The Gospel of Frank

Welcome

2011-03-22T10:32:00.000-07:00

The Gospel of Frank? This is not one of those little-known Gnostic Gospels. It was not found buried in a tomb, or translated from some monolith in Jerusalem. There will be no conspiracies about how Jesus was actually born in Alaska, or that his disciples were alcoholics. The Gospel of Frank is a forum where people are encouraged to talk openly and honestly about the Christian faith. Be Frank. That's the plan. I promise I won't be offended by your questions or comments. Please don't be offended by mine. I may sound facetious or sarcastic at times, but my intention is to generate thoughts and challenge ideas. Sometimes I'm just trying to be funny. Why not take our faith to an intellectual target range and pelt it with every weapon we have? If it’s still standing at the end, we definitely have something worth defending. If it falls or ends up full of holes and dents, we should re-examine it. Ultimately, I want to share some of the eye-opening, jaw-dropping, life-changing things that I believe the Holy Spirit has shown me. I want to challenge Christians to think clearly about their faith so they can speak with their friends and co-workers in a way that is clear and comprehensive. I want Christians to feel confident in what they believe and know exactly how to move forward. I will keep this Welcome blog on top, but the rest are listed from newest to oldest. If you are new to the site and want to follow the progression of thought, just scroll to the bottom and work your way up. Be sure to leave to comments and participate in the polls. We want to hear from you. Let's watch Faith and Frank get married.

Tyrant or Pushover?

2011-03-21T16:06:00.000-07:00

It seems honorable and scriptural and logical and natural to attribute all things to the sovereign will of God. How can any created thing exert authority over its creator? How can anything in this world happen beyond His knowledge or allowance or impetus? And if we have any doubt of that, there are plenty of verses to support these assertions. However, at the same time that we affirm God's rightful place on His throne, we often act and feel otherwise, as if, despite his omnipotence and omnipresence, He could use some human or angelic help from time to time. We hold prayer vigils, as if the quantity or fervency of our prayers can change God's mind or twist His arm. Does the arm of God need twisting? Does God need to be informed? We talk of a spiritual battle, but how can there be a battle if everything happens according to plan? If nothing happens beyond God's will, Satan and his demons are servants of that will, as are our sinful actions. All things, seemingly good or evil, work together for God's ultimate purpose. But if that is true, should we feel sorry for our sins? Should we ask forgiveness, as if our actions could be independent and contrary to His will? And if our actions are truly free, how can God be truly sovereign? Take it one step further. If we are free to sin, then my neighbor is also free to sin, which means he can come over to my house and murder my children in their beds, and maybe God won't stop him. Does God intervene in the free actions of men? Does he have a sliding scale for when He intervenes and when He doesn't? Would He allow me to lie and steal, but not murder? That's a lot of questions and conjecture. This is an issue over which the church has splintered, an issue that informs our perceptions of the character and power of God. Therefore it is an important issue, which is why we have these conversations. Let me offer a few thoughts and I will be eager to hear yours. The use of sovereignty is up to the sovereign. God has demonstrated that He can do what He wants when He wants and how He wants. He has ultimate authority over His creation. His sovereignty, however, is bound by His character. A selfish sovereign may create lesser beings to live for nothing but to ingratiate his ego. He would create servants to do his bidding, He would create an enemy with no hope of victory, and He would demand worship and confessions from fragile, error-prone beings. A selfish sovereign would control everything, allowing no true freedom to his subjects for fear of sharing glory. It would be like a man who wanted to be a successful filmmaker, so he built an army of robots to watch his film, applaud, and give rave reviews. He also programed some negative critics whom he could scold and dismantle later. Win. Win. An apathetic sovereign might create something, then become distracted and leave the creation to itself. We could have a sovereign God and also have evolution. A loving sovereign would create free creatures, both spiritual and physical, in order to have genuine relationships with them. That would allow for true rebellion, but also for true redemption. Of course this God can intervene if absolutely necessary (harden hearts, bend wills, send prophets), but generally allow men and spirits to make their own choices and deal with the consequences. There are drawbacks to such a system---senseless deaths, abuse, insanity, corrupt governments, unspeakable atrocities---but also great advantages. Is freedom worth the price we pay? Or is freedom an illusion?

Don't Fool Yourself

2011-03-14T10:58:00.000-07:00

There was a time when I was obsessed with learning how to walk by the Spirit. If I felt a compulsion or heard a voice in my head, I would analyze it, trying to determine if it was God, a lack of sleep, guilt, or something genetic at work. I didn't trust myself. And I didn't trust anyone else. This was my personal challenge: If the Holy Spirit was removed from my life, how much of it would have to change. Without Him, I could still read my Bible. I could still pray. I could still have fellowship with believers. I could still listen to pastors and teachers. I could still serve my community. I realized that there was very little, if anything, in my Christianity that required an indwelling Holy Spirit. Apparently, the deposit Jesus left that would "lead me into all truth" was fairly inconsequential. As I continued to explore my need for God's Spirit, I came across certain barriers in my quest for "absolute truth," only one of which I will mention here. Perhaps you can think of others. I call it "God Talk." I saw it a lot in college: "I was so tired last night, but I knew I had to finish my paper, so I prayed and just kept typing and the Lord got me through it." But what about the millions of other students that accomplished the same thing with a lot of coffee and face slapping? Parents? "I needed sleep, but the kids were sniffing and calling for me all night so I gave them a little Benadryl and, thank God, they slept through the night." But John . . . we are encouraged to "acknowledge Him in all our ways," right? We should be giving glory to Him for everything that happens in our lives, for better or for worse. But what if it isn't Him? I guess we could argue that everything is from Him because we are His children and He loves us, and He will never leave us. If we hold that perspective, we will probably find ourselves saying things like "God is trying to teach me patience" when we are feeling impatient, or "God is good," once we've had our morning coffee, or "God is testing me" when things are not going well. Sometimes that might be true. Other times not. Does it matter to you? The Greeks attributed every natural event to the activity of their gods. But those gods were not real. Our God is. How often do we treat God like one of these Greek gods? Does it give us a sense of security to attribute everything in our lives to Him? Or should we? What if God is not responsible for keeping you awake while you write your paper? What if God did not put your children to sleep because he knew you needed it? What if God did not open up that parking spot at the last second because he knew you were in a time crunch? Maybe it just opened up like it did for that Buddhist in the car in front of you, or that Agnostic in the red Jeep. How do you feel about "God Talk"?

Dismembered?

