthropology, we just might be able to deal with some of the tough philosophical issues that get at the heart of the matter. I will briefly address two: 1) The foundation of morality, and 2) The human transcendence of biological processes.

1) Can we be good without God? Let me be clear here. This is not the same as asking if those who do not believe in God can live good moral lives—often those who do not believe put the lives of those who do to shame. But this is not a question of belief. This is a question of God’s existence. William Lane Craig writes, “If God exists, then the objectivity of moral values, moral duties, and moral accountability is secured . . . in the absence of God, that is, if God, does not exist, then morality is just a human convention, that is to say, morality is wholly subjective and non-binding. We might act in precisely the same ways that we do in fact act, but in the absence of god, such actions would no longer count as good (or evil), since if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. Thus, we cannot truly be good without God.” We make judgments based upon right and wrong everyday. And we do this independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. This is to say that the Crusades were morally wrong, even though the Christians who carried them out thought they were doing God’s work. This is also to say that the Holocaust was morally reprehensible even though the Nazis who carried it out thought it was good. How can you say that incest or child molestation is objectively wrong? The naturalist argument does not compute. If we are just a biological organism, then morality is culturally relative and one has no more right to say a particular action is wrong than they do to say that 2+2 does not equal 5. Kai Nielsen, an atheist ethicist and extensive writer on the topic of morality, writes, “We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons should not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me . . . Pure practical reason, even with good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.”

2) In the beginning of Civilization and Its Discontents Freud recounts how his friend wrote to him stating that his previous book, The Future of an Illusion, had not appreciated the true source of religions sentiments. “This, he [said], consists in a peculiar feeling, which he himself is never without, which he finds confirmed by many others, and which he may suppose is present to millions of people. It is a feeling which he would like to call a sensation of ‘eternity,’ a feeling as of something limitless, unbounded—as it were, ‘oceanic’” (10-11). Freud, however, never reckons with this friend’s feeling. Freud simply responds that science cannot easily deal with such a feeling. And he is correct.
But this statement and this refusal to engage seems to ignore the history that tells us of how many people experienced this same feeling and longing. Our eternal, transcendent nature seems to be apparent in so many things. The artist who says that she must make art. It is simply in her. Not because she is trying to survive, not because she is trying to make a living, but simply because she can do nothing but make art. It is her eternal, transcendent nature expressing itself. Why did men and women make cave paintings that date back to almost 32,000 years ago? What is this compulsion? What about those who have chosen to die for the love of another? How is this inline with the idea that we are nothing more than a biological organism? I would argue that our makeup is inherently transcendent and eternal because we were made by and in the image of a Creator.

In conclusion, I would like to offer some reflections on faith. Maher states in his film, “the only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is . . . doubt.” I would fully agree. But I would take that conclusion further by proposing that faith is the logical conclusion of doubt. And everyone has faith in something, whether it is in themselves or in a higher power. Paul Tillich defines faith as the act of being “ultimately concerned,” which means that doubt is a necessary element in it. “It is a consequence of the risk of faith” (Dynamics of Faith, 21). “A scientist who states that a scientific theory is beyond doubt would at that moment cease to be scientific” (Ibid). Tillich goes on to write, “Serious doubt is confirmation of faith. It indicates the seriousness of the concern [and] its unconditional character.” Perhaps many theists in the world could learn a thing or two about humble doubt, the realization that we will never prove the existence of God with any absolute certainty. However, I have chosen faith in God in the face of doubt because it is the only reasonable and coherent way for me to view the world.

Hiding behind a Thin Veneer of Intellectualism or Why the Mask is Easier?

2008-10-02T18:10:00.000-07:00

Not too long ago I wrote about freedom in Christ. I wrote about living a Romans 7 life versus living a Romans 8 life. I claimed that I knew without a doubt that Romans 7 was and is not descriptive of the Christian life. I continue to maintain this, but I would like to define “freedom.”
Paul tells us in Romans 8:1,“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” This may be my favorite passage in the Bible. I think it always has been. This is because I feel such a massive sense of relief when I read this verse. Do you feel a sense of relief when you read it? If you don’t, I guess I would wonder why.
In a letter to his friend Phillip Melanchthon, Martin Luther advised to “sin boldly.” He wrote, “If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world.” Perhaps this is the point at which Luther has been most derided and criticized for a pessimistic view of the Christian life. I disagree with this derision. I propose that what both Paul and Luther were saying is that true freedom comes not in a sinless life, which is impossible, but in taking off the mask. When we “sin boldly” we refuse to hide behind the veneers we have created for ourselves. We become at peace with the fact that we can hold none of this together. And we die . . . we die to the life we have tried to create for ourselves.
I propose that freedom is being so sure that “there is therefore now no condemnation in Christ Jesus” that you are willing to let people know your full humanity, sins and successes, joys and failures. It is being so confident of who Christ is that you are willing to step out in honesty toward the call Jesus has for your life.

But I am not there yet and in so many ways, the mask is easier . . .

Since I have been in Springfield, MO I have become pretty comfortable with my mask. I have even flouted it around the seminary I attend. I take some solace in the fact that I can hold a theological conversation or that I can write a good paper. The problem is, I have forgot what freedom looks like. And instead, I once again put on the chains of doctrinal quibbles and religious mandates.
In some sense, these chains are easier. They are comforting. Many days since I have been here I have held tight to these chains. I have accepted them and even thought of them as freedom. Maybe I thought freedom was being recognized for the things I wanted to be recognized for. Maybe I thought freedom looked like the person I thought I should be like. Maybe I thought freedom looked like the person who always seemed to have the right thing to say at the right time, the right joke to use, the right advice, the profound correction for the church or for the people around them. And then once again, I forgot the words of Paul: “Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me” (2 Cor. 11:9). Or better yet, Paul’s definition of freedom in Galatians 5: “For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness” (5:5).
What if freedom doesn’t look like the guy who has it all together? What if freedom looks more like the woman pouring the jar of alabaster and crying all over Jesus’ feet? What if freedom looks more like the guy at the cross ripping his clothes crying out, “Save me, a sinner?”
As ministers of the new covenant, we have been told through the words of Paul to the Corinthian church to take our masks off, to stop hiding behind our veils. “But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:16-18). Paul then goes on to tell us that we have this ministry only by “the mercy of God” (v 1).
The old covenant of Sinai is done away with. It has been completely removed. We no longer live in the bondage of condemnation. We are freed to participate in the “ministry of righteousness” (v 9). And yet, even today, we make people dress themselves up in a bunch of chains before they can enter the church.
I’ve seen people remove the veil before and it doesn’t involve correct exegesis or correct doctrine. There seems to be only two requirements: a humble acknowledgement of the self and an awe before the majesty of God. When one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. When the veil is removed, no one sees how great we are. No one should ever see what we have done. If someone believes this is what an unveiled face looks like, they are gravely misinformed. When we remove the veil, the people around us should see one thing and one thing alone, the glory of God!
So why do some people keep wearing the mask? Or why do some people think they have taken the mask off when they have really just traded their old mask in for a new one? I think it is because the world has convinced us that the mask is easier. And to be honest, I think in a lot of ways, even though people may claim otherwise, the culture around us is more comfortable with everyone simply wearing their masks and not hindering the mask-wearing joys of someone else. I have become all too comfortable with this in Springfield, MO.

Ken Wilber's World

2008-08-18T16:30:00.000-07:00

So over the course of the past two weeks, I have been trying to get into Ken Wilber's world, see things from his perspective. It has been a daunting task to say the least, but I am changed by it. I am more aware of my own presuppositions and my own subjectivity than I have ever been before. And I am better for it. Perhaps this study will be the first step in a newfound passion for me: striving to swim with the new currents of American spirituality. Maybe in the process I can get others to join me in venturing out into new territory.

Why Study Ken Wilber?

It is a difficult task to summarize the thought of Ken Wilber. His first book, The Spectrum of Consciousness, was published in 1977. In between now and the present, he has written numerous books including A Brief History of Everything (1996), which was perhaps his most well-received book, and his most recent book, The Integral Vision (2007).

