Skip to content

Author Archives for me

Thanks

I haven’t posted anything here for a long time, which they say is the worst blogging sin you can commit.  Firmly committed to the principle of grace, I can only respond, “Oh, well.”  But, I’ve been thinking, which probably means eventually I’ll be writing again.  I do plan to continue my “This I Know” series, which focuses on the simple things of Christianity that I knew as a child, and which I still believe are true.

This post will probably be rewritten at some point as part of that series.

This weeks’ revelation

I occasionally have revelations, typically when I least expect them. That’s probably why they fall under the category of revelations. I had one yesterday. Contrary to the popular concept of revelations, the heavens didn’t open, I didn’t receive stone or golden tablets (or tablets of any kind), and I still don’t understand Lady Gaga. My revelation was more along the lines of a head-slapping, “I could have had a V8!” moment. It happened as I was not having a good day and there was very little chance of interpreting the glass as being half-full. My revelation was this:

Cast your cares upon him, as he cares for you. ~1 Peter 5:7

“Him,” by the way, refers to Jesus (I just had to clarify that in case someone took this to mean I had suddenly come to embrace Obamacare.  And no, having a revelation of this sort does nothing to inhibit my tendency towards sarcasm.).

I have to say, I felt a bit foolish, as I have known this verse since I was a child. It’s so incredibly obvious that for this to be considered a revelation, I must be particularly dull. And, perhaps experiencing some adult-onset ADS, I began to appreciate the play on words in this particular translation. “Anxiety” just doesn’t have the same impact as the double use of “cares.”

It is impossible for us to say that we have no one to turn to, as Jesus is always standing there with an implied “What am I, chopped liver?” response.  There are those who will point out that talking to Jesus is not the same as talking to someone you can touch; however, I’ve never been inclined to touch most of my friends anyway. Atheists can refuse to believe he exists, but their failure to believe doesn’t change the truth of the verse. Likewise, our forgetfulness doesn’t change the fact that Jesus is there, ready to take our yoke, carry our burdens, and so on.

For this, I am thankful.

Count your blessings

As a kid, my dad would always frustrate me with that “count your blessings” thing. Often, I didn’t want to count my blessings, as I knew that I would have to let go of my grumbling and complaining to do so. It’s impossible to do both at the same time. Even if we try, acknowledging that something is a blessing—something that we have received through grace, for which we have to be thankful—causes us to have to let go of our negativity.

This doesn’t mean that we will automatically be free from our anxieties, but being thankful does point us in the right direction.

Thanks

This Thursday is Thanksgiving, probably the only holiday that is permanently fixed on a Thursday rather than on a numerical day of the month. This is not really pertinent to my topic, but I do find it interesting. Why Thursday, except to kick off a 4-day weekend? Thanksgiving is not strictly a religious holiday, although it does presume that there is Someone to thank.  You could, I guess thank yourself for everything you’ve accomplished, or sit around and thank each other. You could thank your employer for the paychecks,  and you could thank the government for the roads and so on, and I suppose you could thank universe for kicking things off with a Big Bang. But, it’s not the same.

Thanksgiving traditionally commemorates the mythological First Thanksgiving (not that it can’t be true, but mythological in the sense that it has come to represent something larger than itself), where the Pilgrims threw a feast to celebrate being alive after a difficult 1st year in the new world, and gave thanks to God the provider for what they had been given.

Being thankful—whether we like it or not, or whether we acknowledge it or not—points us toward our creator and provider. And, for those of us who can acknowledge Jesus the source of all good things, it puts us in the perfect position to cast our cares on him.

I have a lot to be thankful for. Without getting too personal, I’ll just say that I’m happy to be here. Today is my son’s birthday, and I’m thankful for him. I’m thankful for my non-birthday kids, too. I’m thankful for my wife, and for the family members that are still with us (I’ve lost a few over the years). I’m thankful for God’s provision, and a lot of other things I won’t mention, specifically the banjo.