2011-03-07T10:58:00.000-08:00

I worked at a Presbyterian church for seven years. About halfway through my time there, the pastor took me to dinner and explained that the elder board was bothered by the fact that my wife and I had never shown an interest in becoming members. Becoming a member of a church never sat well with me, though I was never forced to voice my misgivings until faced with the direct question from my pastor. I answered something like this: "I am already a member of Christ's body, which means that I am already committed to this church and every other church that believes and calls Him Lord. What benefit would it be to go to classes and take vows of commitment to a specific faction of that body? This is not like marriage. I may be called to move to another church. I may not agree to all of the Presbyterian creeds, and even if I did, what if, in time, I came to believe something different than I vowed to believe? Would I have to retract my vows?" When I asked him why membership was so important, his answer was something like this: "It makes the commitment more palpable to the congregation. They feel more devoted to the ministry and mission of the church. They are more willing to serve. They are more willing to tithe regularly. It is not as easy for them to just leave." I understood his point, but in the back of my mind I was thinking that church membership is not like baptism or communion---scriptural mandates---but something that gives the leadership an idea of who they can depend on for tithing and service. It helps to give an individual church stability. That all seems good from a practical standpoint, but what about from a spiritual standpoint? Do we see the church as a spiritual organism, a body of millions connected to a single head (Christ) through a central nervous system (the Holy Spirit). Or are we divided into self-sustaining service organizations of like-mindedness (churches of various denominations)? Or both? How do you feel about this?

Ignorance honors God?

2011-02-28T09:58:00.000-08:00

Questions are in vogue. They make us feel humble and submissive. We are seeking, asking, knocking. We are on our knees. But answers can make us seem arrogant. They have the potential to splinter us into even more denominations. And what if we're wrong . . . ? How can a man ever comprehend God? If we could somehow wrap our mind around him, wouldn't that belittle him? I would much rather just sit in the wonder of him, saturating in the mystery, absorbing each subtle thrill of curiosity and awe. Isn't that what worship is? But God created humans with spirits specifically that we might know him. Imagine me connecting with my wife the way we tend to connect with God: "Laurie, you are a woman. I could never comprehend you (there is some truth to that). Just let me catch a glimpse of your beauty. Just let me feel your presence next to me on the couch. I don't expect you to speak to me, you have already written letters to me in the past. But if you do, I will write your words in a diary and treasure them. Your body is made up of so many complex systems---internal organs, muscles, tendons, and molecules---I could never understand you fully. I just want to bask here in your glory. I just want to imagine the day I'll really be able to know you . . ." Now I realize that Laurie and I are both humans, and God and man are different, but I believe that God created man that he might have fellowship with him just as fully as Jesus had fellowship with his disciples. Yes, it means that we have to learn how to connect with him in more subtle ways than speech and facial expressions. But those means are fully available to everyone who has been made alive in Christ. I don't have to understand God's omnipresence to know that he is with me. I don't have to understand God's omnipotence to rest safely in him. I don't have to understand God's love to embrace it. Should my children keep me at an "honorable" arms-length because they don't know how to drive a car or pay the mortgage? Should I keep Laurie at an "honorable" arms-length because we have different anatomies? If God gave his people a Holy Spirit to "guide them into all truth," why do we keep God at an "honorable" arms-length and generally resort to knowing him through Bible study, our pastors, and our brains? Obviously, I am generalizing here, which is dangerous. There are many Christians that have vibrant relationships with God. But I'm thinking about the general trends of our Church today. The fact that we have so many questions and so few answers is a sad testament to our times. It is like a body that was so enamored with the mystery of the brain that it rejected the nervous system, preferring the humility of paralysis to the arrogance of life and function. Do you agree? Disagree? What do you see happening in the church?

Back From the Dead - Part 2

2011-02-21T10:15:00.000-08:00

Life and Death are consistent themes from Genesis to Revelation. In fact, the most central events of the Bible--the Fall of Adam and the Fix of Jesus--are focused primarily on life and death.

God told Adam and Eve that the day they eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil they would die. The serpent insists otherwise. Did they die on that day?

No. And yes. I guess it depends on how you define "death."

Death, in essense, is the separation of a life source and a host. In physical death, it is the separation of body and spirit. In spiritual death, it is the separation of the spirit of man with the Spirit of God. These deaths are not always eternal.

Think of death as turning off a light. You flip the switch and the electricity is separated from the light bulb. Death. Darkness. Turn it on and the connection is re-established. The bulb comes to life. Illumination.

Often it is the context, not the original language, that gives insight into which death and life is being referred to. For example: The wages of sin is death . . .

From one perspective, you could see that verse as a warning to sinners that their lifestyle is foolish and will ultimately result in their physical deaths. From another perspective you could say that sin is what separates God and man, creating spiritual death. Many Christians choose to include both answers, saying that spiritual death ultimately results in physical corruption and death, though I think that most of the evidence for this view is based in many Christians bobbing their heads in unison rather than Scripture itself.

However, if you go on, you must match this "death" with the ensuing "life": . . . but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.

So was Jesus coming to give physical life? Of course not. The people were already alive. What about corruption and eventual death? Did Christians start to look healthier than pagans? Did they start to live noticeably longer? If the wages of sin has something to do with our physical bodies, then the gift of Jesus would also have to affect our physical bodies. That's simple logic. Otherwise the sin of Adam is more powerful and pervasive than the salvation of Jesus.

But although we do see a change in our spirits at salvation, we do not necessarily see a change in our physical bodies, therefore we must assume that the wages of sin is spiritual death--a separation from God.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned. Romans 5:12

For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. Romans 5:17 a

"I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep." John 10:10-11 (both spiritual and physical life mentioned back to back)

So Adam's sin brought a curse to all men. The curse was death. And what is man going to do when separated from God's Spirit? Miss the mark. Every day. All day. Sin is the only option. a Jesus came to reconnect God and man, to put the spiritual nervous system back between the body and the head in order to make righteousness an option. And what did he do to bring us from spiritual death to spiritual life? He physically died and rose again. a More to come . . . a Thoughts?