He has apparently become somewhat of a 21st century guru to the American public. Looking at those who have written about his thought and writings on Amazon (www.amazon.com) and on his own website (www.kenwilber.com), it is evident that people are responding to his thinking like someone responds to the thinking of a great spiritual leader. For example, someone wrote on Amazon: "Ken's creation of the 4 Quandrants brings enlightenment to the very concept of enlightenment, making way for a clear mind to identify the all-inclusive reality of transcending the ego and returning back into the oneness of Spirit WHILE living healthily, honestly, and with understanding in this world of form. ALL who have seen the light of their true being, even if only a glimpse, MUST read this book." This review demonstrates the type of respect and admiration with which people are viewing Wilber.

What initially got me thinking about Ken Wilber was my reconnection with an old high school friend. He had contacted me sometime late in 2007, but we had once again lost touch. A few weeks ago, through the wonders of Facebook, he contacted me. We ended up speaking by phone and having some written dialogue over Facebook. I soon found out that much of his thought and perspectives had been influenced by the thought of Ken Wilber. Quickly I was realizing that Wilber was someone with whom I needed to familiarize myself.

Holons and God

Ken Wilber’s thought begins with his basic definition of a “holon.” For Wilber, everything exists as a “holon.” Essentially this means that everything is both a whole and a part. Wilber uses the scientific example of atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, and so on. Each one is both a whole and a part of a whole. Wilber states, “A molecule transcends and includes atoms.” By “transcends,” Wilber means that a whole is more than the sum of its parts. So, a molecule is more than the atoms of which it is composed.

Wilber goes on to attribute this concept of holons to culture and the functions of the world. This is similar to Richard Dawkin’s development of the concept of “memes,” or cultural units. Essentially, Dawkins, using the concept of evolution, argued that “memes” evolve very much like living organisms evolve. “Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes, fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain.” According to Dawkins, these units of culture morph, become stronger, better, and more adapted to the world.

Dawkins applies this idea to the concept of God. In The Selfish Gene, he writes that the idea of a divine being arose a long time ago in the meme pool, probably originating “many times by independent ‘mutation.’” Attributing the evolutionary concept of “survival of the fittest,” Dawkins argues that the concept of God has had such “survival value” because of its “great psychological appeal.” One can see the foreshadowing of Dawkin’s most recent book, The God Delusion, in the following statement: “God exists, if only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or infective power, in the environment provided by human culture.”

Wilber disagrees with Dawkin’s atheistic conclusions about God. However, the connection between Wilber and Dawkins does demonstrate how Wilber has taken the concept of holons within science (cells, molecules, organisms) and applied it to ideas. In the evolution of ideas, Wilber sees the greater idea holons, or memes, as having greater depth and less span. Holons on a lower level have greater span, or are more numerous (i.e. there are more cells than molecules in the universe). Holons on a higher level have greater depth, or more levels, meaning they include more holons within themselves (i.e. an organism has greater depth than a molecule). So, when Wilber applies this conclusion to ideas, he is saying that ideas on a higher level include more levels, but are less numerous. If, for example, Wilber were applying this concept to the idea of God, Wilber would always stress that the higher holon, or the one with the greatest depth, is the one that includes all other ideas about God.

According to Wilber, in terms of God, the best holon we have at this point is “integral methodological pluralism,” which “finds room for premodern truths, modern truths, and postmodern truths, all in an integral framework not of conclusions, but of perspectives and methodologies . . . the only thing it alters is their claim to absoluteness, and any scaffolding (and metaphysics) meant to justify that unjustifiable claim.” So, for Wilber, his own integral model provides the holon with the most depth when it comes to God. This is because Wilber believes his perspective to transcend and include all other perspectives on God.

All Quadrants, All Levels

Ken Wilber’s thought centers upon the idea that there are four quadrants in existence: 1) interior-individual (upper left quadrant), 2) exterior-individual (upper right quadrant), 3) interior-collective (lower left quadrant), and 4) exterior-collective (lower right quadrant). The interior-individual quadrant represents the self and the consciousness of the individual. The exterior-individual quadrant represents the brain and organism of the individual. The interior-collective quadrant represents the culture in which the individual exists. The exterior-collective represents the social system and exterior environment in which the individual exists. So, for example, emotion exists in the upper left quadrant. Molecules exist in the upper right quadrant. Myths exist in the lower left quadrant. And tribes exist in the lower right quadrant.

For Wilber, all four quadrants exist within what he calls “Spirit in action.” He writes, “Since Spirit-in-action manifests as all four quadrants, then an adequate interpretation of a spiritual experience ought to take all four quadrants into account. It’s not just that we have different levels—matter, body, mind, soul, and spirit—but that each of these manifests in four facets—intentional [upper left], behavioral [upper right], cultural [lower left], and social [lower right].” For Wilber, each quadrant has its own conception of truth. The point, for Wilber, as will be discussed below, is to tap into the truth of each of the four quadrants.

Furthermore, Wilber argues that when one is evaluating experience, they must take into account all levels, or stages, of human growth and development—“at the further stages of consciousness evolution.” For Wilber, there are nine stages in the evolution of consciousness (all of these take place in the upper left quadrant): 1) sensoriphysical, 2) phantasmic-emotional, 3) representational mind, 4) rule/role mind, 5) formal reflexive, 6) vision-logic, 7) psychic, 8) subtle, and 9) casual.

And finally there is a tenth stage in which the individual can become one with Spirit, the Ground of All Being. In The Integral Vision Wilber calls this stage “overmind structure,” which is ultimately the tenth state of consciousness. It is the place in which the individual can become the sage, the enlightened one, one with the “Godhead beyond any God and Goddess, an Intelligence-Abyss from which all things issue in this moment.” For Wilber, this is the place in which you enter completely into non-duality where the physical and the spiritual become one and you are able to see the universe as a whole.

Again, the quadrants are important for Wilber here. The upper left quadrant says, “mind is reality” (idealism). The upper right quadrant says, “matter is reality” (scientism). The lower left quadrant says, “culturally constructed meaning is reality” (extreme postmodernism). The lower right quadrant says, “The web of life is reality” (systems theory, i.e. spiral dynamics). The “overmind structure” is the state of consciousness where the person tastes, touches, feels, and breathes the “infinite Reality existing behind, beyond, above, within, and as the entire manifest universe.” The “overmind structure” is not however, exclusive of the other nine states of consciousness. Rather, it transcends and includes all of these states. It is the holon with the greatest depth. It is the place where someone can exist seeing “all quadrants and all levels.”

For Wilber, when someone has reached the point where they can see “all quadrants and all levels,” they have reached “at-onement” with the Kosmos, or in other words they have become one with the known universe. For Wilber, this means seeing truth in all four quadrants and in all of the levels of consciousness. Furthermore, it means the removal of the separation between the “I,” subjectivity, the “We,” inter-subjectivity, and the “It,” “what is outside of us.” For Wilber, they are all Spirit, the very Kosmos itself. Wilber states, “When you are ultimately truthful with yourself, you will eventually realize and confess that ‘I am Buddha,’ I am Spirit. Anything short of that is a lie, the lie of the ego, the lie of the separate-self sense . . . The deepest recesses of your consciousness directly intersect Spirit itself, in the supreme identity. ‘Not I, but Christ liveth in me’—which is to say, the ultimate I is Christ.” In summary, Wilber’s integral map of the way to spiritual salvation points to the individual becoming one with the Kosmos, one with Spirit, one with God.

Is Wilber a Transpersonal Psychologist?

George Adams, who wrote a theistic critique of Wilber in The Journal of Contemporary Religion, acquiesces that Wilber does not place himself under the “transpersonal label.” Perhaps Wilber likes to think of himself as someone who is beyond labels. However, his thought seems to clearly fit within this field. Take Bryan Wittine’s five postulates of transpersonal psychology for example: 1) It is an approach to healing/growth that addresses all levels of the spectrum of identity—egoic, existential, and transpersonal. 2) It recognizes the therapist’s unfolding awareness of the Self and his or her spiritual world-view as central in shaping the nature, process, and outcome of therapy. 3) It is a process of awakening from a lesser to a greater identity. 4) It facilitates the process of awakening by enhancing inner awareness and intuition. 5) The therapeutic relationship is a vehicle for the process of awakening in both client and therapist. See Bryan Wittine, “Basic Postulates for a Transpersonal Psychotherapy” in Existential-Phenomenological Perspectives in Psychology, ed. Ronald Valle and Steen Halling (New York: Plenum Press, 1989), 269-287 for more information. Wilber's thought seems to fit nicely within this transpersonal framework. However, Wilber wants to disavow any labels as he sees himself more as a "theorist of everything."

