Showing posts with label God's nature. Show all posts
Showing posts with label God's nature. Show all posts

Saturday, January 02, 2010

Does God Feel Emotions?

Not having spent a lot of time studying theology - I am at home with the exposition of scripture. As someone who could be close to being a "Biblicist", I certainly have not had much use for concepts of God divorced from the clear teaching of scripture.

In a discussion over at Vox Populi there was a running debate (well, not really a debate) in the comment thread about whether God feels emotion. The person holding forth the position that God did not feel anger, or joy, or any other emotion related it to the theological positions of Aquinas and others. Most of the comments by "Benyachov" were fairly rude and arrogant - but the main point seemed to be that to believe that God has emotion is an unwarranted characature of God:

Read more!

Saturday, December 26, 2009

CHRISTmas as a Universal Impulse

A woman online who is a non-Christian Unitarian Universalist was peeved by a follower of Christ who:

  • had a history of complaining about non-Christians keeping "their hands off of CHRISTmas"
  • always spelled CHRISTmas like that (emphasizing Christ in Christmas)
She didn't have a problem with those two items at all until it got connected together with this on Christmas day:

Read more!

Thursday, December 03, 2009

Matthew 1:19-25:
Just Wow

Jared Wilson at The Gospel-Driven Church saw an amazing metaphor in this passage:

Matthew 1:19 Because Joseph, her husband to be, was a righteous man, and because he did not want to disgrace her, he intended to divorce her privately. 20 When he had contemplated this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, because the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son and you will name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” 22 This all happened so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: 23 “Look! The virgin will conceive and bear a son, and they will call him Emmanuel,” which means “God with us.” 24 When Joseph awoke from sleep he did what the angel of the Lord told him. He took his wife, 25 but did not have marital relations with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus.

The post really isn't long enough to excerpt it - so I am going to post it whole:

Read more!

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Jesus is Magic?

I keep a lot of different folks on my Google Reader list from a lot of different perspectives - people that I think offer the most intelligent examples I have found for a particular niche I am interested in.

One of those sites is Common Sense Atheist. Occasionally, those places put things up that make me question why I keep them on my list. Luke just posted one of those: "Jesus is Magic".

Admittedly, up to now I haven't had a real sense of why belief in a Creator God and belief in magic are not the same; and Luke gave me the opportunity to get this defined for myself.

Read more!

Sunday, October 25, 2009

The Problem of Evil:
Free Will and the Quantity of Evil

Luke at Common Sense Atheism is continuing his series Arguing about Evil with the post "Plantinga’s Free Will Defense". Go read that.

This was started as a comment there, and then got to long-winded to keep as a comment.

Read more!

Monday, October 19, 2009

Vox Day vs Luke:
Nosing into a Discussion

I have quoted The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day in three major posts:

I added Vox Popoli -- Vox Day's blog -- to my reading list and, lo and behold, ran into the 6th letter (3 from each side) in a dialogue between Day and Luke Muehlhauser at Common Sense Atheism. Apparently, Luke requested this dialogue and kicked it off with his first letter at his blog

Read more!

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Romans 4:1-8
"God's Economy - Everyone on Well-fare"

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

The text:

Read more!

Saturday, August 01, 2009

Romans 2:6-16:
"God's Impartial Judgment"

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using Carl Palmer's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

The text is:

Read more!

Friday, August 15, 2008

The Problem of Evil:
V. Does There Have to be so Much Evil?

I am starting the fifth post in a series on the apologetics surrounding whether or not God's existence, or at least His existence as a good God, can be disproven because of the existence of evil. I have been following Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks treatment of the issue in When Skeptics Ask

This has not been a series about:

  • what is, or isn't, evil;
  • what we as humans in general (or Christians in particular) should, or shouldn't, do about evil; or even
  • what God plans to do about evil
even though I have grazed some of those issues. It has just been about whether God is proven not to be all-knowing, all-loving, and/or all-powerful because evil exists.

Up to this point, the series (other than positing the existence of a God) has been pretty distant from an exposition of Christianity per se -- and pretty distant from anything remotely resembling evangelism. This one may cross that line somewhat -- and for those following the series (particularly at Street Prophets) who would like to not cross that line feel free to skip this post. In fact, I almost didn't write it at all.

One of those arguments about God not being all-good is from the existence of hell in Christian theology. Geisler:
The extent of evil poses a problem. Surely there doesn't have to be this much evil to fulfill God's purposes. Couldn't there have been one less rape, one less drunk driver? That wouid have made the world better. And, of course, that "one-less" theory can be extended until there is no evil at all. This can even be taken to the extreme case: What about hell? Wouldn't it be better to have one less person in hell? Since both of these questions have the same answer, lets deal with the extreme case.
  1. The greatest good is to save all men.
  2. Even one person in hell would be less than the greatest good.
  3. Therefore, God cannot send anyone to hell.
To answer this objection, we go back to the subject of free will. It is true that God desires all men to be saved, but that means that they have to choose to love Him and believe in Him. Now, God can't force anyone to love Him. Forced love is a contradiction in terms. Love must be free: it is a free choice. So in spite of God's desire, some men do not choose to love Him. All who go to hell do so because of their free choice. They may not want to go to hell (who would?), but they do will it. They make the decision to reject God, even though they don't desire punishment. People don't go to hell because God sends them; they choose it and God respects their freedom.
"There are two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in hell, chose it." -- C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce
Now if that is how eternal destiny is decided, then it is not one person in hell that is evil; it is one more than is really necessary (i.e., one who did choose God but was sent to hell anyway). Granted, a world in which some men go to hell is not the best of all conceivable worlds, but it may be the best of all achievable worlds if free will is to be maintained [my emphasis]. Likewise, the world might be made better by one less crime, but it must be left to the would-be criminal to make that choice.
Social/political: Society, parents, etc. also cannot force folks not to do evil. As Geisler points out, it really is the person doing the evils decision. Certainly, there are things society can, and cannot, do in order to limit the instances of evil folks choose to do - but it still comes down to the choices folks make everyday.

Next question: Does God actively encourage good and constrain evil?
Series Link

Read more!

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

The Problem of Evil:
IV. What is the Purpose of Evil?

Part I examined what evil is; Part II what causes evil; and part III why God has not yet destroyed evil. However, for most folks the "why" is more about . . .

Read more!

Monday, August 11, 2008

The Problem of Evil:
III. Why Can't Evil be Stopped?