Back From the Dead - Part 1

2011-02-15T10:07:00.000-08:00

It seemed fitting to resurrect Frank with the topic of resurrection. Unfortunately, after Frank finished a hellish few months of work, he took Spring Break too seriously to come out with a post on or around Easter Sunday. He apologizes. But after being dead for so long . . . well, you wouldn't understand. Christians get so excited on Resurrection Sunday. Jesus leaves the tomb alive and well, having conquered sin and death. The salvation work is finished. The pastor of my church (and I suspect many others) went into a lot of detail about how the resurrection must be historical fact, how Jesus is alive and well today, but . . . will you excuse me a moment as I stick on my cynic hat? If my Christian grandmother dies, I wouldn't say that Death has had its way with her. I wouldn't consider her really dead just because she didn't crawl back out of the coffin and ascend bodily into heaven. People actually celebrate at Christian funerals, assured that their loved ones are safe and sound, alive in heaven. So Jesus comes back bodily from the grave, walks around for a few weeks, then goes straight to the place he would have gone anyway. Where is the victory there? It seems more like a delay, a farewell tour, a victory lap . . . but not necessary for salvation. I grew up believing that it was the death of Jesus that made salvation possible. There were scriptures that led me to believe that sin was plastered in or on Jesus (as if it was some sort of black goo) while he was on the cross, forcing God to turn his face (as if he doesn't look on sinful people every day). Then, when the Romans crucified Jesus, sin was crucified with him. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. Romans 7:16-17 He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. I Peter 2:24 But what is sin? Missing the mark, right? How can you kill "missing the mark"? Shoot it? Stab it?If sin is not physical or material, how can it be killed? Secondly, how could it dwell within a body? Another thing: Paul seems to think that the salvation work is incomplete without the resurrection, which means the work was not completed on the cross. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. I Cor 15:16-17 Since the death and resurrection is central to our life and hope, shouldn't we understand it completely? I grilled the Christians in my 10th Grade Bible class on this, and not one of them could logically explain how the death and resurrection of Jesus saved anyone. Can any of you answer these questions? (remember, I still have my cynic hat on) 1) If Jesus was forgiving sins before the cross (he claimed that authority) then why couldn't he have just forgiven everyone without going to the cross? Was his authority limited? 2) If Jesus conquered sin and death, why do we still sin and die? 3) Why was the resurrection necessary for the salvation of sins? 4) Why was a physical resurrection necessary?

Literally?

2011-02-08T08:28:00.000-08:00

The Bible cannot always be taken literally. While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat. This is My body." Matt 26:26 Weird. But . . . I guess it must be. I mean, Jesus doesn't lie, right? Apparently cannibalism is one of the great sacraments of Christianity. . . . all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them, and the rock was Christ. I Cor 10:3-4 So when the devil wanted to turn rocks into break, he was talking to the right guy. Since Jesus was a rock and his body is bread, it makes sense. This also explains why Jesus took so long to come save the Jews. He was a rock. How often did literal thinking confuse the people around Jesus? Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" And Jesus said to them, "Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, "He said that because we did not bring any bread." Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" These seem like ridiculous scenarios. How could these people be so dense? But at the same time, how can we be sure that we're not making the same mistake? Most of us imagine hell as a place of utter darkness with a lake of fire in the center. Wait? Fire and darkness? Somehow our minds accept the contradiction. After all, the Bible is God's Word. Hey, maybe the flames are invisible. Or maybe there is meaning in darkness and fire, meaning than can help our physical minds to somehow grasp a spiritual place. Like a blind man getting a sense of blue by holding a piece of ice. Same applies to heaven. Lions and lambs? Streets of gold? No symbolic language there. What about prophecy? How many Jews rejected Jesus based on their literal interpretation of prophecy? Jesus did not ascend to the throne of David, therefore he was not the Messiah. What about the Parable of the Talents? For some reason all parables are understood to be physical things describing spiritual things--seeds, leaven, pearl, treasure--but in this particular case, Jesus is actually talking about money, right? In this one case. Right? Or, wait! He means our . . . talents. Christians, what is the great and valuable gift that God has given to us through Christ? Money? The ability to play piano? This may seem valuable to me, but I'm not the one telling the parable. What is valuable to Christ is the very thing he came to give--LIFE. The Holy Spirit. And that Spirit is to bear fruit, not just sit dormant in our spirits until Christ returns. Why do we twist these parables into pocket-sized, practical life lessons? The people had Solomon for that. Jesus didn't work at OSH. Bottom line: God sees the world from a Creator's perspective. Often he speaks in symbols, types, and shadows to explain things that would be difficult for physical creatures to understand. If we don't want to sound like the Pharisees, the Disciples, or Nicodemus we need to begin to understand that perspective.

New Direction

2011-02-01T10:36:00.000-08:00

This next subject matter runs the risk of attracting spiderwebs and dust to this blog, but I'm willing to take the risk. I have learned that in Christian circles the most action comes from taking prayer requests. A close second, though more dangerous, is to bring up something controversial, like predestination, homosexuality, or speaking in tongues, though it's important to steer away from any solid answers. Third, talk about something obscure like the Nephilim or the mysterious undeaths of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses. That always helps to keep the eyelids from sagging. Why are we so easily bored? Maybe it's because everything seems to gravitate around something we've already heard a billion times. We know that Jesus died for our sins, we're on our way to heaven, we're doing our daily devotions, avoiding sin as much as possible, and now we just want a little support. Since we have to meet every week, it also might be fun to find interesting or controversial tidbits from the Bible to keep us talking, though we're not always sure what good it will do on a practical level. Back to prayer requests. The subject I want to bring up doesn't often come from the pulpit, but to ignore it would be to ignore the very thing that, for me, has shed a great deal of light on the Scriptures and has erased any doubts I have of the existence, character, and work of God. In fact, when the Holy Spirit began to teach me, this is where He started. The concept was presented to me while I was at Bible school back in '98. Every student was required to read through the Old Testament, so I cheerfully read through books like Genesis and Exodus, and dutifully pushed through books like Leviticus and I Chronicles. As I was chewing through the log of mid Ezekiel, I came across a passage that stuck in my brain like a splinter. In chapter 40, the prophet has a vision of an angelic man who takes him through the temple with a measuring rod and proceeds to measure every single item in great detail. Every single item. After several chapters of mind-numbing geometry, the man said something that struck me as odd: "As for you, son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and let them measure the plan. If they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the house, its structure, its exits, its entrances, all its designs, all its statutes, and all its laws and write it in their sight, so that they may observe its whole design and all its statutes and do them." If they are ashamed of their sin, tell them . . . about a building? Be sure to mention that the width of the entrance gate is ten cubits and the length is thirteen cubits. Also, don’t forget, the porch of the gate is eight cubits and the side pillars are two. How could these numbers do anything for the sin of the Jews? I thought about this for a long time before coming to an interesting conclusion. Before I could understand the meaning of a created object, I had to understand the perspective and intention of the creator. In other words, God designed the temple with more than practical uses in mind. There is also symbolic meaning, and the symbols should be enough to expose our sin and show us how to deal with it. A look at Hebrews 8:4-5 only reinforces this concept: Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law, who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle, for, "See," He says, "that you make all things according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain." Copy and shadow of heavenly things? The pattern of this physical object is important. And as we see in John 2:19, Jesus was staring at this building when he said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (speaking of his own body). In a sense, he was the building. The temple is full of symbols of Christ, from the sacrificial system in the outer court; to the bread, incense, and golden candlestick in the inner court; to the red, blue, and purple veil, and the Ark of the Covenant behind it. The temple is the ultimate sin exposing/sin expelling machine. But the building is only a big, complicated advertisement for the TRUE sin exposing/sin expelling machine--the person of Jesus Christ. Interesting how Jesus called the temple his Father's house. Isn't that what his body was? No wonder he threw those money changers out of there. But this was just the beginning of a concept that would unravel so much of my own superstition and bring so much clarity in the years to follow.