A Theistic Critique of Wilber

Adams argues that Wilber “fails to demonstrate why the non-dualist religious experience should be considered superior to the religious experience of theists, an experience which asserts and values the otherness of God.” It appears that Wilber has misunderstood the great theistic traditions, especially Christianity, which asserts that God is separate from, and totally other than the known universe, or in Wilber’s terms, the Kosmos.

In fact, all three of the monotheistic religions make distinct claims against any availability for the human being to become God. One need only look at the very first pillar of the faith in Islam, “none has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and Muhammad is Allah’s apostle,” to fully understand that Islam by no means would accept that human beings can or ever could become one with a divine Spirit.

Christianity has dealt with the notion of human divinity in the form of Gnosticism. For Gnostics, a special knowledge existed that “involved awareness of the true heavenly origin of the spirit within, its essential divine nature as an offshoot of God’s own being.” This sounds very much like the thought of Wilber, but this idea has been deemed heretical by the entirety of Christianity throughout the course of history. Furthermore, the first of the Ten Commandments, “you shall have no other gods before me,” clearly proclaims that to worship anything as a god, or to call anything a god, that is not God is to commit idolatry. The Ten Commandments are authoritative for both Christianity and Judaism.

In all three of the major theistic traditions, God is other and separate from the created universe . . .

How Should We Respond?

So, how should Christians respond to Wilber? It appears that Wilber has not taken the time to fully understand the Christian faith. However, this does not mean that Christians should not act in love carefully understanding his thought and his perspectives.

As I have read Wilber, I have grown. I found much that is useful in his thought, especially the concept of the four quadrants. Perhaps my next post will be framing the gospel of Jesus Christ in these terms.

But if nothing else, I have become a better listener to the emerging spiritualities of those around me. Every Christian is a missionary and we are all called to listen to what is going on around us and respond appropriately with the gospel . . . unfortunately, many have forgotten to listen.

May we all listen well . . .

Here is some more insight on Matthew 7:1-6 . . .

2008-08-11T15:51:00.000-07:00

In Zondervan's backgrounds commentary, Michael Wilkins related Matthew 7:1 to an apocryphal text: "Before judgement comes, examine yourself, and at the time of scrutiny you will find forgiveness" (Sirach 18:20). So, we are supposed to judge our brothers and sisters, but only after we have examined and judged ourselves. In 7:5, Jesus clearly tells his followers that if they have taken the time and consideration to remove the log from their own eyes, then they "will see clearly to take the speck out of" their brother's eye.

Being that only God and the individual truly knows the depth of the individual's depravity, it seems to follow that when a person is dealing with their own sin, they are dealing with a log . . . when they are dealing with the sins of a brother or sister in Christ, they are dealing with a speck . . . and Jesus was using hyperbole steeped in his own context of being a carpenter to show the extreme of passing judgment on another while refusing to acknowledge one’s own depravity (Wilkins was again helpful here).

Darrin Patrick, senior elder (or pastor) at The Journey in St. Louis, MO, believes that verse 6 was meant to clarify any attempt to remove the speck from a brother or sister's eye. This verse has long been one that troubles people because it appears that Jesus is calling people "dogs" and "pigs." However, Jesus, as he did in the previous three verses, is using hyperbole. In Jewish culture, dogs and pigs were considered ritually unclean and even dangerous animals. "Dog" was often used as an insult for those separate from Israel or enemies of Israel (see Wilkins for further information--my interpretation diverges from his at this point).

I believe Jesus to be telling people that righteous judgment of a brother or sister in Christ can only happen within the context of deep relationship. In other words, in order to judge a brother or sister in Christ, you must actually know them like a brother or sister . . . and you must be known by them, sins and all. I believe Jesus is telling people that the judging of another is meant to be a holy act of Christian brotherhood/sisterhood. It is a pearl that only exists within the context of true, deep relationship within the body of Christ. Why would you waste this on someone to whom you have no real knowledge and no real relationship?

Does that make sense?

How Will They Know Us If We Do Not Bear Fruit?

2008-08-04T18:21:00.000-07:00

This past weekend I traveled to St. Louis to visit an emerging church for a class I took early in the Summer with Earl Creps called Ministry in Emerging Culture. On the way there I stopped to visit my brother in Columbia.

It was as if this trip reflected my heart at the present time. It is a heart tired of petty theological arguments, of clichés, of hearing one thing, but seeing another. It is a heart tired of cynicism, of pointing out the faults of others while often refusing to acknowledge my own. It is a heart tired of turning the church into a playground for my own intellectual fodder. It is a heart that I believe is more passionate about the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20) than ever before.

Jesus tells us that people will know us by our fruit. In other words, they will know us by what we do. I cannot judge a person’s motives. I cannot judge a person’s heart. Have you ever heard someone say something along the lines of, “I don’t like what so and so did, but I know they have a good heart”? How in the world do you know they have a good heart? Or on the flipside, how do you know that someone who has done something terrible has a bad heart? What in the world are we talking about here? Only God judges the heart. Only God judges motives. This is not our job.

My friend Luke and I visited The Journey in St. Louis on Sunday morning. The pastor, Darrin Patrick, preached a sermon essentially on judging without being judgmental. [There is also a great article on this topic by Wave Nunnally on the Enrichment Journal website (http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/). Just search for “Nunnally” and you will find it.] I am not going to go into any detail about the sermon. I will only say that I found it to be one of the most biblical and personally encouraging sermons I have hear in a while.

The sermon was not necessarily encouraging in its content for me, although I appreciated the content greatly (because it was solidly biblical, confrontational, courageous, and honest). There was one thing that Darrin said that really stuck out to me (and I paraphrase): “Coming to hear me speak won’t help that much. People need relationship. They need depth. They need people willing to be careful and thorough, pointed and delicate, tough and tender.” People need relationship. They need to not just hear about the love of Christ, they need to experience it through other people.

This statement summates what it means to be missional: empowering others to create relationships for the sake of Christ. Let me clarify though (and this is my addition). This does not mean we are out to convince others. Rather, we are out to be friends with people in the world, especially those who disagree with us. What I find so revolutionary about this idea is that we can put correct theology on the back-burner and focus on what Paul called the most excellent way, love. We are to love others in thought, word, and deed. It is unfortunate that we have come to the point where love has become subject to correct theology, denominationalism, and the egos of so many Christian leaders.

No, I am not saying correct theology is not important. But once again, Jesus tells us that others will know us by our fruit (a good tree cannot bear bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit-Mt. 7, Lk. 6; if you abide in the vine that is Christ, you will bear good fruit, the bearing of fruit is what proves that you are a disciple of Christ—see John 7). I believe that this means we should place primary importance not upon the correct theology of a particular local church, but on the fruit of the church. This requires discernment, but we are clearly told that it is our fruit by which others shall judge us, so it is only right that we judge others only by their fruit.

The Journey was a church that I could have found many theological differences with, but all of them are minor and make little difference in light of what they are doing, the fruit they are bearing. The mindset there is forward, pushing to reach new people in whatever way possible. I got an opportunity to sit down with one of the pastors (elders, as they refer to themselves) named Joel. He breathed mission as he spoke. The church presently exists as three separate campuses and they are planting a fourth. He talked about the autonomy of each campus and structuring the service around the needs of the community. He talked about the hope of reflecting the diversity of St. Louis. He talked about reaching out through the arts. He exuded the passion of the Great Commission.

As I left the service at the old Catholic cathedral turned emerging church, I knew I had found a church that was taking the emerging church ideas and living them out with integrity. And these ideas, about being missional and doing church outside the church walls, about engaging with people of different faiths, about meeting the needs of the community first, about not getting bogged down in theological differences, about moving forward and not looking back . . . these are biblical ideas, but they are not being embraced by so many in action. How will they know we are disciples of Christ if we do not bear fruit?

I left the church visit in somewhat of a stupor. God is pouring excitement and joy back into my life. He is bringing my year of study to a culmination of blessing with new relationships and the encouragement of seeing a church striving to live the Great Commission in everything it does. Praise Him for his blessing!