Part II looked at Where Evil Came From - with the conclusion that we, as moral creatures, are the cause of evil through the actions taken by our free will. We are therefore responsible - as moral creatures - for our actions and the good, and bad, results of those actions.

The next question Geisler and Brooks approach in Chapter 4 of When Skeptics Ask is

Read more!

Saturday, August 09, 2008

The Problem of Evil:
II. Where Did Evil Come From?

I am following Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks discussion in When Skeptics Ask on the problem of evil.

The comment that started me thinking on this was:

To me, the "problem of theodicy" is one that offers a devastating and unrebuttable logical argument against the notion that a god could be omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omni-benevolent (all-loving) all at the same time, and yet evil in the world could still exist. Few Christians (in my experience), be they Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, or any other variation, would stipulate that their idea of God excludes any of those attributes. Yet when I have presented the theodicy problem to them, I must confess the cognitive dissonance they experience when confronted with the logical inconsistency therein has been painful to watch.
While this issue has never caused my any discernable dissonance - I think he is right that the existence of evil is a difficult theological problem

In the last post I looked at the question of "What is Evil?". I believe evil is not a "thing-in-itself" because is a lack of something - good. This meant that we do not define folks by their evil (what they lack) but by their good (what they have). However, there are many people who lack far more than they have - folks who are "pure evil" or, in other words, lack nearly any good impulse. This brings up the next question:


Where did evil come from?
In the beginning was God and He was perfect. Then the perfect God made a perfect world. How did evil come into play? Let us summarize the problem this way:
  1. Every creature God made is perfect
  2. Perfect creatures cannot do what is imperfect
  3. So, every creature God made cannot do what is imperfect
. . . Some have concluded that there must be some force equal to God or beyond his control. Or maybe God isn't good after all. But maybe the prolem lies with the conception of perfection itself.
  1. God made everything perfect
  2. One of the perfect things God made was free creatures
  3. Free will is the cause of evil
  4. So, imperfection (evil) can arise from perfection (not directly, but indirectly through freedom)

Geisler examines the truth that what makes men morally perfect is choice - we are free to chose what we do. This is because it allows us to love freely; because forced love is rape. Also, if we have no choice there is no morality at all - the concepts of moral and immoral are meaningless without choice.

God's moral choice in creating us with moral choices allowed the possibility of evil - because freedom can only really exist if we can chose either good or evil.
That doesn't make Him [God] responsible for evil. He created the fact of freedom; we perform the acts of freedom. He made evil possible; men made evil actual. Imperfection came through our abuse of our moral perfection as free creatures.
Geisler defines free will as follows:
. . . a better definition is that it is the ability to decide be­tween alternatives. Desire is a passion, an emotion; but will is a choice between two or more desires . . . Freedom is not in unlimited options, but in unfettered choice between whatever options there are. As long as the choosing comes from the individual rather than an outside force, the decision is made freely. Free will means the ability to make an unforced decision between two or more alternatives.
The social/political ramifications of this are that we were created to make free choices between good and evil; and we are responsible for those choices.
When we sin, ultimately we (by our wills) are the [first] cause of the evil we do. -- Geisler
Neither the Devil or anybody else forced the act (or it wasn't free - and therefore had no moral content whatsoever). However, God is good and perfect so . . .

The Next Question: Why Can't Evil Be Stopped?
Series Link

Read more!

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

"Divine Will" or "Will of the People"?


This comment really ties together a number of ideas I have been writing on for awhile - and I think you are NOT a theophobe because you believe that. You are a theophobe if you believe that those who do not have this divided, "enlightened" view of the secular and the divine realms are trying to take over the government for Christ (or Allah) - and you irrationally fear that. After all, as Joe Carter contends:
After all, it is true that some conservative Christians in our country do want to establish a theocracy. Their actual numbers, however, are rather negligible and their political influence almost non-existence. As a group they likely outnumber black separatists, though they are dwarfed by the number of liberal secessionists.
However foolish I really think the theocracy canard is - that is not the point here.

The point is the intersection of faith and politics - and the connecting together of a few threads that have been running through my blogging - some nearly since the beginning: The first part of my view on this is that there are not, as the Enlightenment wished to contend, a spiritual realm and a secular realm. Of course, most devout folks I have met from any religion understand that the morality and ethics flowing from their faith cannot simply be cut-off from their secular lives - we can not be two-minded.

However, the natural law tradition is that all good things in the world overflow from God's character - including the governments we raise up to bring right order and maintain justice since the Fall. Thomas Aquinas and William Blackstone:
But Aquinas is also a natural law legal theorist. On his view, a human law (i.e., that which is promulgated by human beings) is valid only insofar as its content conforms to the content of the natural law; as Aquinas puts the point: "[E]very human law has just so much of the nature of law as is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law" (ST I-II, Q.95, A.II). To paraphrase Augustine's famous remark, an unjust law is really no law at all.

The idea that a norm that does not conform to the natural law cannot be legally valid is the defining thesis of conceptual naturalism. As William Blackstone describes the thesis, "This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original"
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Christian theologian and martyr who most had to tackle whether the "Two Kingdoms" of Luther had been subverted - also opposed the idea of separate secular and religious realms:
Any reduction of Luther’s doctrine of the “Two Kingdoms” to a notion that there are two spheres, “the one divine, holy, supernatural, and Christian, and the other worldly, profane, natural, and un-Christian,” Bonhoeffer held to be a vulgarization. The modern reading of the Two Kingdoms—a reading shaped (Bonhoeffer would say deformed) by the Enlightenment—unwittingly finalized the separation of Christian concerns from the secular and profane. “On the Protestant side,” he writes, “Luther’s doctrine of the Two Kingdoms was misinterpreted as implying the emancipation and sanctification of the world and of the natural. Government, reason, economics, and culture arrogate to themselves a right of autonomy, but do not in any way understand this autonomy as bringing them into opposition to Christianity.” The Lutheran misunderstanding of Luther contributed over time to the Enlightenment cult of reason and the emergence of the self-mastering self.

With that triumph came an idolatrous faith in progress that could only result in nationalism—the “Western godlessness” that became in modern times its own religion. In the “apostasy of the Western world from Jesus Christ,” a massive defection from our collective recognition of finitude, we abandoned the knowledge that we are creatures as well as creators. This for Bonhoeffer is the backdrop to twentieth-century totalitarianism, a terrible story of what happens when we presume we stand alone as Sovereign Selves within Sovereign States, a terrible story of what happens when individual hubris meets nationalism.
For many today, the United States is the country that most reflects "individual hubris" meeting "nationalism" with a "massive defection from our collective recognition of finitude".