In God We Trust?

2011-01-24T08:57:00.000-08:00

Can I be frank? I absolutely hate election season. Hate it. Hate it.

And it's not because I'm apathetic. And it's not because I'm a cynic. I'm neither.

We were attending a Presbyterian Church during the last election. For those of you who don't know, Presbyterians preach Reformed Theology, which, at its core, stands on the unequivocal sovereignty of God. My pastor summed it up this way: "God takes what he wants, and he keeps what he takes."

During the election, however, my pastor worked overtime to make sure his congregation got their butts in gear to elect God's man into the White House. He was sure to wear his "I VOTED" sticker to church the following Sunday. When he preached on Evangelism, he was adamant that God was in charge of electing men to salvation. It is God's work, not ours. But when it came to electing a man to lead our country, the pastor presented a very different message. Apparently this kind election is up to us. This a Democracy after all.

He didn't seem to recognize the contradiction between his view of Reformed Theology and his view of Democracy. In fact, so many Christians that profess a strong belief in God's sovereignty also place a high premium on the voting process. Can someone please explain that to me? I can understand why an Arminian would want to help God out, but a Calvinist?

I see another serious contradiction. How do we know God's political strategies? Why do we assume that God always wants a level-headed Republican sitting in the White House to protect unborn babies, keep His name on our money, and preserve young minds from the knowledge of homosexuality. Here's a thought: Maybe things are supposed to get worse before they get better. Maybe by supporting the Republican Party we are actually voting against God.

Some people are saying that Obama is the Antichrist. Then they vote against him, as if their vote could change the book of Revelation. Amazing. It reminds me of the Christians that believed Hitler was the Antichrist and made plans to murder him. You can't change prophecy!

What right do we have to assume God's will for the world? Are we just trying to make this world a safe and moral place? The frenzy of election time can bring out the worst in Christians. Fear. Worry. Anger. Division. Sometimes I wonder how much of our hope in Democracy stems from a lack of true hope, hope in our current, spiritual Monarchy.

My friends, we have a King, though we may not always think of Him that way. Earthly rulers will come and go, men will make their plans and policies, the world will change, for better or worse. But our King will reign forever---unchangeable, full of wisdom, power, and authority.

Why are we so afraid? Let God do what He will with the world, and let us fall in line with whatever He may ask of us. It may be political. It may be educational. It may be financial. It may be spiritual. But all in all, we need to be about our Father's business.

And we shouldn't assume what that is . . .

Life and Death

2011-01-17T17:45:00.000-08:00

Sin is not the presence of something evil, but the absence of something good. PROGRESSION OF DEATH: God breathes His life into man . . . "and he became a living soul" Man prefers a human conscience to a Holy Spirit . . . the knowledge of good and evil God removes his Spirit . . . "on the day you eat of it, you will die" Men respond with defensiveness . . . "the woman that you gave me" God tells Cain that he must master his sinfulness . . . Cain is alone Cain becomes jealous of his brother. Jealousy becomes murder. So spiritual death (the absence of God) leads to fear, insecurity, and defensiveness. These fears and insecurities lead to all other sins (name one not related to a fear or insecurity). These sins can lead to all kinds of physical, emotional, and/or psychological dysfunction, even death. Then Jesus comes to puts God back in man ("I have come to give life, and that more abundantly"), and the Holy Spirit begins to restore the pre-Fall man ("from glory to glory into His image"). Do you agree?

Weak Strength?

2011-01-10T08:15:00.000-08:00

What would Jesus do? Whatever his Father told him to do. We often imagine Jesus as a wise and spiritual man, preaching creative sermons, condemning the hypocritical Pharisees, and helping practically everyone in his path. That is the story presented in the Gospels. In John 14, however, Jesus opens a window to his soul, showing us what was happening behind the scenes. Jesus: Disk 2, Special Features. There, we see a different man, a weaker man, one that never acted on his own initiative. Jesus even claimed that his very words were dictated by his Father. In a sense, Jesus was the weakest man that ever lived. Which made him the strongest. We can't relate to this sort of man. From the day we're born, we're encouraged to stand on our own two feet, learn to make decisions for ourselves, be responsible. In fact, for people with just one spirit, this is true wisdom. But when the Holy Spirit moves in and starts to put his feet on the furniture, we are forced to go through a major adjustment period. Jesus never had this adjustment period. He was born, in a sense, roommates with the Holy Spirit. He was a man, but he was spiritually alive. Two spirits, one body. Even at age twelve, he recognized his true Father, and demonstrated a desire to be in the temple engrossed in the family business. From birth, he was groomed for obedience, and he followed that path directly to his death. He lived for his Father by living in his Father by the Holy Spirit. He functioned like no man we have ever seen. When we try to emulate him, we often try to mimic his actions, or even to muster up the same emotions and intentions, but at the base of his motivation was a love for his Father which translated into strict obedience. For us, born independent, we must grow in this life before we can even begin to relate. Can you imagine growing to the point where you can claim that not only your actions but your very words were initiated by God?

The Motivation

2011-01-03T08:30:00.000-08:00

What kind of person does not even speak on his own initiative? That sounds like slavery to me. Look at these 1:1's Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus . . . James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ . . . Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ . . . Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James . . . But this is not exclusive to the apostles. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant . . . Philippians 2:5-7 So, yes, we are meant to be servants of God. But a bond-servant is not exactly a slave. In fact, the difference is very important. Bond-servants were unique to Jewish culture, instituted by God to illustrate the concept of spiritual submission and obedience, but with a valid and potent motivation: If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment . . . But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,' then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently. Exodus 21:2, 5-6 First of all: Ouch Second of all: This is not slavery under compulsion; this is service out of love. VERY different, and much more interesting. I am also intrigued by the fact that this slave is leaving blood on the doorpost, much like the Passover lamb. The awl is going through the man's ear, the place where he is to receive orders. The life of a bond-servant is to listen and obey. But why? "I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me; but so that the world may know that I love the Father, I do exactly as the Father commanded Me." John 14:30-31 "Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love. These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full." John 15:9-11 Love? Joy? Isn't that what everyone wants? Apparently, the very thing we hate--slavery--is the very secret to what we so desperately want.