Freedom from Sin?: The Question of Romans 7:19

2008-07-30T15:39:00.000-07:00

OK, so I am starting this blog back up and I will be writing on it this time. This is a post that I posted as a facebook note a few days back. I thought I'd post it here as well. The post continues below . . .

Now that my eight week study of Hebrew is complete, I have the time to do some personal study on questions of interpretation and theology that have often been the source of great reflection and, at times, great frustration. The first one I decided to tackle was one of great personal meaning to me, the question of the struggle with sin after conversion.

Well, let’s get to the heart of the matter: Paul’s so-called “internal struggle” in Romans 7:15-20. I have heard many proclaim that this passage of Scripture deals with a split within the individual, a battle between the “fleshy,” or sinful nature, and the spiritual nature. Is this really what Paul is getting at? Are we doomed to live a life split between our lower, carnal nature and our higher, spiritual nature? Is freedom from sin really only about freedom from condemnation (Rom. 8:1)?

In Romans 7:19, Paul wrote, “For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing” (all Scripture references from ESV). The first question we must answer is, what does Paul mean by “I” in this verse? Douglas Moo suggests that “I” does not always connote personal experience in the Bible. He points to the fact that Old Testament and Jewish texts often use “I” to depict the people of Israel as a whole (see Micah 7:8-10 for example; Douglas Moo, “Romans,” Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, Vol. 3, pg. 40).

Furthermore, if we look at this passage of Scripture in the context of the entirety of Romans, it makes sense that Paul would be referring to a type of corporate solidarity with Israel and not to himself. Paul even clarified this in 7:1 when he wrote: “for I am speaking to those who know the law.” This clarification is important in light of the fact that Rome was very much of a battle ground for Jews and Gentiles. There was a significant population of Jews in Rome at the time of Paul’s writing of the letter (around A.D. 57), but there was no unified Jewish community. Romans 1, specifically vv 5-6 make it clear that Paul is writing to all in Rome, Jews and Gentiles (v 5 “including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ” referring to the Gentiles).

He is very much writing to address the tensions that existed between the two groups. Christianity was quickly moving away from its Jewish roots in Rome. Luke recorded in Acts 18:2 that Aquilla and Priscilla were forced to Corinth because the Roman emperor, Claudius, had forced all the Jews to leave. According to Moo, when they finally returned, they found a Christian church that now had only a minority of Jewish-Christians (Moo, 7). When Paul makes the distinction of “speaking to those who know the law,” he is distinguishing between those who understand the Mosaic Law (this essentially means Jews, but also perhaps Gentile God-fears, or others well-versed in the Mosaic Law) and Gentile Christians.

So, it is clear, that Paul is not addressing personal issues of sin, legalism, etc., but rather, he is addressing life under the Mosaic Law versus life in Christ. Manfred T. Brauch writes, “If this passage and the verses that surround it in chapter 7 are a description of what Christian life is all about, then it stands in stark contrast to the joy and freedom and newness with which Paul describes the Christian’s life in chapters 5, 6, and 8. Indeed, it would seem that the ‘good news’ of the gospel, expressed with such exuberance in 5:1 and 5:11, has become the ‘bad news’” (Manfred T. Brauch, Hard Sayings of Paul, 43-44).

I must agree. If we are to understand what Paul is saying in chapter 7 as descriptive of the Christian life, how on earth can we grasp anything he is saying in chapter 8?

Paul surely wanted to express solidarity with the Jews (with Israel) in his Letter to the Romans. In chapter 11, he wrote, “For I myself am an Israelite, a descendent of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin” (v 1). This brings us back to the question of Paul’s use of the pronoun “I.” From our modern, individualistic, American viewpoint, it seems highly unlikely that Paul would use “I” to refer to Israel as a whole and thus, his corporate solidarity with Israel. However, I have concluded that there is no other way to understand this verse.

We see Paul exclaim that “all Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:26—I have written a paper on this topic if you are interested let me know). This is a hope that rests squarely upon the mystery, Christ Himself (see Col. 1:27), the Deliverer from Zion.

Paul clearly tells us that there is absolutely no freedom outside of Christ, even for those who profess to be “good people,” but have not accepted Christ as their savior: “For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members” (Romans 7:22-23). This passage is confusing, but I agree with Moo when he states that as a revelation of God’s will for His people, “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (v 12) while under the power of sin, the law becomes deceptive and brings death” (v 11).

Once again, we must affirm the exclusivity of Christ. Many in our American society, in our American churches even, are denying the exclusivity of Christ in the name of tolerance. There is much talk about those who do good, about the human race being good, about just accepting everyone for who they are. The point of this passage is to make it clear that freedom does not exist outside of Christ. Outside of Christ, we possess bodies of death (v 25). While I certainly have struggled with this issue, I must affirm that Paul clearly did not write this passage about his personal struggle with sin. It simply does not line up with the historical or contextual evidence.

Freedom in Christ means freedom from the bondage of sin. Let me be clear here. This does not mean that those who have accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior will not sin. Given my own continuing struggle with sin, it would be dishonest and downright ludicrous for me to argue this. However, what it does mean is that those who are in Christ (those who truly believe and have faith) are capable of choosing not to sin, of resisting sin. Those outside of Christ are not. This is the cut and dry truth of this passage.

I understand that this is the ground upon which many people have denied the truth of Christianity and turned to a sort-of spiritual ambivalence that plagues our country today. I have had conversations with several people recently who have pointed specifically to the exclusivity of Christ as their particular issue with Christianity. I pray and hope that as you read this you hear my utter belief in the fact that Christ is the only way to true freedom. I exclaim with Jesus Christ himself, “If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36).
Regardless of how you take this essay, I pray that you will be courageous enough to put your chips on the table, to move out of ambivalence and into freedom. What could be more important that this!

I would love to hear any comments, critiques, or questions you may have. If I have made any errors in my research, theology, etc., I hope you would be bold enough to correct them.

America's False Gospel

2007-10-19T16:02:00.000-07:00

Introduction: Some Hesitation

Sorry for the long period in between posts. I have been really busy with school. But I have to get this post out there before I decide not to write it. I know there a lot of cynics out there and people who like to hate things just for the sake of hating something. Derek Webb put it very well in his song “This Too Shall be Made Right” on his masterful album, The Ringing Bell. The song begins with this lyric, “People love you the most for the things you hate, and hate you the most for the things you can’t keep straight. People judge you on a curve and tell you that you are getting what you deserve. And this too shall be made right.” I pray against any hatred in this post. I pray that God’s Word is at the center of all of this. And I affirm along with Derek Webb, “And this too shall be made right.”

Adding to this hesitation is the American mindset of tolerance and acceptance that surrounds me. So many in our culture are shouting, “Tolerate me!” But I wonder, in this age of tolerance and in this religion of political correctness, have we lost the two primary directives of the Bible: “Love the Lord God with all your heart and with all of your soul and with all of your mind . . . [and] Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37,39). I am all for acceptance, but not at the cost of biblical truth and love. Our country has moved away from what is one of the most known biblical passages, both among believers and non-believers. We have sold out the Gospel for tolerance and comfort. The commandment to love God with all of yourself and to love your neighbor as yourself is just too hard and too uncomfortable for most in America today. Just read the Apostle Paul’s beautiful depiction of love in 1 Corinthians 13 that culminates in this statement: “And not these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love” (v. 13). We must return to what the Bible is all about: love
It is in the fear (reverence) of God and the knowledge of my utter brokenness and inability to save myself that I continue this post. (I will say here that I had another post written about this and I never posted it because it was too harsh and cynical. Let us always remember as Christians, that we need to write in humility and love. I pray that I always remember this.) Ok, so on with the post . . .

America’s False Gospel

I saw a special on Joel Osteen Sunday night on 60 Minutes. Perhaps, you saw it? It was almost a balanced segment until it ended with Osteen bench-pressing 300 pounds and playing basketball with the interviewer. But with that said, the interviewer did ask some tough questions. For example, he asked about the claim that Osteen’s message of prosperity and Your Best Life Now is not biblical. Osteen’s answer went something like this: I am giving people hope. I do not know why people are so bothered by this. Hope is biblical. He was also asked, “How is your message different from Oprah or Dr. Phil’s philosophies?” His answer went something like this: much of what Oprah and Dr. Phil say is biblical and they do not even know it. So, in other words, he had no problem with his message being very similar or almost exactly like the self-help messages of Oprah and Dr. Phil.