For Augustine, Aquinas, Blackstone, and Bonhoeffer laws and government are only legitimate if they maintain the right order and right justice that overflows from God's character in the form of natural law. In other words, right government must conform to divine will - or it is not right.

However, let us say for a second that that is not true (as many reading this will) - what does it mean in modern America to say that government conforms to the will of the people; and where does true justice and right order flow out of the people's will (and, of course, what is it's source).

That is for Part II

Read more!

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Appropriate Smallness: Part 2

[Number nineteen in a series]

I am continuing to look at Chapter 7 ("Appropriate Smallness: The Practice of Servanthood") of John Ortberg's The Life You've Always Wanted. The study questions are from the back of the book, and were written by Kevin G. Harney.

The book is about spiritual disciplines. The most important thing I have gotten from the book about spiritual disciplines in general is that we should not do them just so we can check them off a list. They are not a barometer of spirituality or a way to earn favor with God. They are a way to enable the transformation God wants to make in your life.

Appropriate Smallness

If you want to be your own god, you have to settle for living in a tiny universe where there is room for only one person. Your world could grow infinitely bigger if you were only willing to become, in the words of a friend of mine, "appropriately small." -- John Ortberg

IV. A Life of Servanthood: How do we enter a life of servanthood?
  1. The Ministry of the Mundane
    Jesus took a little child in his arms and said, in effect, "Here's your ministry. Give yourselves to those who can bring you no status or clout. Just help people. You need this little child. You need to help this little child, not just for her sake, but more for your sake. For if you don't, your whole life will be thrown away on an idiotic contest to see who is the greatest. But if you serve her - often and well and cheerfully and out of the limelight - then the day may come when you do it without thinking, 'What a wonderful thing I've done.' Then you will begin serving naturally, effortlessly, for the joy of it. Then you will begin to understand how life in the kingdom works." -- John Ortberg
  2. The Ministry of Being Interrupted
    Another form of service might be called the ministry of availability. In the Russian church certain people called poustinikki would devote themselves to a life of prayer. They would withdraw to the desert (poustinia) and live in solitude, but not in isolation. (The Russian word for solitude means "being with everybody.") By custom, "the latch was always off the door" as a sign of availability, according to Tilden Edwards. "The poustinik's priority at any time was his neighbor's need (which might stretch beyond prayer and counsel to physical labor, as at harvest time)."
  3. Embracing Our Weaknesses and Limitations
    "Why do you choose to be so busy?" he persisted, which made me uncomfortable because then I had to think about it. The only honest answer was that, more than anything else, I was running on grandiosity. I was afraid that if I declined opportunities, they would stop coming, and if opportunities stopped coming I would be less important, and if I were less important, that would be terrible . . . As a result of this encounter I developed a small "personal schedule group," with a covenant that we would not take on any added commitments in life without discussing them with each other and with our families first. The covenant also gave us full permission to talk not only about our schedules but also the motives behind our activities.

  4. Question 6: John talks about how we can be swept into busyness and get our motors running too fast. Respond to one of the following questions that apply to you:

    • If your RPMs are too slow, what needs to happen to help you pick up the pace?


    • If you feel your RPMs are at a good place, what can you do to be sure you maintain health and balance and not get revved up too fast?


    • If your RPMs are hitting the red line and danger zone, what can you do to slow down and find restored health and balance in your life?

    Question 7: If you could form a personal schedule team made up of people who care about you, know you, and would speak honestly to you, what kind of evaluation do you think they would make if they reviewed your schedule from the past month? What might they tell you to stop? What might they encourage you to begin?


  5. The Ministry of "Holding Your Tongue"
    Perhaps the least practiced form of servanthood today is what Bonhoeffer called "the ministry of holding one's tongue."
    Often we combat our evil thoughts most effectively if we absolutely refuse to allow them to be expressed in words . . . It must be a decisive rule of every Christian fellowship that each individual is prohibited from saying much that occurs to him.
    This behavior flies in the face of the conventional wisdom today, when saying "everything that occurs to you" is taken as an essential component of mental health. But sometimes this "ministry of the closed mouth" is a victory for the kingdom
  6. The Ministry of "Bearing"
    We are called to bear each other's burdens. Sometimes this may involve praying for another's need, or trying to comfort someone in pain. But at times it may feel as if an entire relationship is burden¬some. I may need to "bear with" people until I learn to love them. . . The ministry of bearing with one another is more than simply tolerating difficult people. It is also learning to hear God speak through them. It is learning to be "for" them. It is learning that the difficult person I have most to deal with is me. . . . "Bearing with them" does not require becoming best friends, but means learning to wish them well, releasing our right to hurt them back, coming to experience our common standing before the Cross.
Group Prayer Direction: Read Mark 10:45 again. Pray for God to give each of your small-group members a growing desire to serve in humble secrecy. Pray for the heart of Jesus when it comes to your acts of service.

Living the Life: What is an example of the ministry of the mundane that you can offer in one of the following areas this week?
  • In a friendship

  • In the work place

  • In your home

  • In your neighborhood

  • In your church
Take a moment and identify one or two simple chores, tasks, or jobs that you know (and others may know) you really don't enjoy. What might you learn if you commit to one of these tasks on a regular basis for the coming months, seeking the Spirit's leading in your life as you enter into these simple tasks?

Personal Reflection:What can you do to keep the latch off your door and make yourself more available to others in how you do the following:

  • Schedule your day

  • Project approachability and availability

  • Set up your home, office, and other places people connect with you
Additional Small Group Questions:
  1. Not only can vanity strike in the secular parts of life, it can hit at the core of our spiritual life. What are some signs or indicators that spiritual pride is creeping in?


  2. Read Luke 18:9-14. What is Jesus teaching us about the condition of our heart in relation to our actions?


  3. Have a member of your small group read the possible responses to a sincere compliment (see Part 1). What does genuine and authentic humility look like? What does false humility look like and how can you tell the dif¬ference?


  4. Read the Bonhoeffer quote above. Tell about a time you should have held your tongue, but failed to. What were some of the repercussions? Tell about a time you did hold your tongue and had the wisdom and self-control to be silent. What did God accomplish through your silence?



Read more!

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Why This Friday is so Good

[This is a re-working of a post from June of 2006 - and I may put it up before every Good Friday in the future.]

The book is John Piper's Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die. The conversation around the atonement, and the various views of whether it happened (or not) and what it meant (or not), seems to digress into us trying to find the main reason - the proper theology - when all of the reasons matter. Or, worse yet, talking about who was at fault . . .