The Chain of Command

2010-11-23T08:52:00.000-08:00

When it comes to people, the "You in Me, I in You" riddle only makes sense when a physical person and a spiritual person are joined together. Let's say I have this special ability to move things with my mind, and I have used that power for the government for years and years. Now I'm old, about to die, and I'm about to leave the government with a hole that no one else can fill. Rather than just dying, I pass my spirit into my children, giving the government a handful of mental movers as long as my children learn how to connect to my spirit and learn the subtle nature of the connection. They would have to learn how to let me move things through them. It would be an interesting relationship, one that would require a lot of patience, listening, and submission. But in the end, it would be best for everyone. Simply put: I would be in my children, giving them my life and power. And my children would be an extension of me--my hands and feet, my branches. Now if my power came from a relationship with something else, like an alien spirit, then I would remain in connection with that spirit, but still give my spirit to my children, making a chain, like gears. The alien speaks to me, I speak to my children, things start moving, the government smiles. This is how the Godhead works, and it explains their unity. Look at these verses: Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. John 14:10 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you. John 16:13-15 Hold on a second? Neither of them speak on their own initiative? So if the Holy Spirit speaks, he is just saying what Jesus told him to say, and if Jesus is speaking, he is only saying what the Father told him to say? So if I hear from the Holy Spirit, ultimately I have just heard from the Father. It is a system called Glorification. In other words, the nature of the Godhead is to let the OTHER person be seen and heard. No wonder Jesus said, "Pray to the Father." The Father is the head of the chain. So how can we practically apply this ourselves? Where do we fit in the chain?

The Mystery Explained

2010-11-16T10:36:00.000-08:00

He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? John 14:10 Jesus asks the question as if the riddle should make everyone sort of smile sheepishly, nod their heads, and sort of elbow each other in the ribs. But . . . can you explain it? Why didn't this riddle get into the discussion when people were trying to solve the whole, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" issue? The Roman bishops used a Latin word homoousion, meaning “same substance,” to describe the relationship between the Father and Son. Both are God, and God is one. But why create a solution that seems even more difficult to understand than the solution Jesus presents here in John 14? Some may not think this riddle is important, but Jesus uses it again, the second time he includes his disciples. In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. John 14:20 The third time, he includes US: I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us. John 17:20-21 So let's start with the most simple of the three riddles: Jesus and his Father. How can they both inhabit one another at the same time? It seems to defy the laws of science. But Jesus, as he often does, provides his disciples with a parable to understand it. The parable is very familiar and can be found in the very next chapter--the vine and the branches. Let's break it apart: Jesus is the branch. The Father is the vine. How is the branch in the vine? That's easy, we can see how that works. The branch is growing right out of it. It is an extension of the vine's life, an extension that produces green leaves for healing, and fruit to offer sustenance and strength to others. The life of the vine finds expression through the branch. But remove the branch, and the branch is dead, good for nothing but to be bundled up and burned. How is the vine in the branch? In this case, it is not the physical vine that is in the branch, but the life of the vine. The vine takes the water and nutrients from the soil, and gives it to the branch, allowing the branch to live and grow and bear fruit. We're talking about the indwelling Spirit of God. This is also true of an arm and a body. The arm allows the body to express itself and to accomplish things. But the life of the body gives the arm everything it needs to live and grow. By being an active member of the body, it is connected to the brain through the nervous system, and receives the blood it needs from the heart. In the same way Jesus received life from his Father, and functioned in response to that life. But if the vine and the branch are the exact same thing---homoousion . . . Now I'm confused. There is much more to be said about this subject, but for now I want to challenge you to take the vine and branches illustration and apply it to the other two mysteries (John 14:20 & John 17:20-21). Can you explain them?

Join the Trinity?

2010-11-09T10:51:00.000-08:00

Jesus never claimed to be the same person as His Father. Not once. He only claimed to be ONE with his Father, so much so, he could say, "When you see me, you see the Father." It seems that the only way the Council of 300+ bishops at Nicaea could explain the seemingly dual nature of Jesus was to assert that Jesus and His Father were exactly the same person. But since Jesus never makes that claim, we should be hesitant to blindly accept the claims of these men who were making decisions over 300 years after the events. This may sound like heresy, but my challenge is to the bishops, not to Jesus himself. If Jesus claimed unity with his Father, that's what he had. He didn't claim to be of one substance with his Father, which is what the Nicaean and Athanasian Creeds so boldly declare. This was their best solution. But we don't need to jury-rig this one. The answers are presented in John chapters fourteen through sixteen, the passage where Jesus gives final instructions to his disciples. It is in this passage that Jesus explains his unity with his Father, then invites them to share in the same kind of unity with him after his ascension. Wait a second. Join the Trinity? We can't even understand it, much less join it. "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one." John 17:20-22 How can we possibly be one "as they are one," if we could never understand their unity? The mystery, as Jesus presents it in John 14, is answered in a riddle: Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works." Clearly the Bishops at Nicaea were not science fiction fans. They would have loved that solution. What about you? Can you explain the riddle (in bold above)? If you know the answer, be thou silent...

The Elusive Nature of Jesus

2010-11-02T08:00:00.000-07:00

"If, in this city, you ask anyone for change, he will discuss with you whether God the Son is begotten or unbegotten. if you ask about the quality of bread, you will receive the answer that 'God the Father is greater. God the Son is less.' If you suggest that a bath is desirable, you will be told that 'There was nothing before God the Son was created.'" -- Bishop of Constantinople, 4th Century AD. This is what happens when you announce that to be Roman is to be Christian. You end up with a lot of confused people. The nature of Jesus is hard enough for us good, Bible-reading, modern-day Christians to understand. In 325, to stave off heresy and put an end to the debate, a Council of about 300 bishops got together at the order of Emperor Constantine in a place called Nicaea. There, they developed a Creed that included the following statement: We believe in One Lord, Jesus Christ the only son of god. God from god, light from light, true god from true god. Begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. The Holy Spirit didn't officially join the Trinity until around 500 AD with the Athanasian Creed, though the inclusion was assumed and inevitable. From that day to this, the nature of Jesus is easily explained. Here, let me try. We'll have a Question and Answer time. Q: If Jesus was truly God, why did he say things like, "Why do you call me good, only God is good?" or ""But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." Who was he praying to all the time? Himself? A: That was Jesus in his humanity. Q: If Jesus was truly man, how could he walk on water, feed 5000 men with a little boy's lunch, or command fish to jump into fishing nets? A: Don't you know that Jesus is 100% man and 100% God? Jesus was being in God in those instances. See, it's simple. Depending on the circumstance, you can just attribute the appropriate aspect of God's nature. That clears everything right up. Does anyone else feel like our brains are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole by just calling the square peg round? If we are to believe the Bible, we must accept that Jesus walked at times as a God and at other times as a man. But how is this possible? Can he split his nature like that? Does the doctrine of the Trinity really give satisfying answers to ALL the questions that the scriptures present? Was Jesus forsaking himself on the cross. Was he begging himself to take the "cup" from him in the Garden of Gethsemane? Judging by the fact that no one responded to the poll question: "Did Jesus know if the world was round?" I can see that this issue is not as clear cut as we pretend it is. How do you personally grapple with it?