Now that I’m older, and hopefully a bit wiser, I have learned that I don’t like to grumble and complain. No one will listen to me anyway. I’d actually much rather be thankful. I like counting my blessings, one by one. It makes me feel better, and keeps me from getting wacked out over things that won’t matter 10 years from now.

The real meaning of Thanksgiving

People always talk about “the real meaning of Christmas,” but no one ever talks about the real meaning of Thanksgiving. It’s not football, or turkey, or shopping. It’s also not about family, as good as family is. The real importance of Thanksgiving is having a day set aside to reorient ourselves toward the only one who will actually catch our cares should we decide to cast them in his direction.

And that, Charlie Brown, is what Thanksgiving is all about.

 

Written on 22 November 2011 by me under This I know with 3 Comments

Why worship?


I read a very interesting post this weekend at Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength that challenges the very core of contemporary church life: worship. If you attend a contemporary-style church, chances are you know that it’s all about the worship.  Walk into any of these evangelical churches—many with cool, new-age-sounding names like Daybreak or Morningspring, as well those with more traditional-sounding names, including one or 2 Lutheran churches—and you can expect to spend the first 20-40 minutes singing worship choruses.  This will be followed by announcements, the offering, a coffee break, and then a sermon, usually capped with another worship song or two. The more traditional evangelical focus has always been on the sermon. But, from listening to a number of these sermons in person or on the radio, it’s pretty clear that the focus is not there; it’s on the worship.

So, what if this contemporary understanding of worship is wrong?  I don’t mean off just a little bit, I mean completely and totally wrong. What if worship has nothing to do with creating a mood-altering state through hypnotic rhythms, major 7 chords, and repetitive chanting (hey, I’ve been on a few worship teams and even been a worship leader). The blogger at HMS&S even dares to suggest that God is not even interested in our worship songs:

If you were to search the commands in the books of Moses, you would not find a command where God asks for flattery. In the commands of the books of Moses, God shows remarkably little interest in receiving praise. In the Ten Commandments, the well-known command forbidding idol-worship is not, after all, followed by a command insisting on praising God. The Sabbath command does not contain a command to conduct worship services; it contains a command to rest from work. The kind of “worship” which God asks of his people as they live their daily lives is to be ethical: to be morally good. He requires of his people that they live good lives: not lying, not stealing, not murdering, not taking each others’ wives and husbands. He asks his people to be holy as God himself is holy. He asks us to follow him in his ways.

This is certainly in line with Romans 12:1. The Psalms, however, clearly call for us to praise God with music, and Paul tells us we should sing to each other. I’ve paid very close attention to the lyrics of the “worship” songs being sung in the churches I visit, and as odd as it may seem, there’s actually very little of either going on. Most songs celebrate human emotion, rather than actually talking about God. And most are neither encouraging nor educational (some are downright heretical).

But, this is not to say that singing worship songs—that is, true worship songs, focusing on God’s attributes and what He has done for us—isn’t a good thing.  I loved the songs we sang yesterday in the church I attend, All Hail The Power Of Jesus Name and At The Name Of Jesus (from an old Irish tune I decided to learn on the banjo). And I enjoy more modern songs, too, even outside of church.

So, I’m not sure if the blogger is 100% correct in her viewpoint, but I think it’s worth discussing. What do you think?

 

 

Written on 26 September 2011 by me under My Own Personal Religion with 5 Comments

Does atheism’s concept of morality have a Biblical basis?

Today, Tom Gilson reviews a couple of books that make the argument that the concept of morality that we have today, which is shared by Christians and non-Christians alike, including atheists, originates from teachings found in the Bible.

If you’ve paid any attention at all to the writings (and speakings) of people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, you’re probably aware of their claims that morality has its source—as does everything—in the natural world. Harris’ latest book specifically argues for a naturalistic/scientific basis for morality.  They, and other of the so-called “new atheists” go further and claim that religion—and often Christianity in particular— is actually a source of evil. While many Christians know right off the bat that this is mere foolishness, and believe theologically that morality originates with God, most of us are unequipped to respond intelligently to the atheists’ [often unintelligent] claims. Hopefully these books will help to remedy that.