The death of Jesus is of foremost importance for the world. And the central issue of Jesus’ death is not the cause, but the meaning—God’s meaning . . . John Piper has gathered from the New Testament fifty reasons behind the crucifixion of the Christ. Not fifty causes, but fifty purposes—in answer to the most important question facing us in the twenty-first century:
Why did Jesus suffer and die?
A book review/bible study

These are the chapter titles, and the key verses.

1. To absorb the wrath of God: Galatians 3:13; Romans 3:25; 1 John 4:10
2. To please His heavenly Father: Isaiah 53:10; Ephesians 5:2
3. To learn obedience and be perfected: Hebrews 5:8; Hebrews 2:10
4. To achieve His own resurrection from the dead: Hebrews 13:20-21
5. To show the wealth of God's love and grace for sinners: Romans 5:7-8; John 3:16; Ephesians 1:7
6. To show His own love for us: Galatians 5:2; Ephesians 5:25; Galatians 2:20
7. To cancel the legal demands of the law against us: Colossians 2:13-14
8. To become a ransom for many: Mark 10:45
9. For the forgiveness of our sins: Ephesians 1:7; Matthew 26:28
10. To provide the basis for our justification: Romans 5:9; Romans 3:24; Romans 3:28
11. To complete the obedience that becomes our righteousness: Philippians 2:8; Romans 5:19; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Philippians 3:9
12. To take away our condemnation: Romans 8:34
13. To abolish circumcision and all rituals as the basis of salvation: Galatians 5:11; Galatians 6:12
14. To bring us to faith and keep us faithful: Mark 14:24; Jeremiah 32:40
15. To make us holy, blameless and perfect: Hebrews 10:14; Colossians 1:22; 1 Corinthians 5:7
16. To give us a clear conscience: Hebrews 9:14
17. To obtain for us all things that are good for us: Romans 8:32
18. To heal us from moral and physical sickness: Isaiah 53:5; Matthew 8:16-17
19. To give eternal life to all who believe on Him: John 3:16
20. To deliver us from the present evil age: Galatians 1:4
21. To reconcile us to God: Romans 5:10
22. To bring us to God: 1 Peter 3:18; Ephesians 2:13
23. So that we might belong to Him: Romans 7:4; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20; Acts 20:28
24. To give us confident access to the Holiest place: Hebrews 10:19
25. To become for us the place where we meet God: John 2:19-21
26. To bring the Old Testament priesthood to an end and become the eternal High Priest: Hebrews 7:23-27; Hebrews 9:24-26; Hebrews 10:11-12
27. To become a sympathetic and helpful priest: Hebrews 4:15-16
28. To free us from the futility of our ancestry: 1 Peter 1:18-19
29. To free us from the slavery of sin: Revelation 1:5-6; Hebrews 13:12
30. That we might die to sin and live to righteousness: 1 Peter 2:24
31. That we would die to the law and bear fruit for God: Romans 7:4
32. To enable us to live for Christ and not ourselves: Hebrews 7:23-27; Hebrews 9:24-26; 2 Corinthians 5:15
33. To make His cross the ground of all our boasting: Galatians 6:14
34. To enable us to live by faith in Him: Galatians 2:20
35. To give marriage its deepest meaning: Ephesians 5:25
36. To create a people passionate for good works: Titus 2:14
37. To call us to follow His example of lowliness and costly love: 1 Peter 2:19-21; Hebrews 12:3-4; Philippians 2:5-8
38. To create a band of crucified followers: Luke 9:23; Matthew 10:38
39. To free us from bondage to the fear of death: Hebrews 2:14-15
40. So that we would be with Him immediately after death: 1 Thessalonians 5:10; Philippians 1:21,23; 2 Corinthians 5:8
41. To secure our resurrection from the dead: Romans 6:5; Romans 8:11; 2 Timothy 2:11
42. To disarm the rulers and authorities: Colossians 2:14-15; 1 John 3:8
43. To unleash the power of God in the gospel: 1 Corinthians 1:18; Romans 1:16
44. To destroy the hostility between races: Ephesians 2:14-16
45. To ransom people from every tribe and language and people and nation: Revelation 5:9
46. To gather all his sheep from around the world: John 11:51-52
47. To rescue us from final judgment: Hebrews 9:28
48. To gain his joy and ours: Hebrews 12:2
49. So that He would be crowned with glory and honor: Hebrews 2:9; Philippians 2:7-9; Revelation 5:12
50. To show that the worst evil is meant by God for good: Acts 4:27-28

Again, these are the chapter titles in the book, and the key verses for each chapter. The book has two pages for each chapter heading; and much more discussion and analysis. Pick up a copy and enjoy.

Read more!

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Appropriate Smallness: Part 1

[Number eighteen in a series]

I am beginning to look at Chapter 7 ("Appropriate Smallness: The Practice of Servanthood") of John Ortberg's The Life You've Always Wanted. The study questions are from the back of the book, and were written by Kevin G. Harney.

The book is about spiritual disciplines. The most important thing I have gotten from the book about spiritual disciplines in general is that we should not do them just so we can check them off a list. They are not a barometer of spirituality or a way to earn favor with God. They are a way to enable the transformation God wants to make in your life.

Appropriate Smallness

If you want to be your own god, you have to settle for living in a tiny universe where there is room for only one person. Your world could grow infinitely bigger if you were only willing to become, in the words of a friend of mine, "appropriately small." -- John Ortberg


I. The Oldest Sin:
"The writer of Genesis states that it was through pride that the serpent tempted Eve to eat the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden: 'For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God.'" -- John Ortberg

Question 1: Read Genesis 3:1-7. How did Satan use the human tendency for vanity as leverage in his temptation of Adam and Eve? How does the enemy still use this same tactic for temptation in the world today?


Starting with the lesser versions of pride:
  • Vanity
  • Stubbornness:
    "One who is often reproved, yet remains stubborn, will suddenly be broken beyond healing," says the writer of Proverbs. Stubbornness is the pride that causes us to shun correction. It renders us unable to stop defending ourselves. When someone points out an error or flaw, we evade or deny or blame someone else. (This is difficult to penetrate. Defensive people rarely thank us for pointing out their defensiveness.)" -- John Ortberg
  • Exclusion:
    "At the deepest level, pride is the choice to exclude both God and other people from their rightful place in our hearts. Jesus said that the essence of spiritual life is to love God and to love people. Pride destroys our capacity to love. . . . pride is a form of antilove. Pride moves us to exclude instead of to embrace. Pride moves us to bow down before a mirror rather than before God. Pride moves us to judge rather than to serve. Pride means not only that we want to be smart and wealthy, but also that we will not be satisfied until we are smarter and wealthier than those around us. Pride is essentially comparative in nature"

Question 2: How does comparing ourselves to others do one of the following:
  • Breed pride
  • Destroy community
  • Function as a kind of anti-love

II. That Confusing Thing Called Humility:


Question 3: How does our society affirm and even encourage a prideful spirit? What consequences does this pride-affirming ethos have on the fabric of our culture?