Profound Discovery

2010-10-25T09:26:00.000-07:00

If you want to understand why a thing was made, it is important to study how it was made. A watch is built with a second, minute, and hour hand to keep track of time. A piano is built with keys, strings, hammers, and a soundboard to make music. You can usually see the purpose of an object by the aspects of its design. So how and why were we made? Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Genesis 1:26-28 In short, God made man in his image and likeness, capable of exerting God-like dominion on the earth. So before we move on to purpose, let's analyze these qualities. IMAGE: To call ourselves sinners and then claim to bear the image of God seems like a heretical contradiction. "But Frank," says the concerned reader, "it's right there in black and white. We are in created in God's image." When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. Genesis 5:3 The first man (Adam) is from the earth, earthy; the second man (Christ) is from heaven. As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly. I Corinthians 15:47-49 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit. II Corinthians 3:18 Scripture seems to say that image was lost at the Fall, and is to be rediscovered in Christ. DOMINION: Can you "rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky" as Genesis suggests? If you want to call a birdcage and a fishbowl your own personal kingdom, then I guess you can claim dominion. But caging something is not the same as ruling over it. Have you ever seen a man that fits this description? Do we need to redefine the words "image" and "dominion" in order to make Genesis fit the contradictory evidence all around us? Has a man ever claimed to look just like God? Has a man ever showed such dominion on the earth so as to command fish into fishing nets? Have you ever considered that Jesus was not here to act as God, but as MAN? A true man. And, by acting as man, he showed us God.

Why are we here?

2010-10-18T10:53:00.000-07:00

Why would God bother making something that he knew would be rebellious, depraved, and ultimately cost him a trip to the cross? Sounds like a bigger hassle than David Hasselhoff, and it doesn't get much bigger than that! So why make man at all? Maybe he was just bored with "formless and void." Maybe God had too much headache medication and wanted a reason to use it. Maybe he wanted to create a bunch of finite creatures and watch what happened when he put billions of seductive, powerful, self-seeking angels on earth with them. Then, after the humans mess everything up, he could govern them with a bunch of impossible laws and watch them squirm. Wow, Frank is in top form today! Go Frank! But wait . . . is that a thunder cloud? This is not a new question. Sincere believers ask "why" as much as non-believers. I have heard many different answers: God was lonely (despite all the angels and cherubim and so on). It pleased him to do so (he said "it was good"). We will never understand with our puny brains. He needed an outlet for his mercy and wrath. In 1647, the Reformers, while working to create a catechism for purity and unity of doctrine, made this their number one question. Q: What is the Chief End of Man? A: To glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Do you agree? Or is there a better answer?

Perfect?

2010-10-11T08:50:00.000-07:00

I saw this bumper sticker last week: Next time you think you're perfect, try walking on water! First of all: Oooooooooooooooooooooh. Nailed me! Second of all: WHAT? What does "perfect" even mean? In Christian circles we talk about "perfect" quite a bit. We say that, if Adam and Eve didn't eat that darn apple, we would still be perfect. But here's a question, if Adam and Eve were so perfect, why did they eat the darn apple? In Matthew 5:48, Jesus challenges the Jews to "be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." How could Jesus ask for us to be perfect? Didn't he know that "nobody's perfect"? Didn't He know that we, having been born in sin, can never be perfect. At least in this life. Only pre-fall Adam and Eve, and God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are perfect. The rest of us have to deal with things like boogers, poop, sinking in water, and saying "um" all the time. It's part of the curse. A Bible Gateway search of the word "perfect" in the NASV reveals enough instances and context to provide a reasonable definition. It basically means complete, whole, mature, lacking nothing and unblemished. That would make sense with Matthew 5:48 which is just another way of confirming "Be holy, for I am holy," from Leviticus 11:44. Whole. Holy. Perfect. So perfection does not having anything to do with special powers. It doesn't have anything to do with boogers, or stuttering, or tripping. I'm sure Jesus sneezed once or twice. It has everything to do with wholeness, and it is relative to the creature or object being described. Things are imperfect when they are missing something. A functional pen with no pen cap is imperfect, but when the cap is returned, it is perfect again. Complete. God can be nothing but perfect. He doesn't change. His people should function as they were created to function. But that doesn't mean that our wholeness will match his wholeness. We are two different species. So what does perfection look like for a human?

The Knowledge of Good and Evil

2010-10-04T10:08:00.000-07:00

What could possibly be wrong with the knowledge of good and evil?

If I was writing the Genesis account, I would have called the forbidden tree something like, The Tree of Darkness, or The Tree of Unspeakable Evil, a name that would have prompted George Lucas to send Indiana Jones out to find it. Instead, the tree that brings death is a tree that seems harmless, a tree that offers moral knowledge.

I have heard a few theories as to why this tree was harmful, most of them in a youth group setting. One explanation is that Adam and Eve (though made in the image of God) only had the knowledge of good, therefore, without the knowledge of evil, their ignorance preserved them from sin. Maybe the person that invented this theory should eat from the Tree of Logic. What does the knowledge of evil even mean? Would Eve get a mental image of Adam killing a beaver, or of her telling Adam that she walked around the river when, in fact, she walked right through it? GASP! She lied! Evil!

Knowledge of something does not introduce it into the world. Eve already had orders not to eat from the tree. That was knowledge enough. Good=Avoidance. Evil=Eating.

Another theory is that it was not the tree itself that was the problem, but the entire issue was about obedience. God might as well have said, "Don't touch that rock," or "Don't take one step forward and three steps back." But no, he said don't eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. I can sympathize with the obedience argument, but one question continues to nag at me: Why name the two trees if they are insignificant? Apparently the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is at odds with the Tree of Life. But how can that be?

"Okay smarty," says a frustrated blog reader, "what is your theory?"

"CHILL," says the blog writer, "I'm getting to it. GOSH!"

Another way to say "knowledge of good and evil" is Law. The Law is merely a list of rules. Do them, and you are doing good. Break them, and you have sinned--evil. The Tree of Life as described in Revelation is something that would bear fruit that was to be eaten by the saints, and bear leaves for the healing of the nations. Trees are often compared to men in scripture. What "living" man is to be eaten, and provides "healing" for the nations? Clearly this tree is in reference to Christ, the spiritual man, who gives the Spirit of Life to men.

But where do we see the Law and the Spirit at odds?

For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. Romans 7:5-7 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. Romans 8:2-5 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. II Cor 3:5-6 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Galatians 5:18

The verbiage is so reminiscent of Genesis. Eat from the Tree of "Law" and you will die. Eat from the Tree of Life and you will live forever (Eternal Life). Clearly these verses of Paul are pertinent to the question: What is wrong with the knowledge of good and evil?

What is your answer?