The interviewer also asked Osteen about his new book: Become a Better You: Seven Keys to Improving Your Life Everyday. It came out to the general public on Monday, I believe. According to the interview, the book does not mention Jesus Christ. For him, this is no big deal. He is helping people become the best they can be. This is rewarding and satisfying to him. Essentially, even though he would never say this, he has removed Jesus Christ from his view of Christianity.
Now that I think about it: Who needs Jesus in America anyway? In this disheartening postmodern age of individualism, we no longer have a need for Jesus. We can do it on our own. We can take these seven easy steps to improve our lives on our own. If you are struggling in life, you are probably doing something wrong according to this type of thinking. Poverty is a result of poor choices. You hear this rhetoric of choice espoused from pulpits all over the country, and not just in the pulpits of prosperity churches. Osteen is just the tip of the iceberg.

The thing that amazes me about this prosperity gospel that Osteen and so many others espouse is that it is believable to so many people. Maybe I have misunderstood the human condition. But, wait that could not be right . . . my view of the human condition is the same view as the Apostle Paul. Read Romans 7 when you get a chance. I am not going to get into it here, but if you are reading this post, I highly suggest you dig into God’s word and figure this stuff out for yourself. But I will quote one of my favorite passages in the Bible, and I think the most relieving passage in the Bible: “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1). So, the human condition is biblical. We are living in a fallen world. We are affected and beaten down by sin. But, in the midst of this, we must live in the hope of the Resurrection. Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead on the third day. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. (Check out the Nicene Creed, or is it the Apostles’ Creed when you get a chance.) So, the sinful human condition is biblical and only through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are we saved.

I am not really sure how Osteen and the prosperity people could have missed so much of the Bible. I could point out scripture after scripture that seem to contradict even the titles of Osteen’s books. I am just not sure what is going on. Does this stuff just sound good to people? Is Osteen playing the tune that everyone wants to hear? Is it really true that we have lost any semblance of sacrificing our will for the will of God in America? The answer for many seems to be “yes.” (Here, I must admit that I suffer just as much with the human condition as the murderer or the sex offender. I have my days where my thoughts are despicable. I have days where I do terrible things. I have days where I do not yield my will over to God’s will for my life. But, I know this: on the days where I wake up and say to God: “your will be done today,” I have the best days of my life. God knows me better than I know myself and I want Him to be in control.)

Everything Hinges on the Cross

In Romans 5:1-5, Paul writes of joy in suffering: “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.”

Do you see in this verse how everything hinges on the Cross? Paul tells us that we are justified through faith, which we only have access to because of the grace given us through Jesus Christ. We now stand in grace, not condemnation, before God. Jesus Christ paid the price for us on the Cross and this is why we are saved through faith! So, we are to live in the hope of the glory of God: the Resurrection and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. But, Paul never fails to point us back to the Cross. Our growth as followers of Jesus begins with suffering. Our new life in Jesus Christ begins with the Cross. There is no way around this.

The false prosperity gospel has removed the Cross from its message. The Cross is not just the atoning sacrifice for humanity’s sin, it is also, the ultimate example of how we should sacrifice our will for the will of God. As Jesus says in the Garden of Gethsemane before he was arrested and crucified, “Abba, Father, everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will” (Mark 14:36). It is as if the prosperity message stopped at “everything is possible for you.” Yes, praise God, all things are possible with Him! But Jesus does not stop at this exciting proclamation. He goes to the Cross and sacrifices His will for the will of God. He allows himself to suffer unimaginable suffering for the sake of the will of the Father.

Preaching about hope and resurrection power without preaching about the Cross is false prophecy. It misleads people and gives them false hope. You cannot have true hope and prosperity without the Cross. Unfortunately, I must diagnose the success of the prosperity message as a case of giving people what they want, of giving them something that sounds really easy: just take these seven steps and be the best you can be! In the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the prosperity message sells people “cheap grace.” (Go read Bonhoeffer’s The Cost of Discipleship if you have not already.) Unfortunately, I must be harsh here. Osteen and proponents of the American prosperity message: you have taken the Bible and mutilated it for the pleasure and comfort of the masses.

Suffer for the Sake of Christ

In Galatians 2:20, Paul writes, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” In Romans 8, Paul writes of sharing in the sufferings of Christ so that we may also share in His glory. In 2 Corinthians 1, Paul writes of the sufferings of Christ flowing over into our lives, so that our comfort may overflow as well. Later, in 2 Corinthians 11, he boasts about his suffering. In Ephesians 3, Paul writes not to be discouraged by his suffering because in Christ there is freedom and glory in the midst of suffering. In Philippians 3:10-11, he writes: “I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.” Just keep reading through the New Testament. The impassioned response to suffering continues. In Hebrews 2:10, the author states, “In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering.” We were brought to glory through suffering. Death was overcome through suffering. Salvation came through suffering. Both James and Peter also speak of patience in suffering, enduring suffering, bearing up under suffering, and rejoicing in participating in the suffering of Christ.

The Bible calls us to suffer for the sake of Christ. Be warned, you prosperity followers! Your gospel is a false gospel. You run after the god’s of wealth and comfort. You do not represent the Gospel I know, the Gospel that calls us to give up our will for the will of God. Giving up your will is uncomfortable and often painful. Jesus had no place to lay his head (Luke 9:58), why should you expect to be comfortable or to not experience deep pain? You have to accept worldly failure and derision. Have you not realized that it is in pain and the suffering that we grow in our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ?

Conclusion

Fads fade easily and I pray that the church returns to biblical Christianity. I desperately hope that preachers see the necessity in having a command of the Scripture and preaching solid, biblical messages. Yes, all preachers will always fall short and will preach sermons that are not very good, but the question is: are they striving to preach biblical Truth? Do they understand the entirety of the biblical message?

I proclaim boldly that I am nothing without the Cross. There is no gospel without the Cross. There is no hope without the Cross. Our suffering, our pain, is meaningless without the Cross. In the age of tolerance, many will be angered by my attack of the false prosperity message. But, I am tired of a message that says the Cross means nothing. I am tired of a fake gospel. I am tired of people making light of the pain in the world by preaching an ethnocentric, Americanized, self-help false gospel. Step down from the pulpit and fall at the foot of the Cross! As you fall before the Cross and yield over your will to God, He will awaken the resurrection of new life in you. If you want to feel pure love and acceptance, yield human effort over to God and He will provide for you. All things are possible with God! Amen.

I am not OK!!!!!!!!!!

2007-09-26T19:46:00.001-07:00

“To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.” (2 Corinthians 12:7-10)