What does it mean to "humble yourself' in everyday life? Let's say we take this seriously. Someone compliments us on the way we look. We are trying to live in God's kingdom and respond as Jesus would if he were in our place. What do we do?
  • Look down at the ground, shuffle our feet, and say, "I'm not really attractive. It's just that the light in here is pretty dim."

  • Boldly speak the truth by saying, "I'm terribly interested in what you say. Tell me more, and let us celebrate this good news together."

  • Quote Proverbs 11:22 in order to correct the other person's superficial focus on physical appearance: "Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a beautiful woman without good sense." (This will pretty much remove any problem of receiving too many compliments.)

  • Be direct and to the point: "You are giving me a swelled head. Get behind me, Satan."

  • Smile, say "thank you," then be quiet.
Humility is not about convincing ourselves - or others - that we are unattractive or incompetent. -- John Ortberg
Ortberg points out that this is an elusive pursuit because, how on earth do we pursue humility?
One of the hardest things in the world is to stop being the prodigal son without turning into the elder brother.

III. Following Jesus into the Practice of Servanthood:
More than any other single way the grace of humility is worked into our lives through the Discipline of service. . . . Nothing disciplines the inordinate desires of the flesh like service, and nothing transforms the desires of the flesh like serving in hiddenness. The flesh whines against service but screams against hidden service. It strains and pulls for honor and recognition. -- Richard Foster

Question 4: How can service - and specifically hidden service - act as a remedy for pride? What keeps us from offering more acts of secret service?


Philippians 2:6 who though he existed in the form of God
did not regard equality with God
as something to be grasped,
7 but emptied himself
by taking on the form of a slave,
by looking like other men,
and by sharing in human nature.
8 He humbled himself,
by becoming obedient to the point of death
– even death on a cross! -- NET Bible
Ortberg talks about a different way to view that second passage:
"Jesus did not take on the "outward form" of a servant. Paul uses the same term to describe both Jesus' servanthood and his Godhood. (It is the word morphe - our little morphing word again.) When Jesus came in the form of a servant, he was not disguising who God is. He was revealing who God is.

I remember hearing a Christian speaker say once that pride is forbidden to human beings, but is okay in God because, after all, he is God. This is wrong. God is the Infinite Servant. God is the most humble being in all the universe. Jesus did not come as a servant in spite of the fact that he is God; he came precisely because of the fact that he is God." -- John Ortberg

Question 5: Besides Philippians 2:6-11 above, read Mark 10:45. What are some of the acts of service Jesus offered when he walked on this earth? What was his heart and attitude when it came to serving?


  • Jesus' Plan for His followers
    "Jesus knew that his own followers would wrestle with the messiah complex, so he decided to put them in a small group together. For two years they ate meals together, met together daily for group discussions, went everywhere together. And sure enough, one day they "argued with one another who was the greatest." It will happen in any gathering of human beings: Hang out with a group of people long enough, and the messiah complex will rear its ugly head.

    Dietrich Bonhoeffer put it like this:
    'We know who it is that sows this thought in the Christian community. But perhaps we do not bear in mind enough that no Christian community ever comes together without this thought immediately emerging as a seed of discord. Thus at the very beginning of Christian fellowship there is engendered an invisible, often unconscious, life-and-death contest. "There arose a reasoning among them"; this is enough to destroy a fellowship.'"
  • I'm Not Superman
    "There is another way to help people out instead of trying to be the Superpeople we aren't. The primary reason Jesus calls us to servanthood is not just because other people need our service. It is because of what happens to us when we serve."

Read more!

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Christian Carnival CCXI (211)

The Valentine to God Edition

In preparing a "structure" for this Carnival I was tried to avoid 1 Corinthians 13 - (not that it isn't great); and I decided not to focus on John's (and Christ's) call for Christians to show that they are Christ's followers because of our love for one another.

I settled on the kinds of love we show, and receive, as Christians -- thinking it might make a good way to divide Carnival entries:

First, some housekeeping at the Carnival: We need some new hosts. We occasionally get to the point where the same 5 or so blogs rotate the Carnival. This really isn't good, and hosting the Carnival - while it can be some work - is a good ministry opportunity within the Body of Christ. Go here to jump in - the water is awesome.

The Love of God for Us
"For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. Now this is the basis for judging: that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil." (John 3:16-19, NET)
  • Jennifer in OR presents "Grapes of Abundance: 13 Thoughts" posted at Diary of 1.


  • e-Mom presents "Theology: Differences Between West & East" posted at C h r y s a l i s.


  • Pat & James Taylor presents "Immersion in the Spirit" posted at On the Wings of the Wind.


  • Sue presents "What are you giving up for Lent?" posted at Abstractions.


  • Wickle presents “One of Those Humbling Things" posted at A True Believer's Blog.


  • Amanda presents “Lent: Goodbye TV" posted at Imago Dei.



  • Our Love of God
    "Now one of the experts in the law came and heard them debating. When he saw that Jesus answered them well, he asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is: ‘Listen, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’" (Mark 12:28-30, NET)
  • William Meisheid presents "Lent 2008: Day 2: Death, Purpose & Why Should I?" posted at Beyond The Rim....


  • FMF presents "The Bible and Money All Around the Web" posted at Free Money Finance.


  • Jamie McIntosh presents "Go Organic for Lent" posted at Suite101: Organic Gardens blog.


  • Chuck Jines presents "The Power of God" posted at Thoughts on God.


  • Rusty Pritchard presents "Environmentalism and fear" posted at CounterCulture.


  • Shaun Connell presents "The Philosophy of Rational Happiness" posted at Reason and Capitalism.



  • Our Love of Jesus
    (the Word made Flesh)
    “If you love me, you will obey my commandments." (John 14:15, NET)

    "The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him.”" (John 14:21, NET)

    "If you obey my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commandments and remain in his love." (John 15:10, NET)
  • Ariah Fine presents "Open Letter to Anyone Returning from a Missions Trip" posted at Trying to Follow.