Gilson writes:

To grant full humanity: what Mangalwadi called the West’s greatest discovery. It was not to be found in Plato or Aristotle, not even in the Stoics. It came from the One who died for all equally, declaring all equally worthy of life, all equally significant, all fully human. Some complain (for example) that Christianity denigrates the status of women, but the charge is both historically and geo-culturally laughable, for it is only Christianity that has brought a real sensitivity to women into world culture. A great many other claims of Christianity’s faults are in the same category. Not all of them, to be sure: both of these authors acknowledge the human error that has always afflicted the Church. Still, as Hart has pointed out, the conscience by which we name those errors is a uniquely Christian conscience.

As we all know, the mere fact that there is a Judeo-Christian moral standard doesn’t mean that all Jews and Christians can live up to it. In fact, as we know, the gospel reveals that we can’t—that’s the point of the gospel. And, of course, neither can the atheists live up to any standard they set, even the broadly-interpreted “Do no harm.” “Harm” is, of course, open to interpretation. From a Christian perspective, any promotion of atheism or naturalism is doing harm in a spiritual sense.

I don’t know that I will run out and buy either of these books soon; my stack of unread books is already too high (including one really poor excuse for a book that I’m supposed to have reviewed already). But, I tend to have a soft spot when it comes to these kinds of topics… Now that I’ve blogged about them, if I find myself wanting to read more on this topic, I at least know where to find them.

Written on 20 September 2011 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Philosophy with 2 Comments

David Berlinski: Exposing the Emperor

As some of you may know, one of my many tangential interests is the philosophical tension that exists between science and religion (in general terms).  Over the last few years, there have arisen a loose band of very outspoken quasi-scientists who have taken it upon themselves to rid the world of religion, or at least make anyone holding any kind of religious beliefs appear completely foolish.

In reality, it is a retelling of “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Those wanting to be accepted by the quasi-scientific community walk around proudly displaying their “knowledge,” not realizing that they are only exposing their ignorance. The emperor—dressed in his belief in materialism or naturalism and it’s Darwinian mythology—has no clothes.

One of the more interesting figures in this debate is David Berlinski, an agnostic writer, mathematician and philosopher who is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. He is also an American in Paris, which is just kind of cool.

Berlinski is one of those guys who makes you feel smarter just listening to him. And, he has a particular knack for exposing the nakedness of the naturalists (an interesting double entendre). Below is a video of an interview with Berlinski, which is worth giving some time to (I watched it in several installments).  In the interview he describes evolution as “an exercise in conditional plausibility” and says that it is “lacking all forms of analytical sufficiency.”

And, interesting for an agnostic, he believes that the universe as we have it is perfectly aligned with what we’d expect from the Old Testament. He does not, however, claim that the universe is proof that there is a God; it is just consistent with the existence of such a being.  Like I said, he’s an interesting individual.

And, sorry about the formatting—the video is a touch oversized for the column width.

Thanks to Poweline for the video.

Written on 11 September 2011 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 1 Comment

Einstein and God: It doesn’t take a genius

EinsteinOver the past few years I repeatedly run into to arguments between Theists and atheists over Einstein’s belief in God, as if it makes any difference to anyone but him. The atheist view is that Einstein’s use of the label “God” (as in “God does not play dice with the universe.”) simply referred to whatever mechanism originated the universe and/or holds it together.  A quote often cited is, “I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings” (in response to Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein’s question about Einstein’s beliefs).

Einstein actually said a number of things about God, some of which seem to conflict others. It’s not that surprising, as we all have thoughts about things—even about God—that change over time.

A couple of things are pretty certain: He was never a Christian (he was Jewish by birth), and he was not an atheist. At times he referred to himself as agnostic, meaning that he didn’t claim to know. He did, however, at least believe at one point that there was an intelligence behind the universe:

I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist.

We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written these books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.

– Albert Einstein (Time Magazine Interview, cited in Einstein and Religion,
Max Jammer [Princeton: 1999] p. 48.)