The time of mega-churches is upon us. Let us all come to the personalities. Let us all come to the beautiful building, landscaped to perfection to find a God that builds people up, to find a God that only wants to bless us, to find a God that wants to take us to the next level of success!! Let us all gather together and speak of the wonderful things we have done. Let us all gather together and look beautiful. Let us have the most majestic music. Let us have the best lighting, the right pews, the camera front and center. Make sure to record the sermon because the words of one could save the souls of many. Let us gather together as does the rest of the world, to feel better, to feel right, to be secured that God will provide!! Amen.
Please excuse my skepticism (and I pray it does not turn into cynicism), but no, I do not agree. I am not stating that the mega-church is an evil institution or one that should not exist. Praise God that so many are coming to Him. Let us not forgo meeting together. This is a beautiful thing. But I worry. Perhaps, in the fog of personalities and structure within the church, many have missed the central personality: Jesus, one who did not seek out crowds to be noticed, who made Himself nothing to save us, who only did the will of His Father. He was never “puffed up” with Christian pride. He only obeyed the command of His Father.
Are we directing people to Christ in our churches or are we simply directing them at us or at themselves or at false hope? I am disheartened by the loss of focus on the Gospel: we are sick and we need a doctor. We are not in anything new people. The struggle between good and evil has been going on since the beginning of time. Why do we keep looking around us for saviors? There is only one savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. He saved us by becoming nothing and yet we believe that he died for us to become everything. Do we not?
I can tell you right now that there are many churches in America preaching a gospel that obscures the Truth of freedom in Jesus Christ. What have we become: a church where we go to feel good about everything that we have? The youth of our country are left searching for a Jesus that does not represent the comfortable middle class. I believe many in this country are searching for the true Jesus that is often obscurred by prideful strides to be the best we can be, to be successful.
Perhaps it is time for us to stop pleading with the Lord. What is your thorn? Do you struggle with intense social anxiety? Masturbation? Pornography? Alcohol? Drugs? Or maybe it is image? Maybe you are so concerned with the way you look that you just cannot seem to enjoy the beautiful things that are going on outside of yourself. Whatever, it is, have you accepted that you cannot fix it? Have you accepted that it will never fully be fixed on this side of heaven? Or are you still pleading . . . please God, take this away; or, if I just do this maybe it will go away. Perhaps, you are a recovering sex addict. Maybe if you just help enough old ladies cross the street, the thorn, the pain of the past addiction, or not being able to escape your struggles with lust, maybe they will just go away. Maybe there will come a morning when you will wake up and they will not be there anymore. I must tell you that if this is your hope, you are hoping in the wrong thing. If your hope is to have the thorn in your flesh removed, that temptation that you just cannot seem to escape, you are missing the point! Your hope must be only in Jesus Christ, who resisted all temptation and was crucified on a Cross for you! If Jesus had to suffer, why should you expect to escape suffering for Him?
In the midst of our pain and suffering as we desperately plead with the Lord, we hear the same thing from Jesus that Paul heard: “My grace is sufficient for you.” This is not the answer I want and I imagine it is not the answer you want either. I want the answer that gives me the American Dream of happiness. I want things to be easy. I want to be recognized for my gifts, not my weakness. I want to be recognized for my talents, not my wretchedness. But this is not the answer Jesus gives us.
“Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me.” The young people of this country, myself included, are looking for transparent leaders. We are looking for leaders who practice what they preach. We are looking for leaders who preach about their weaknesses. God does not raise up strong men to preach the gospel, he raises up weak men, men who find their strength in the Lord Jesus Christ, who find their security in God alone, not from their money, from their car, from their wife, from their wit, from their own personality, from their eloquence, from their morality, or so-called holiness. Power comes from God and God alone. Give me honesty, point me to the Truth of the Gospel, don’t point me to yourself.
What is the picture of a perfect Christian leader? Married by 25, seminary graduate, a large family, always smiling, project the qualities, project the faith. I am 24 years old, soon to be 25 and I can see right through projection. I can see right through it. I believe that my generation is a prophetic generation. One that will no longer tolerate the “everything is OK mentality.” We see this in the angst of much of American pop culture. I cannot recall the group (I think My Chemical Romance) or the song, but I remember hearing this lyric, “I am not OK,” being screamed by a guy in his early twenties, dressed in black, with black hair, and black eyeliner. Perhaps, this scream is more truthful than most of what is being presented in churches today. At least it is honest. We are not OK. We are sick and we need a doctor. Everyday, we need a doctor.
Let us not forget that the Gospel is one that tells us: when we are weak, then we are strong because Christ’s power is made perfect in our weakness. As our generation cries out, “I am not OK,” I pray that the message of the Gospel hits them at the core of their being. None of us are OK. None us are doing just fine. It is the realization of this everyday that draws us to Christ, our weakness, our inability to even just be “OK,” draws us to Christ. It is in that place that God tells us he wants us to be much more that just “OK.” He wants us to live as His sons and daughters, created in His image, a member of the priesthood of believers. It is the scream, “I am not OK,” where Christ steps in and speaks this to us, “Surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age (Matt. 28:20).”
In this instance, as Jesus speaks his words of truth to us, we no longer have to worry about being OK. We just live in His presence. We choose to live in the tension of the now and the not yet. The words of the Holy Spirit bestowed upon us by Jesus Christ, are always speaking to us. We must learn to embrace the tension, not living in the hope of attaining some type of equilibrium in this life, but living in the hope of the resurrection: There will be a day when our bodies will resurrect and will spend eternity with God! We are creatures constantly given a choice to embrace the power of God and the hope of the resurrection in the midst or our pain or to run from our pain in a futile effort to feel OK.
To my generation: You are right. “We are not OK.” We are sick. America is sick. Our world is sick. I am sick. We all need the only one who can save us, Jesus Christ, and not on our terms, but on His terms. Repeatedly, the Bible calls us to suffer for the sake of Christ, to endure sufferings, to endure trials, to press on in the face of suffering, to run the race towards the prize. The pain of the “not yet” rips at our mind, body, and soul everyday, but we must endure, not because we hope to feel better, but for the sake of Christ! Amen.

I Know Nothing Apart From God

2007-09-23T15:46:00.000-07:00

Sometimes in our pride and puffed-up knowledge, we may attempt to "penetrate the divine wisdom of God." (Calvin said this somewhere in his Institutes of the Christian Religion). This blog is one where I desire to express myself and what God is doing in my heart and mind. I never want to say that I have any type of final word on any issue. There are times when I become so confused that the only thing I can hold onto is the fact (and I mean fact) that God loves me and I love Him. Sometimes there is nothing else, but this.

The Apostle Paul wrote this to the Ephesians:

I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints (vs 17-18).

Knowledge only comes from God. I know nothing apart from God. Without faith in God, I have nothing. Without a heart-knowledge of God (the enlightening of the eyes of my heart by the Holy Spirit that Paul speaks of), I have no head knowledge, my existence means nothing, and I am in utter despair. I might as well be dead without God and His Son. I am nothing other than a Christ follower and a son of the most high God.

Therefore, I must say that I can only write what I write because of God and for no other reason. I just don't know about the question of human choice (I am referring to an earlier post where I boldly and pridefully try to answer this question, while at the same time trying to dismantle Luther's The Bondage of the Will and Calvin's soteriology), but I do know the Gospel, that Jesus Christ came into this world to save sinners (Romans 5:8). I know that I am loved by God and that I love God.

I am in crisis over the question of free will, but I must affirm that I know nothing apart from God. I will post a detailed response to Luther's The Bondage of the Will in a later post when I have more time. I hope and pray that Scripture and the Holy Spirit will be guides as I continue to come to grips with this issue.

2007-09-18T16:24:00.000-07:00

My second post was about my views on human choice and God’s sovereignty. For those of you who found this post confusing because I did not fully explain the concepts and thinkers I was using, let me offer my apologies. This post is specifically for you. (Just so I am citing my sources. The majority of this information came from Dr. James Railey’s Systematic Theology notes.)

John Calvin (1509-1564) is regarded as one of the greatest systematic theologians ever. His writings are vast and his biblical commentaries are exhaustive. He obviously had a very high view of Scripture. His major tenet is God’s sovereignty. In other words, God is not altered, impacted, or changed in any way by us. Some present-day examples of Calvinist denominations are Presbyterian, Reformed, Congregationalist, and some Baptists. While his writings are vast, scholars have summed up his basic beliefs in an acronym: TULIP

Total Depravity—the fall left human beings totally incapable of making themselves right before God
Unconditional Election—God has chosen some to be saved
Limited Atonement—God has provided the atoning sacrifice through Christ for those whom he has elected; the inevitable conclusion is that grace is not available to all
Irresistible Grace—the elect WILL be saved
Perseverance of the Saints—the elect WILL make it (once saved, always saved)

James Arminius (1560-1609) was a member of the Dutch Reformed Church (historically, extremely Calvinistic), who challenged Calvin’s theology with two major points of contention: 1) Calvinism made God the author of sin and 2) Calvinism denied human freedom. His writings are not nearly as vast as Calvin’s. Some present-day examples of Arminian denominations are Assemblies of God, Methodists, many Baptists, and most Pentecostal groups. His beliefs can be summed up with the acronym: TCURP

Total Depravity—although I am totally fallen and cannot save myself, I still must respond to God with belief
Conditional Election—God’s foreknowledge beforehand of my response (God exists outside of time)
Unlimited Atonement—Jesus has died for all, grace is available to all
Resistible Grace—his grace can be resisted meaning that people can choose not to believe
Perseverance of the Saints IF . . . —saints must persevere (work and struggle for righteousness); salvation can be lost, but this would be a major struggle

So this is Calvinism and Arminianism in a nutshell. Where does Luther fit in? Martin Luther (1483-1546) is sometimes called the “Father of the Reformation.” It was his writings and actions that began the Protestant Reformation of the early sixteenth century. Lutheran churches are present-day examples of those who adhere strictly to Luther’s theology. His major tenets are:

1) Sola Scriptura—the supremacy of Scripture
2) Sola Gratia—salvation is by grace and only grace
3) Sola Fide—through faith (response that is drawn from grace)

In his soteriology (view of salvation), Luther is almost entirely in-line with Calvin. He simply puts his this way: salvation is by grace through faith. However, faith is not a choice, but rather it is the “response drawn from grace.” Luther does not believe that free will exists. He makes this claim boldly and authoritatively in his book, The Bondage of the Will. So faith is not based on human action, but rather on what Calvin would call, “the irresistibility of God’s grace.” So, the choice to believe does not exist for Luther. We either encounter God’s grace or we do not.