  • Weekend Fisher presents the "Internal evidence and the authorship of the Gospel of John" posted at Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength.


  • Chasing the Wind presents "Life Without Limbs" posted at Chasing the Wind.


  • Richard H. Anderson presents "Rewriting Moses" posted at dokeo kago grapho soi kratistos Theophilos.


  • John presents "A Matter of Perspective" posted at Light Along the Journey.


  • Tom Gilson presents "The Not-So-Secret" posted at Thinking Christian.


  • Henry Neufeld presents "Not Through the Law: Romans 4:13" posted at Participatory Bible Study Blog.


  • Rey presents "Being a Student" based on John 8 posted at The Bible Archive.


  • * * * * *

    "The second is: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”" (Mark 12:31, NET)
    "Love of neighbor" divides into specific and general revelations:

    Our Love of our Spouse
    [I think we primarily have a "husband problem" . . . ]
    "Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word, so that he may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless. In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one has ever hated his own body but he feeds it and takes care of it, just as Christ also does the church, for we are members of his body. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This mystery is great – but I am actually speaking with reference to Christ and the church. Nevertheless, each one of you must also love his own wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband." (Ephesians 5:25-33, NET)
  • Jeremy Pierce presents "Commanded Sexual Delight" posted at Parableman.



  • Our Love of our Brethren
    "“I give you a new commandment – to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples – if you have love for one another.”" (John 13:34-35, NET)

    "For this is the gospel message that you have heard from the beginning: that we should love one another . . . We know that we have crossed over from death to life because we love our fellow Christians. The one who does not love remains in death. Everyone who hates his fellow Christian is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him. We have come to know love by this: that Jesus laid down his life for us; thus we ought to lay down our lives for our fellow Christians. But whoever has the world’s possessions and sees his fellow Christian in need and shuts off his compassion against him, how can the love of God reside in such a person? . . . Now this is his commandment: that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he gave us the commandment." (1 John 3:11-23, NET)
  • Diane R presents "Are Lack of Social Skills in Churches Sinking Outreach?" posted at Crossroads: Where Faith and Inquiry Meet.


  • Drew Tatusko presents "The Spectacle of Evangelicalism: Exclusivity and Sectarian Inversion" posted at Notes From Off-Center.


  • Shaun Connell presents "Organized Religion" posted at Rational Christianity.


  • ChrisB presents "Politics, Religion, and Brotherly Love" posted at Homeward Bound.


  • Annette presents "Love each other" posted at Fish and Cans.


  • Dana presents "A vision for the church" posted at Principled Discovery.



  • Our Love of our Children and Parents
    [. . . and a "father problem".]
    "“Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." (Matthew 10:37, NET)

    "honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.”" (Matthew 19:19, NET)

    "Fathers [or "parents"], do not provoke your children, so they will not become disheartened." (Colossians 3:21, NET)
  • Dana presents "The measure of a Christian education" posted at Principled Discovery on the question of how Christian parents should educate their children


  • Laura Beutler presents "Perfect Bodies" posted at Children & Chocolate and Other Paths to God.



  • Our Love of all People
    (even our Enemies)
    "“But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other as well, and from the person who takes away your coat, do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your possessions back from the person who takes them away. Treat others in the same way that you would want them to treat you. “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to be repaid, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, so that they may be repaid in full. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to ungrateful and evil people." (Luke 6:27-35, NET)
  • Doug presents "Can we persuade each other with logic alone?" posted at Bounded Irrationality.


  • Ron Thomson presents "Britney Spears and her mental health problems" posted at TheCrossCounts.com.


  • John Hobbins presents "Where does the commandment to love one’s enemies come from?" posted at Ancient Hebrew Poetry.


  • Heir to Life sends us "The Man in the Smoke Screen" from the Spirited Ink Blog.


  • Leslie Carbone presents "On his Birthday, Some Words of Encouragement from Ronald Reagan" posted at Leslie Carbone.


  • Rodney Olsen presents "Extraordinary Forgiveness" posted at RodneyOlsen.net.



  • Aw heck, how can I leave this out:
    "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but I do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so that I can remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I give over my body in order to boast, but do not have love, I receive no benefit. Love is patient, love is kind, it is not envious. Love does not brag, it is not puffed up. It is not rude, it is not self-serving, it is not easily angered or resentful. It is not glad about injustice, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. But if there are prophecies, they will be set aside; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be set aside. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when what is perfect comes, the partial will be set aside. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. For now we see in a mirror indirectly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love." (1 Corinthians 13, NET)
    All bible quotes are from: Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

    Read more!

    Wednesday, December 12, 2007

    Prophecy and Literalism

    I have often been confused by Evangelicals and Fundamentalists being accused of being "literalist'. I do not read that, see that, or get that from my ilk.

    I have to thank Frank Cocozzelli for leading me to a possible answer and understanding of this brain cramp: prophecy in scripture. Frank's "Michael, Michael, Michael--Please Stop!" continued on his theme of the unenlightened, dispensationalist, literalist religious right vs. the Enlighted and reasoned Christianity elsewhere. I think that is actually bad analysis - but that is not what this is about.

    Dispensationalism is the idea that God's history with humanity can be broken into different periods, or dispensations, which are both progressive and over-lapping:

    • the dispensation of innocence (Gen 1:1–3:7), prior to Adam's fall,
    • of conscience (Gen 3:8–8:22), Adam to Noah,
    • of government (Gen 9:1–11:32), Noah to Abraham,
    • of patriarchal rule (Gen 12:1–Exod 19:25), Abraham to Moses,
    • of the Mosaic Law (Exod 20:1–Acts 2:4), Moses to Christ,
    • of grace (Acts 2:4–Rev 20:3), the current church age, and
    • of a literal, earthly 1,000-year Millennial Kingdom that has yet to come but soon will (Rev 20:4–20:6).
    Another view listed in the Wiki article:
    • the dispensation or age of Gentile Nations (Gen 1-11)[9], from Adam to Abraham’s Call;
    • of Israel (Gen 12 – Acts 1), from Abraham’s Call to Pentecost in Acts 2;
    • of The Church (Acts 2 – Rev. 2), from Pentecost in Acts 2 to the end of The Church Age;
    • of The (missionary) Tribulation of Israel (Rev. 6-19), a yet-future Seven-year period;
    • of a literal, earthly 1,000-year Millennial Kingdom (Rev 20:4–6) with a rebuilt temple and reinstituted animal sacrifices and O.T. rituals (Eze 40-48) that has yet to come but soon will.
    Now, dispensationalism was a counter, in part, to
    supersessionism, which teaches that the Christian Church has replaced the Jewish people as "God's People", and that there is only one people of God, joined in unity through Jesus Christ. It is maintained that, since the Jewish people have largely refused to accept Jesus as Christ, "the Messiah of Israel", and since He is their only means of salvation, those individual Jews that reject Him also reject his atoning sacrifice for sins, and have, in effect, rejected the only provision that God has offered for divine forgiveness. Consistent with this viewpoint, which is held by Amillennialists and the Catholic Church, they are no longer considered as the true Israel. Christians have, in effect, become the "New Israel". This teaching is also often referred to as "replacement theology", in that, according to this theology, the Church from its very inception has replaced the Jewish people as God's "chosen people" and "holy nation", now and forever.
    Dispensationalism, in opposition to this
    teaches that the Christian Church is a "parenthesis", that is, an interruption in God’s divine dealings with the Jewish people, when the Gospel began to be preached to the Gentiles, but that God’s continued care for the Jewish people will be revealed after the end of the Church Age (or Dispensation), when Israel will be restored to their land, and then they will accept Jesus as their Messiah, as is recorded in Zechariah 12:8-10 . . . Hence, dispensationalists typically believe in a Jewish restoration.
    I do not know where I stand in the Covenant/replacement theology vs dispensationalist theology argument. I know a few things:
    • dispensationalism explains why God's relationship with the human race has changed over the years
    • it explains why it is stupid to ask me about shellfish, blended fabric, and stoning my daughter for disobediance
    • it explains PD's error about Huckabee and Acts of God - that God acted through nature in the Old Testament doesnt mean he will do so in this particular Age or dispensation
    • however, I do not believe that once Christ returns that animal sacrifices for atonement will continue at a rebuilt temple
    • I think the church is more than a parenthesis in the history of God's relationship with Isreal
    • and there are some other major issues
    I took that side trip into describing dispensationalism because it is little understood - even by me - and misrepresented often.

    What this post is really about is this paragraph from the Wiki article:
    Dispensationalism hinges on three core tenets:
    1. The Bible is to be taken literally. This is explained by John F. Walvoord, who, in his book, "Prophecy in the New Millennium" provides this explanation:
      "History answers the most important question in prophetic interpretation, that is, whether prophecy is to be interpreted literally, by giving five hundred examples of precise literal fulfillments. The commonly held belief that prophecy is not literal and should be interpreted nonliterally has no basis in scriptural revelation. Undoubtedly, a nonliteral viewpoint is one of the major causes of confusion in prophetic interpretation. Some prophecies that are in figurative language have to be interpreted, such as some in Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation. But in many cases, the meaning is clearly understood and seldom is the symbol left unexplained in the Bible. A solid record emerges of fulfillment of prophecy in the past and an anticipation that each prophecy will have that same literal fulfillment in the future."
    Even the Wiki author misses the point - Walvood doesn't say the Bible is to be taken literally. He says that Biblical prophecy is to be taken literally.

    With that I tend to agree and would consider myself a literalist when it comes to Biblical prophecy:
    • Whether prophecies in scripture were fulfilled or definitely not fulfilled was a major question in the canonization of scripture - a prophecy could have not happened yet but if it should have happened, and it didn't, then it wasn't inspired: Pat Robertson need not apply
    • Many OT prophecies were seen in new light with their fulfillment by Christ
    • there is no reason to suppose that prophecies which were definitely placed in the future which have not occurred will not occur
    • As with those related to the advent, that fulfillment may make us see them in a new light
    So, if you want to accuse my ilk of being literalist about prophecy - I cannot bitch.

    Read more!

    Tuesday, December 04, 2007

    An Oddly Positioned Postscript

    There are clues to theological views - and something else struck me in reading Kevin McCullough's criticism of Hillary Clinton I first wrote about here.

    I want to bore in on the emphasized phrase in the next quote. This is not so much a criticism but an examination of a real difference in my understanding of God's action in my life and what this statement expresses to me.

    And for Bible believing Christians being "guided every step of the way" is a pretty gigantic claim. After all I do not know a single fellow Christian who would claim to live their life in such away as to have reflected biblical guidance through every single step.
    There are some nitpicks - consider them appetizers - before the main course.
    • Saying you have been "guided every step of the way" is not saying you have followed the guidance - only that it was available. I have been guided every step of the way - in my arrogance I have simply chosen to ignore the guidance and "do my own thang". This point will become part of the main point down the road

    • She has just said her "faith journey" is unfinished - did this apply to her life not having "reflected Biblical guidance through every single step"
    Those are nitpicks really - back to this phrase:
    "reflected biblical guidance through every single step"
    Folks who have read me much know that I am not shy about the Word of God being
    . . . inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work. (NET Bible)
    I believe the Bible is inerrant in its original autographs. However, notice that Paul presents the Bible as a tool for the Christian. How is someone to know how to use the tool if they are not instructed? Who instructs us on how to use the tool? Our pastors? Or does the tool guide us on how to use the tool? I havely certainly learned to use a few tools just by picking them up and using them - but that isn't the guidance God gave us in scripture.

    According to the Word of God, our guidance is not from the Word of God directly - it is from the Word of God (the incarnate Christ and Scripture) as we discern it by the Spirit of God:
    God has revealed these to us by the Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the things of a man except the man’s spirit within him? So too, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things that are freely given to us by God. And we speak about these things, not with words taught us by human wisdom, but with those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people. The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God [that is the Bible BTW], for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The one who is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is understood by no one. For who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to advise him? But we have the mind of Christ. (NET Bible)
    Kevin McCullough left out the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Now, he cannot be expected to have a complete theological dissertation in a post on Hillary Clinton - but certainly Hillary (if she is a Christian) had the guidance of the Holy Spirit "every step of the way" as we all do. And just like current vehicle navigation systems, He can tell you to turn right at the next corner all He wants - but you can choose to go straight, left, drive into a ditch, or turn around and/or go backwards. You can even just stop the car and go nowhere. Guidance does not equal obedience.