Personally, I don’t think it takes a genius to come to this conclusion. Without God revealing himself in more specific ways (Heb. 1:1-2), this is about all we can know. But, as the writer of Hebrews states, we do have more specific revelation (thank God). It doesn’t take a genius to recognize this—but it does take wisdom (He who has ears to hear, let him hear).

(Thanks to The Poached Egg for this quote)

Written on 08 September 2011 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with No Comments

The Slavery Issue: Did Paul support slavery?

Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.  For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.  (1 Cor. 7:20-24 NIV)

While I have never met a Christian who taught or believed (to my knowledge, anyway) that the Bible supported slavery, this is a common point of contention for many anti-Christian folks who claim that Christianity is an evil religion for supporting slavery.

Certainly there are those Christians in the past who used this passage to justify slavery, such as in the American South. This is, of course, unfortunate, to say the least—especially since this seems to be based on a mistranslation of the Greek, combined with another of Augustine’s heresies.

I recently read a paper by S. Scott Bartchy of the UCLA Dept. of History that builds a pretty good case for the position that the Greek word translated as “situation” or “condition” had no such meaning until Martin Luther mistranslated it into German. According to Bartchy and others he mentions, the word’s only meaning is “calling,” in the context of being called by God.  Bartchy claims that Luther’s mistranslation was intentional, to defend against a popular notion that God’s call meant a call to become a monk or priest (which is how Luther ended up a monk—he was studying to e a lawyer). Luther wanted to reinforce that we can be called to serve in whatever our current occupation happens to be.

While the context certainly seems consistent with Luther’s alleged mistranslation, Paul clearly encourages slaves to become free if given the opportunity, consistent with “owe no many anything.” Bartchy believes that rather than supporting slavery, Paul is making the point that you don’t have to become anything else in order to accept God’s call. You don’t have to become free, although it’s a good thing if you can obtain your freedom in a non-rebellious manner. You can be a good Christian slave (consider the impact Joseph had in Egypt); so accept God’s call, even though your circumstances aren’t ideal:

24. To be sure, Paul along with almost all of his contemporaries apparently did not imagine that slavery as such could be eliminated from his world. Nevertheless, Paul did not want any enslaved persons who had become Christ-followers to think that their legal-social status could influence negatively their relationship to God or their warm welcome into the “body of Christ.” The key question was: who did they think they were? It is a question of their primary identity. For Paul, being “in Christ” trumps all other definers.

Bartchy also points out that while Paul didn’t support slavery, Augustine did:

26. Augustine explained that God instituted slavery as punishment for the offense of Adam‟s original sin. In sharp contrast, Paul never connected this institution either with the will of God as punishment for sin…or with the orders of creation.

Augustine’s thoughts on slavery are, again, unfortunate, as are the consequences of Luther’s translation error, especially since so few people think for themselves—including, it seems, Bible translators.

Of course, I am not an expert in NT Greek, and I haven’t researched this issue. Bartchy could be stark, raving mad, for all I know.  If he’s correct, that at least removes one more excuse for people to write off Christianity.

Written on 05 September 2011 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Theological Musings with 1 Comment

Adam, Eve, and original sin (Augustine’s heresy)

Most western Christians don’t realize that our understanding of man’s state of sinfulness — sometimes using terms like “total depravity” and “original sin” — is largely the invention of Augustine of Hippo, and that the majority of the Church at that time rejected his ideas.  The Eastern churches still do.

The doctrine of Original Sin, by the way, is more than just believing that man is born with a tendency toward sin. It is also that man inherited the guilt of Adam — something the Bible doesn’t teach. This is why some believe that babies are born guilty, so if they die before they are baptized, they won’t make it into Heaven.

Personally, I think it’s enough to be guilty of my own sin.