A final thought:

A friend (thanks Chris) recently enlightened me with this knowledge: Luther questioned the validity of the Book of James (As far as I know, Calvin would not agree with this). He called it the "straw gospel." In other words, he questioned whether or not it should even be in the Bible. This is interesting in light of Sola Scriptura. How can we question the canonicity of one book without questioning the canonicity of all books? Furthermore, how can we hold Scripture to be supreme when we desire to remove entire books of the Bible?

Unfortunately, it is not possible. At the present time, if we are to call ourselves followers of Christ, we have no choice but to accept all Scripture as God-breathed. Without this foundational belief, our identity as Christians begins to fall apart. For example, what if I want to believe that Christ did not come in the flesh, but only appeared in spirit form on this earth (this is the major tenet of Gnosticism by the way). Now that I have this foundational belief, I can approach Scripture and just simply remove anything that does not support my view. I could take out major chunks of the Gospels. I could remove the majority of the Apostolic letters. I mean, why not? If all of Scripture is not God-breathed, then what does it matter?

Thoughts?

Psychology is Dead without Jesus Christ

2007-09-14T18:24:00.000-07:00

Psychology is dead without Jesus Christ. Without Christ at the center, the study of the mind and human behavior will accomplish nothing. Check out the story below. I am on Exodus International's email list. You can learn more by going to their website: www.exodus.to. As always, I welcome comments, questions, challenges, etc.

Former Homosexuals Applaud Research Showing Sexual Orientation Change Possible

Nashville, TN- Leaders of the world's largest outreach to those dealing with unwanted homosexuality commended recent research showing change in sexual orientation to be possible at a press conference today in Nashville. The study, released by InterVarsity Press yesterday, is the first longitudinal, peer-reviewed, scientific research of its kind on this topic to date.

Researchers Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse released the results of a three-year study during an address at the American Association of Christian Counselors World Conference. Their findings indicate that religiously mediated sexual orientation change is possible for some individuals and does not cause psychological harm to the patient, on average. These conclusions directly contradict the claims of both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association that state that change in sexual orientation is impossible and attempting to pursue this alternative is likely to cause depression, anxiety or self-destructive behavior. The major findings of this study are reported in full in the book Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation (InterVarsity Press).

Former American Psychological Association President, Nicholas A. Cummings, Ph.D., Sc.D., praised the research methods of Jones and Yarhouse, "This study has broken new ground in its adherence to objectivity and a scientific precision that can be replicated and expanded, and it opens new horizons for investigation." In the absence of any scientific, peer-reviewed research on this topic, Exodus International funded the research conducted by Jones and Yarhouse.

Alan Chambers, a former homosexual and President of Exodus International, responded to the study findings at today's press conference, "Finally, there is now scientific evidence to prove what we as former homosexuals have known all along - that those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attraction can experience freedom from it. For years, opponents of choice have said otherwise and this body of research is critical in advancing the national dialogue on this issue."

Chambers, who was joined by researcher Dr. Stanton Jones at the press conference today, added, "Anyone who has undergone the life-changing process of leaving homosexuality behind will tell you that it is not an easy one. However, for thousands of us, the journey has been well worth it and we are grateful that these study findings give credence to our existence as men and women whose lives have been transformed by Jesus Christ.

A Short Response to Martin Luther's The Bondage of the Will

2007-09-14T18:08:00.000-07:00

This post was originally written within an email response I wrote to someone who said that by not agreeing with Luther in The Bondage of the Will, I am also not agreeing with Paul in the Book of Romans. I respect deeply the person with whom I was corresponding and most certainly do not think that what is written below is absolutely true or that my interpretation of the Bible is without errors. This post is certainly limited in its scope and barely scratches the surface of many of the issues raised. But, if nothing else, it gives you a picture of my views on human choice. As always, I ask for any questions or challenges. (And if you would like some very basic information on John Calvin, James Arminius, and Martin Luther, please see one of my posts above.)

Let me begin by saying that I could not have more respect for Martin Luther (I often mention that I share the name Martin with two of the greatest reformers to ever walk the earth, Martin Luther and Martin Luther King). What we believe about the centrality of Scripture over Tradition in Protestantism, we owe not just to the God-given wisdom of Luther, but to His courage. I would say he choose to respond to what God was calling him to do. This however does not mean that I have to agree with the inevitable conclusions of his theology in The Bondage of the Will.

My biggest issue with Luther is that he leaves no room for the decision of the human being to follow Christ. Luther says we are saved by grace through faith. What is faith? If it is a response to grace (as I believe Luther would say), doesn't a response imply a human choice? I can choose to respond or not to respond.

We are saved by grace, but we must choose to either accept or reject this grace. Romans 3:22: "This righteousness from God comes from faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." "To all who believe." Why did Paul say this? Because there is no point in offering something to people, if you already know who will and will not accept it. Why offer it freely? Why even bother? If there is no choice, in essence, isn't Luther saying exactly what Calvin is saying in that Jesus is really only a mechanism for God's grace and not really the offering of God's free grace to all people, Jew or Gentile.

The passages you quoted from Romans 7 and Romans 9 do seem to prove your position. But these passages are meant to be looked at in light of all of Romans, which does not paint a picture of a God who asks us to make no choices. Romans 12 specifically is a strong testament to the importance of followers of Christ choosing to do good (offering our bodies as living sacrifices). I read Romans 7 as a honest and beautiful depiction of the despondent situation Paul would be in if he were saved by works and not by grace. Look at Romans 8:1 when Paul writes, "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death." Oh praise God, my frustration over the fact that I live in a sinful world, that I cannot seem to escape the sin around me, that I continue to sin even after accepting God's grace, does not mean I am going to hell, but this does not excuse me from making the choice to offer myself as a living sacrifice to God. I would argue further that this is not a one time decision. We must do this everyday. In the face of temptation, we must choose to throw ourselves at the foot of the Cross, sacrificing our sinful nature and allowing God to empower us to choose what is good.

Romans 8:28-29a says this (this is NIV, by the way): "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son." "For those who love him" implies that we must love God, in other words we must believe in Him and accept his will for our lives. Is not love a choice on the part of the follower of Christ? God's love for us beckons us to love Him, but it certainly does not force us to love Him. Also, notice how it says, "for those God foreknew, he also predestined" This seems to point to a view of predestination that presents an idea of God outside of time. (Time is a created thing. Therefore, God knows what will happen, but he does not force what will happen.) The final section of the passage says, "to be conformed to the likeness of his Son," which means that salvation is a daily process. Christ has already died and resurrected. We are still living on this earth and therefore we still struggle with temptation. We are called to resist sin. In the moment where pornography is staring me in the face, there is a choice that exists. I can give into the temptation or I can choose to resist and once again sacrifice my sinful nature. If human choice does not exist, what do I tell a person to do in this situation? Just pray and if God does not remove the desire, go ahead and sin. I mean this is kind of what absence of human choice sounds like to me. How are pastors to be pastoral if they cannot direct their congregation with biblical advice and counsel? We are daily being "conformed to the image of Christ," which requires daily sacrifice on our parts.

Chapter 9 is a description of God's Sovereignty in the face of Israel's disobedience and then a pointing to God's sovereign choice, God's sovereign election, in the person of Jesus Christ to save all who believe in Him. It is not meant to be a proof text for the abolition of man's ability to choose to accept or choose to reject God's free offering of grace through the person of Jesus Christ. In fact, it would seem that it becomes a proof text for my position.