    The deeper problem, as pointed out by Carl Palmer (as reported by me) in "How to Hear God Speak" is:
    Along with the focus on the Bible was the loud and clear message that while God speaks through the Bible He now speaks ONLY through the Bible. Another weakness was what he would now call a minimizing of the ministry of the Holy Spirit. They never learned about the Holy Spirit - they never talked about Him. Very seldom did they say that the Holy Spirit is the one that inspired the Bible or that it was the Holy Spirit that enables you to understand the Bible. So it was stressed that he must be very careful not to add any other "experiences" to the word of God . . . he went astray because he didn't know how to live as a Christian. The church taught him how to come to Christ; but he wasn't taught, or didn't respond to, how to follow Jesus. Following Jesus day-to-day is all about the ministry of the Holy Spirit.
    and
    What happened to Carl is that as he elevated scripture from primary to only way God would speak to him, he didn't expect God to speak any other way. That inevitably led to a life centered on a book rather than a life centered on a Person. God wants us to have a life centered on a Person, and not a Book . . . The Bible is the primary revelation of God's will for us. The Book is designed to help us love God with all of our hearts, all of our souls, all of our mind, and all of our strength - and not be the object of that love (as much as we do love the Bible). . . Another thing that happened was that he was inevitably led to focusing his life around a set of doctrine - a set of rules. Carl tended to a life of legalism because it was all about what was written . . . and he was never taught how to live in Christ in his weakness
    Of course, Kevin's lack of grace toward Hillary Clinton is, to me, all about his unwillingness to admit that Hillary, like me, lives in Christ in weakness. That is what Kevin does as well; and certainly I pray Kevin knows that about himself.

    Christ was also the Word of God made incarnate. Jesus also made it clear to Peter that only through God, and His Spirit, could Peter have discerned that Jesus was the Christ. Again, the Word of God is spirtually discerned. Christ also made it clear that the Spirit is what leads us to truth and that the disciples should be rejoicing at His leaving because then the Helper could come to them and lead them to all knowledge.

    However, here again is one of those significant divisions in Christianity as described by Carl Palmer:
    The church Carl grew up in would have said: "Yeah, but that was a special time - that was then and this is now". This was taught because they believed that the Bible was finished. God's purpose was to get all of His will down in scripture, Old and New, and now He does not need to speak that way anymore. So, what you do is focus on the Bible.
    Now, before I lose my creditials to the Sola Scriptura Society - Carl again:
    You must test every message - by the written Scripture. God never ever says anything to us personally that is in conflict with the written word of God. That is why the Bible is there - as a record to test what we hear from God against. God does not do things that conflict with Himself. Scripture is our greatest defense against deception as we listen for God's voice in our lives

    Read more!

    Tuesday, July 24, 2007

    Forgiveness in My View

    I suppose the first general thing to say about forgiveness from a Christian perspective is that it really isn't optional. The Gospels alone make it clear that God just takes a dim view of us, who have been forgiven so much, refusing to forgive those around us - really dim. I will not blast you with scripture, but these word searches should make the point. Just try to find a way out of forgiving:

    I will hammer the point home with this key parable:
    Matthew 18:21 Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?" 22 Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. 23 "For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. 24 "When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. 25 "But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made. 26 "So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, `Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.' 27 "And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt. 28 "But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, `Pay back what you owe.' 29 "So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, `Have patience with me and I will repay you.' 30 "But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed. 31 "So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened. 32 "Then summoning him, his lord said to him, `You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 `Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?' 34 "And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. 35 "My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart."
    Brothers and sisters - that means your enemy.

    Now, there is a reason for forgiveness other than not pissing God off - it is better for you. After all, your enemy doesn't really feel a thing because you haven't forgiven him - you do. That "root of bitterness" will rot your heart. It will be a beachhead from which evil can gain a foothold in you. C.S. Lewis on forgiveness:
    I said in a previous chapter that chastity was the most unpopular of the Christian virtues. But I am not sure I was right. I believe there is one even more unpopular. It is laid down in the Christian rule, 'Thou shaft love thy neighbour as thyself.' Because in Christian morals 'thy neighbour' includes 'thy enemy,' and so we come up against this terrible duty of forgiving our enemies.

    Every one says forgiveness is a lovely idea, until they have something to forgive, as we had during the war. And then, to mention the subject at all is to be greeted with howls of anger. It is not that people think this too high and difficult a virtue: it is that they think it hateful and contemptible. 'That sort of talk makes them sick,' they say. And half of you already want to ask me, I wonder how you'd feel about forgiving the Gestapo if you were a Pole or a Jew?'

    So do I. I wonder very much. Just as when Christianity tells me that I must not deny my religion even to save myself from death by torture, I wonder very much what I should do when it came to the point. I am not trying to tell you in this book what I could do - I can do precious little - I am telling you what Christianity is. I did not invent it. And there, right in the middle of it, I find 'Forgive us our sins as we forgive those that sin against use' There is no slightest suggestion that we are offered forgiveness on any other terms. It is made perfectly clear that if we do not forgive we shall not be forgiven. There are no two ways about it. What are we to do?

    It is going to be hard enough, anyway, but I think there are two things we can do to make it easier. When you start mathematics you do not begin with the calculus; you begin with simple addition. In the same way, if we really want (but all depends on really wanting) to learn how to forgive, perhaps we had better start with something easier than the Gestapo. One might start with forgiving one's husband or wife, or parents or children, or the nearest N.C.O., for something they have done or said in the last week. That will probably keep us busy for the moment. And secondly, we might try to understand exactly what loving your neighbour as yourself means. [the whole chapter is linked if you want point two here]
    and
    The real test is this. Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad ass it was made out. Is one's first feeling, `Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally, we shall insist on seeing everything - God and our friends and ourselves included - as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.

    Now a step further. Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him? [again, the answer rests within the link above]
    and finally
    I imagine somebody will say, `Well, if one is allowed to condemn the enemy's acts, and punish him, and kill him, what difference is left between Christian morality and the ordinary view?' All the difference in the world. Remember, we Christians think man lives for ever. Therefore, what really matters is those little marks or twists on the central, inside part of the soul which are going to turn it, in the long run, into a heavenly or a hellish creature. We may kill if necessary, but we must not hate and enjoy hating. We may punish if necessary, but we must not enjoy it. In other words, something inside us, the feeling of resentment, the feeling that wants to get one's own back, must be simply killed.
    Nothing here said we have to trust, indeed there are many scriptures to the point having wisdom, discernment, being fruit inspectors, etc. We do not have to place trust in people who have proven themselves unworthy of trust.

    We just cannot hate, and we must forgive. You do not have to start with the "Calculus" of your worst enemy right now. Start with whoever comes to mind when you ask this question of yourself :

    Who do I feel resentment toward right now?

    Read more!