Those of you who have followed this blog for any period of time might recall that I have in the past discussed various issues with what is known as the Penal Theory of the Atonement, which also arises from Augustine’s thinking. I’ve never claimed to be an expert on the subject, and I haven’t come to any final conclusions, except that the concept of the Father taking his anger out on Jesus because he needed someone to punish seems quite out of character. Also, I’ve raised issues with the Augustinian / Calvinist notion of Total Depravity, which also seems contrary to Jesus’ attitudes toward people.

Other Issues

Augustinian theology causes other problems, too, as discussed in the following video by an Orthodox Priest out of Canada. He brings out a number of very interesting points that I think Protestants should at least consider, such as the impact on the Church’s response to science and how Augustinian theology relates to violence.   In fact, the Orthodox view seems to resolve a number of the issues often raised by atheists.

I think the video is worth 15 minutes of your time.

If you do watch it, I’d really be interested in your responses.

Written on 02 September 2011 by me under Exploring the Twain, Faith, Science & Doubt with 8 Comments

The “Jesus-plus” Gospel

I don’t know who Kevin DeYoung is, or why I’ve run across him so many times in recent weeks. He blogs at a place called “The Gospel Coalition,” and the masthead identifies him as “DeYoung, restless and reformed.” However, he appears to be preaching what the Apostle Paul referred to as “another gospel, which is no gospel at all” (Gal 1:6-7).

In his current post, “Gospel-driven effort,” he writes

Last week I wrote a piece about the role of effort in the Christian life. It was born out of concern that in our passion for glorying in the indicatives of the gospel (something I have gladly advocated many times) that we are in danger of giving short shrift to the necessity of obeying biblical imperatives. My worry is that we are afraid to exhort each other, as Scripture does, to strive, fight, mortify, vivify, and make every effort for godliness.

He goes on to explain that this post responds in part to that of Tullian Tchividjian, which I wrote about a couple of weeks ago.  His was a marvelous essay on the power of grace to transform us.

The Jesus-plus “gospel”

DeYoung, however, doesn’t seem to trust either grace or the Holy Spirit, at least not completely. He quotes Martin Lloyd-Jones:

The New Testament calls upon us to take action; it does not tell us that the work of sanctification is going to be done for us. . . .We are in the ‘good fight of faith’, and we have to do the fighting. But, thank God, we are enabled to do it; for the moment we believe, and are justified by faith, and are born again of the Spirit of God, we have the ability. So the New Testament method of sanctification is to remind us of that; and having reminded us of it, it says, ‘Now then, go and do it’. (178, emphasis mine)

Remember the gospel indicatives. Then give full throat to the gospel imperatives.

If we have any doubt as to what DeYoung is meaning, he concludes with,

We all need God’s grace to believe what is true and do what is right. We died to sin in the death of Christ. Now we must put to death the deeds of the flesh.

Notice how the emphasis shifts from being saved by grace (Jesus-plus-nothing) to  “now we must” (Jesus-plus-human effort).  As Paul said, “Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?” (Gal 3:3).

Much ado about something

Am I making too much of this?  Is a little bit of human effort added to the gospel not anything to worry about?

This “little bit of human effort” thing is insidious; pastors can still preach what seems to be grace, but as Paul indicates in Galatians, to add just a little bit of anything to the pure Gospel of Christ is to lose it completely. And, Paul was not talking about justification; no one in Galatia was questioning salvation by grace alone. Paul was specifically talking about the teaching that something must be added to grace in order to live the Christian life. Circumcision. Eating Kosher. Just a little bit of striving.

It’s all Jesus, or it’s nothing.

Piper, too.

Justin Taylor (who also writes at The Gospel Coalition and who became famous by being the first to rip Rob Bell to shreds) quotes John Piper about being “more than conquerors:”

You must not be separated from the love of Jesus Christ. The aim of the attacker is to destroy you, and cut you off from Christ, and bring you to final ruin without God. You are a conqueror if you defeat this aim and remain in the love of Christ. God has promised that this will happen. Trusting this, we risk.

Notice the emphasis here. You must not.  If you defeat and remain. God has promised what? I think Piper needs to read Romans 8 again—Paul clearly states that we are more than conquerors through Christ, and that we can never be separated from the love of Christ. Not through our effort, but because of the unfailing love of Christ.