So, I would say that my statement about disagreeing with the inevitable conclusion of Luther's The Bondage of the Will is not in contradiction to the writings of Paul, specifically in Romans.

An Email Response: Why I Started this Blog

2007-09-14T17:56:00.002-07:00

I wrote this email in response to some questions raised by a seminary student in Virginia. While writing it, I realized that I write best when I am asked questions or more specifically, when I am challenged. I preface this post by saying that I have great respect for the fellow student who wrote to me. He agrees with most of what I have written. I especially respect his demeanor in writing me. He is a kind person and has a great heart. With that said, I welcome all responses, questions, and challenges. I love a good debate!

I'll begin with my understanding of the theology of John Calvin, which I'll admit is not extensive as I have not delved into any of Calvin's systematic theology. If I understand Calvin correctly, he says that our salvation does not depend on any type of choice to believe on our part, but instead on whether or not we are one of God's elect. I guess I would ask, even if he does acknowledge that free will exists (which I was not aware of), what is the point of acknowledging that it exists? If the major question of our existence is salvation, and according to Calvin, our salvation is determined by God's election, not the Cross and Resurrection (which is really only a mechanism for God's election in Calvin's theology) or by any human choice to believe, then what point is left for free will? Perhaps, Martin Luther puts it more clearly in The Bondage of the Will, when he simply makes the point that free will does not exist, meaning our will is either bonded to sin or to the will of God. (I do not agree with this, but at least Luther is able to make a clear statement about free will within his theology of being saved by faith, not by works.) In Calvin's theology, it would seem that the only logical conclusion left for free will is that it does not exist. For that matter, if the will is broken, then it is not really free is it? Luther makes this clear in his theology. Excuse my ignorance if I am making any incorrect assumptions, but I feel that my understanding is pretty clear. And please, if you would, correct any misunderstandings I may have. That is after all how people learn.

I disagree with your view of sex however. At some point in my studies, I will go through the Scriptures and count how many times people are warned against sexual immorality, in the Old and New Testament. What a task! Yes, our desires are too small! This is just the point. Sex is meant to be the consummation of marriage. I would go as far as to call it part of the sacrament. In my understanding of sex, if you have sex with someone, you are married to them. Is this not the Old Testament understanding of sex and furthermore, also, the New Testament understanding of sex? Furthermore, just because people in the Old Testament went around having sex with a bunch of people does not mean it was OK. In other words, just because polygamy was practiced in the OT does not mean it is acceptable to God.

God destroyed entire civilizations because of sexual immorality. (And if you want to disagree with me about Sodom and Gomorrah, I will just point to the story of Gibeah and the destruction of the Benjamites in Judges, especially Judges 19:22) It is clear this has been a problem since the beginning of time. You want a sacramental view of sex, read Song of Songs. Wow! Sex is a beautiful thing, when it is practiced within God's intentions for it, a monogamous relationship. You think that sex addicts enjoy sex? Absolutely not! Sex is a compulsion for them. It slowly loses its pleasure until they reach the point where it has no pleasure. Thank God for C.S. Lewis's thoughts on desire! God wants to fulfill our desires abundantly and yet we continue to look for ways to deny this by questioning what is clear in His Word. So, from the biblical viewpoint, and according to God's intention, sex and marriage should never be separated.

Just to paraphrase some of the other questions you raised: First, you asked, "As pastors and leaders today, are we called to make the Gospel understandable and convincing to today's generation?" Absolutely, but not at the expense of Truth. The Gospel is offensive in its very nature. We are called to make it understandable, but not palatable.

Second, you ask about the problem of pain (Theodocy; Thanks for bringing up that term by the way. I am not familiar with it, as I have just started my season in seminary). I would never attempt to make light of the pain and suffering of those struggling with bodily disease and mental illness by saying to them, "Pain is just a part of life." This would be incredibly insensitive and I consider myself a sensitive person. And if you notice in my previous email, I did not attempt to pose an answer to the why question, but I only pointed to the only one who has an answer, Christ. And Christ did not give an answer to Paul either, other than to say my grace is sufficient for you. I would never try to answer the question, "Why is there so much suffering in the world?," except by pointing to Christ. This may be inadequate for people, but why is it that I can meet people who have more joy than I do and yet they are dying of cancer? Only that person and Christ can answer that question.

To even compare my suffering to that of Paul is somewhat ludicrous, but I will do it anyways. What I am saying is that Paul followed God's will despite his suffering. I am not saying that God wants us to suffer or experience pain. What I am arguing against is what I perceive to be an American culture of escapism. Are you lonely, turn on the TV? Are you depressed, have you tried alcohol or drugs. Are you horny, look at pornography or go out and have a one night stand? I am not trying to say that we should just grin and bear our pain, but that we should do God's will in spite of the pain that we feel. At the risk of sounding cliche, we need to "take up our cross and follow Jesus." There will be ecstatic joy, those glimpses of heaven, there
will be intense pain, the times we have to call out to God and nothing else, but we will be following God's will, we will have the fulfillment of a life centered on Christ. I absolutely love the Book of Lamentations because it is honest about pain, but my favorite parts of the book are when the author gives praise to God in the midst of his pain. I especially like Lamentations 3:55-58 because it is similar to Psalm 30, one of my favorites. If you recall, I read the closing of it at the end of my testimony. The Lamentations verses are as follows:

I called on your name, O Lord, from the depths of the pit. You heard my plea: "Do not close your ears to my cry for relief." You came near when I called you, and you said, "Do not fear." O Lord, you took up my case; you redeemed my life.

And to answer your question of divisiveness within the church, I am concerned with this, but not at the expense of Truth. As I have said before, the Gospel is offensive, but it is more importantly True. I am concerned with making the Gospel understandable to people, but I am not worried in the least with making it palatable. Why should I be? The Christian life is hard, but is right, good, and rewarding beyond description. I would not trade it for anything in the world. I would never tell people that following Christ is easy. The Son of Man had no place to lay His head, why should we make concessions when we are preaching the Gospel?

OK, your next question was about walking the line between grace and holiness. I take the position of Bonhoeffer and say that many in the church are ascribing to cheap grace. The grace that God gives us through the person of Jesus Christ calls us to give up our life for the cause of Christ. A true encounter with Jesus Christ changes every part of our being. Again I must ask, why make concessions just because people disagree with us? The Apostle Paul certainly did not. What if he had agreed with those who said that Christ did not come in the flesh? The Gnostics who would say our souls are trapped in our bodies and salvation comes through some type of "special, spiritual knowledge." Furthermore, what if he said, that because our bodies do not matter, we can do whatever we want. He did not. He stood up over and over again and defended the Gospel, not to judge others, as he considered himself the worst of sinners, but to defend the cause of Christ!

No, the grace I know is a grace that calls me to the fullest life I could possibly imagine, more full than any talk of holiness could ever offer me. I get tired of talk about holiness in the church. I am called to submit to the will of God and boldly follow Him. We need to make the Gospel understandable yes, but palatable, absolutely not!

I think your final question was about anachronism. Well, in fact this is my critique of John Boswell's treatment of the Scripture in Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. He is extremely anachronistic in his view that what Paul was condemning in Romans 1 was not homosexuality, but heterosexuals going against their natural sexual orientation and practicing homosexuality. Those who are "born homosexual" are therefore practicing what is natural to them. This argument assumes that Paul would have had a knowledge of sexual orientation, which he absolutely did not! In Romans 1, Paul says that men having sex with men and women having sex with women is a result of idolatry, of lifting up created things over Creator God. Sexual orientation is a 20th century phenomenon that I wish did not exist. Why should I identify myself with who I have sex with? Isn't this what the homosexual agenda is defending? I can have sex with who I want and I am going to be proud about it, raising created men and women over and above Creator God. This is idolatry! I am not talking
about the repentant person who struggles with homosexual thoughts. I am talking about those who claim that if you do not accept that they can have sex with any adult they choose, any way they want, then you are a bigot. No, the Gospel is offensive and if it offends you that is just fine with me. This has nothing to do with judging other people. I do not do this, but I do stand up for the Truth.