Musing on Human Suffering

2010-09-28T11:57:00.000-07:00

On May 21, 2008, a Tennessee newspaper reported the following: Steven Curtis Chapman’s youngest child died Wednesday evening after being struck by a car driven by her teenage brother in the driveway of the family’s Williamson County home. Steven Curtis Chapman? The Christian singer? The minister? His daughter was adopted. How many reasons would God need to prevent something like this from happening? But it wasn't just that it happened, but the way it happened. Another family member? On their own driveway? This is a terrible, heart-wrenching tragedy, and only one example of the kinds of things things that are happening all over the world at this very moment. How do we cope with such disturbing truths? Child rape? Abuse, mental and physical, leading to murder or suicide? Neglect that leads to insanity, starvation, or total debilitation? Should I go on? A couple of years ago, I was watching television in Spain. Apparently they don't have the same censorship that we have in America. I was watching a riot in South Africa where women were being raped and murdered in front of the camera. I saw children being thrown into trucks. Those that resisted had their bones snapped in half or were shot. I saw it happen. And I was horrified. And I cried. And I knew that it was NOT God's intention. This was different than God using his people to judge nations due for judgment. This was clearly the free actions of evil men. In my experience, this is the one issue that turns people away from Christianity more than any other. There is a serious, seemingly-unavoidable problem here, a problem that many Christians try to sidestep, but awkwardly. Simply put: God is love, God is sovereign, and the world is a horrific place. When people try to say something like, "God has a plan, we just can't understand it this side of heaven," I want to pry their eyes open with toothpicks. But these over-simplified solutions may be the only way for some people to feel secure in their lives. I run an after-school Fine Arts program at a Christian school. One day I had a conversation with a Calvinist violin teacher about sovereignty and freedom. I asked him if someone broke into his house and raped his children while he was away, who he would blame? Himself? The rapist? The devil? God? He told me that, ultimately, it all came down to God allowing the event to happen for some unknown, but good purpose. I mean, God works all things together for GOOD, right? Besides, if God isn't controlling every moment of every day, how can any of us get in our cars and feel secure driving down the freeway? I didn't ask if he wore his seat belt, used the foot pedals, or put his hands on the steering wheel. The following Saturday there was a report in the Daily Times that this same man had been convicted of sexually abusing his two adopted children who were living up in Northern California with his ex-wife. Apparently he was using the money he earned in my Academy to visit them. I wonder if he still believes that, at some level, God wanted him to do those things. I am convinced that God does not want my three-year-old daughter to be raped any more than I do. And if it happens, I will mourn. I will not shake my fist at God. I will not call Him weak. And I will not demand an explanation. Some of us might beg to differ, believing that the world is a wonderful place with miracles and blessings around every corner. I wish those people would step outside and open their eyes for a few minutes. Maybe, if they're lucky, someone with do something minor, like steal their car, beat them up, or lie to them, giving them a small wake-up call to the terrors that many people experience on a daily basis. So what is the answer? First of all, our definitions of good and bad are not necessarily shared by God. Yes, Jesus healed people, but think about all of the people he didn't heal. He walked to the Pool of Bethesda, healed one man, and left. What about all of the other sick people watching? Jesus didn't bring every dead person back to life. He didn't cast out every demon. He didn't go about trying to make sure people didn't suffer in their personal lives. He was primarily concerned with the spiritual condition of those around him, to the point of disregarding comfort entirely. Jesus assured his disciples that they would suffer while in the world. Why? Because they were strangers and aliens, citizens of a different kingdom. He tells them to take comfort in their suffering because they would be in the company of the prophets who were abused and killed for their service to God. They were, as Jesus puts it, "lights in the darkness." Therefore, comfort and happiness, though a high value to men and women of the world, is not necessarily a "blessing" as far as God is concerned. When we read, "God works all things together for the good of those who love Him," we need to ask ourselves, what is God's definition of good? 2) In John 8, Jesus tells the Jews that, because they lie and murder, they are children of their father, the devil. Men are meant to "glorify" (or display) the character and qualities of their spiritual fathers. That's how we're designed. That's why, when we grow in Christ, we begin to manifest his nature and power more and more. We become "children of God" and are changed from the qualities of our previous father, the devil, to our new father, God. We are called to stop lying to one another, stop cheating, stop manipulating, stop sinning. Why? Because we have a new father, and our purpose is to "glorify" our new father. If the world is advertising anything, it is that the children of the devil are still running things. In scripture, this is called the kingdom of darkness, or simply "the world." When we join the kingdom of God, we become the light. Our job is to "go into all the world and make disciples," or in other words, spread the light. Hebrews 2 has a prophecy about Jesus. Here are the final words, going into the author's commentary: "...You have made Him for a little while lower than the angels. You have crowned Him with glory and honor. You have appointed Him over the works of your hands. You have put all things in subjection under His feet." (then the author continues) For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him But now we do not yet see all things subjected to him. Not yet? Basically the author of Hebrews is saying that, ultimately, all things will be subject to Christ. But not yet. We are still living in the "not yet" period, which means a lot of the garbage that happens in the world is because of the "ruler of the world" who is trying to get all that he can before the end. The kingdom is the antidote. But the world will not be cured until Christ is Lord of ALL, which is coming when the "ruler of this world" is judged along with his demons and "children." And if we are living in the world of our enemy, we should expect trouble. Sometimes God intervenes in our suffering, but not always the way we want or when we want. We must believe that He is ultimately more concerned with our spiritual development than physical. And also, that he will allow his people to suffer and die, which, in God's economy, is considered an honor, one that His Son embraced fully for the salvation of the world.