The Gospel Uncensored

There is an alternate gospel being preached, and it’s still quite popular. It’s also evil.  It’s robbing people of grace and freedom as they are conned into striving for something that has already been given them.

Do we have to strive?  As Jesus said, “The work of God is to believe in the one he has sent” (John 6:29). And as Tullian Tchividjian said,

Christian growth does not happen by working hard to get something you don’t have. Rather, Christian growth happens by working hard to daily swim in the reality of what you do have. Believing again and again the gospel of God’s free, justifying grace everyday is the hard work we’re called to.

I strive, not to become holy or sanctified, but to proclaim the good news that is the gospel. This is why Ken and I wrote The Gospel Uncensored. In the book, I quoted from Martin Luther’s introduction to his Galatians Commentary:

The devil, our adversary, who continually seeks to devour us, is not dead; likewise our flesh and old man is yet alive. Besides this, all kinds of temptations vex and oppress us on every side. So this doctrine can never be taught, urged, and repeated enough. If this doctrine is lost, then is also the whole knowledge of the truth, life and salvation lost. If this doctrine flourishes, then all good things flourish.

I have nothing against Piper, Taylor, or DeYoung personally; I’m sure they are nice folks, and sincere. However, I think they are sincerely wrong about what they are teaching. As I mentioned above, it seems that the root of this teaching is a lack of faith in the power of Christ to transform lives; that grace and the Holy Spirit aren’t quite up to the job.

I think they are.

Written on 14 June 2011 by me under Good News, The Gospel Uncensored with 8 Comments

Bart Ehrman on the certainty of Jesus

I have picked on Bart Ehrman, the atheist’s favorite Bible scholar, a few times on this blog (and even more elsewhere). If you aren’t familiar with him, he has written a handful of books in the last few years talking about all of the errors in the New Testament and claiming some of the books are forgeries.

However, it turns out that Ehrman actually does believe a few things. I ran across an interesting post today discussing a book by Mike Licona, in he what he calls the “historical bedrock”—three facts about Jesus and early Christianity which are accepted by virtually all liberal and conservative scholars alike.

As it turns out, Ehrman believes these things too.

They are:

1. Jesus’ death by crucifixion

2. Very Shortly after Jesus’ death, the disciples had experiences that led them to believe and proclaim that Jesus had been resurrected and had appeared to them.

3. Within a few years after Jesus death, Paul converted after a personal experience that he interpreted as a post resurrection appearance of Jesus to him.

The article goes on to give supporting quotes from Ehrman on these three points.

These aren’t a bad start—he could turn into a preacher yet.

 

Written on 08 June 2011 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 1 Comment

Whatever became of sin?

In 1973 Dr. Karl Menninger wrote a little book with the provocative title, Whatever Became of Sin?, in which he questioned the disappearance of right and wrong from psychiatry. It was a good question in 1973, and it’s a good question today.

Coincidentally, after I had begun to write this post, I ran across this from Michael Hyatt:

In recent years, I have noticed an increasing tendency for people to admit to mistakes rather than sins. It happens at every level, whether someone is caught cheating on their spouse, filing false insurance claims, or shoplifting from a clothing store.

Today, also coincidentally, we have Rep. Anthony Weiner’s confession of mistakes. I won’t go into details, Weiner already being the butt of too many weiner jokes. The point is, he didn’t confess to anything really sinful; he merely made a mistake.

The problem with mistakes

Mistakes are unfortunate situations, like forgetting to wear pants when you take a picture of yourself, or accidentally tweeting the photo to some girl who is not the one you are married to. Oops!

Mistakes could even be your fault—but mistakes don’t make you a sinner, they only make you a mistaker. Which is fine, until you find that you need forgiveness.

Jesus didn’t come to take away the mistakes of the world.

 

I couldn’t resist.

Written on 06 June 2011 by me under Politics/Current Events, Spiritual stuff with No Comments