Musing on Sovereignty and Freedom

2010-09-21T10:00:00.000-07:00

God can do what he wants. That's a truth that scripture, logic, and personal experience cannot deny. When God wants to do something, who can stop him? Sometimes we assume that, because God can do what he wants, he would do what we would do in his place. We assume that, as Sovereign Ruler, he would, to some degree, control the minds, wills, and actions of his creation to fulfill his ultimate purpose. As I motioned in previous posts, there are verses and historical events that show he has done this in significant moments. But there are others that show his preference for a free and willing heart. "Come now, and let us reason together,"Says the Lord," Though your sins are as scarlet,They will be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they will be like wool. Isaiah 1:18 "How long shall I bear with this evil congregation who are grumbling against Me? I have heard the complaints of the sons of Israel, which they are making against Me. Say to them, 'As I live,' says the Lord, 'just as you have spoken in My hearing, so I will surely do to you.'" Numbers 14:27-28 Then the Lord said to me in the days of Josiah the king, "Have you seen what faithless Israel did? She went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and she was a harlot there. I thought, 'After she has done all these things she will return to Me'; but she did not return..." Jeremiah 3:6-7 Did God really think Israel would return? He must have known otherwise. And if he did, why didn't he do something about it? In Deuteronomy chapter 30, God challenges Israel with a choice: "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them." But in chapter 31 we gain further insight into God's perspective: The Lord said to Moses, "Behold, you are about to lie down with your fathers; and this people will arise and play the harlot with the strange gods of the land, into the midst of which they are going, and will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them. Then My anger will be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them and hide My face from them, and they will be consumed, and many evils and troubles will come upon them; so that they will say in that day, 'Is it not because our God is not among us that these evils have come upon us?' But I will surely hide My face in that day because of all the evil which they will do, for they will turn to other gods. Now therefore, write this song for yourselves, and teach it to the sons of Israel; put it on their lips, so that this song may be a witness for Me against the sons of Israel." God knew what the people would do, how he would feel about it, and what he would do in response, but he didn't do a thing to change it. He even taught Moses a song so that people will remember the warning he gave them years before the rebellion would occur. This tells me a few important things about God's sovereignty: 1) God is not willing to manipulate rebellious hearts. In fact, I can find no instance in scripture where God softens a heart. We see him calling people, we see grace and mercy shown to the repentant, but not the involuntary softening of a rebellious heart. 2) God wants the rebellious to turn of their own volition, but eventually, if they do not turn, even after being warned, they will incur his wrath and judgment. 3) God is patient despite his foreknowledge. God can see the future, but chooses not to manipulate it unless he deems it absolutely necessary. Why? Because when he made men, it was for fellowship, not a cosmic chess game. Relationships are free. I don't want a robot for a wife, I want a woman who wants to be with me, who wants to share life with me. That's the fun of it. There is beauty and adventure in that. Humans are obsessed with relationships. And we want them unmanipulated. No wonder genies don't do "love wishes" and witches stay away from "love potions." We all know that it's supposed to be free. It's instinctive. Love is patient. Love is kind. It does not seek it's own. Bears all things. Hopes all things. Endures all things . . .

God's Preference

2010-09-14T12:53:00.000-07:00

The chain of command ends with God. We don't need the Bible to understand that. A creator is greater than his creation. Unless, of course, we're talking about Dr. Frankenstein, in which case this logic is out the window. The analogy often used is this: It's your room, but it's God's house. I suppose that would work, to some degree, but it appears that God has given man more freedom than that. Here are some Biblical examples: God delivers Israel from Pharaoh to take them to the Promised Land, but when the people worship a golden calf in Moses's absence (leading to the death of many and even the contemplation of a hitting a national reset button) and then refuse to enter Canaan for fear of giants, God lets all of them die except for two men of faith. Yes, their children crossed the Jordan, but it would take more faith to believe that this was God's intention when they crossed the Red Sea. Why didn't he just change their hearts? Give them more faith? Did he not want them to cross, in which case he would make himself a liar and a manipulator? Even Paul didn't believe that. He blamed the people: For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard. For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, "As I swore in my wrath, they shall not enter my rest." . . . Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, He again fixes a certain day, "Today," saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, "Today if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts." Hebrews 4:2-4, 6 In two cases, we do see God doing the hardening: with Pharaoh and with the first century Jews. In both cases, God was starting a new nation, one physical and one spiritual, in which the hardening was required. That is his prerogative. But that doesn't mean he always hardens and softens hearts. The verse I just quoted suggests that "hardening" is up to the person hearing from God. It is an issue of rebellion or obedience. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it!" Luke 13:34 It seems that human rebellion can keep God's will at arms length. However, there are examples of when God takes action despite our rebellion. Like when he needed a prophet during an especially rebellious period in Israel's history. He says that he had prepared Jeremiah for his role before Jeremiah was even born. The same was true of John the Baptist. And Jesus. But don't jump to conclusions. This does not mean that God prepares every man and woman for a specific task before they are born. These were special people for special times. We don't have the right to insert ourselves into the Biblical text, or even insert our hopes or assumptions. We also see God grafting Israel out of the vine and grafting the Gentiles in. Paul says in Romans 11 that it was because of obedience and disobedience, which meant that God's actions were based on the free decisions of men. But does that mean we control God? No. Never has a created being forced God's hand. However, there have been negotiations, like with Abraham. There have been moments of special grace, like with Hezekiah. There have been moments that seemed cruel, like the death of Uzza. In all these cases, we must accept that God deals with nations according to their culture and era, with people according to their personality and faith, and with the history of the world according to his wisdom. God is sovereign, yes. But he is also relevant, pertinent, and needs nothing. When he intervenes, he intervenes. But in the meantime, he calls, he woos, he encourages. These are the actions of a person who wants a relationship, not like the devil who manipulates and possesses his people. How often do we perceive God's sovereignty in this cruel and selfish way?

The Ruler of This World

2010-09-07T10:45:00.000-07:00

Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; and he said to Him, "All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me." Matthew 4:8-9 Jesus answered and said, "This voice has not come for My sake, but for your sakes. Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.” John 12: 30 – 31 "I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me.” John 14:30 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. II Corinthians 4:3-4 "Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” John 8:43-44 Wait? Why don't we talk abut this? Jesus calls the devil the "ruler of the world"? Paul calls the devil the "god of this world"? Seriously? I'm sure the Jews didn't consider themselves the children of the devil. How could they? They were circumcised. They worshipped at the temple. They were born into God's nation, inheritors of the promises. How . . . ? Wait . . . If the devil is the ruler of the world, then I guess the world would be a pretty bad place to live. People would be characterized by their god and father. They would be selfish, liars, manipulators, murderers. People would live for themselves. They would be obsessed with pleasure and gain. They would be inconsiderate. Deceptive. They would masquerade as "angels of light" to get what they want. They would be rebellious. Am I not giving the world it's just description? What about your own soul? Do you have any of these tendencies? I know I do. When Laurie and I were attending Bible school, Major Ian Thomas taught an interesting lesson. He asked us to imagine an alien world that recently discovered that the almighty Creator of the universe made a creature in his very image and likeness on the earth. These aliens would be eager to visit this blessed planet to see these unique and wonderful creatures that demonstrate the very nature of their Creator God. Imagine their disappointment when they discover that God is a lying, manipulative, selfish, greedy overlord. So if this concept is as true as the evidence suggests, what does this say about the sovereignty of God? How could he allow this to happen? Is God unjust? Uninterested? Unloving? More to come . . . . but please weigh in.

Sovereignty Scrutinized

2010-09-01T12:01:00.000-07:00

To begin a discussion on freedom and sovereignty, we should be clear about what sovereignty is. I think we have a general assumption in the church that, because God made everything, he is ultimately responsible for everything he made. He has a plan for it. He controls it. Psalms 103:19 seems to support this assertion. The Lord has established his throne in the heavens, and his sovereignty rules over all. However, sovereignty is also attributed to the city of Damascus in Isaiah, and King Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel. In John 14, Jesus calls Satan the "ruler of this world." Really? How can any other power be ascribed such authority if, ultimately, God is ruler of all? There can be no doubt that God created free systems. Before men were even created, there was a rebellion in heaven and a third of the angels chose to leave the authority of God for the authority of Lucifer. One could say that God intended such a thing from the beginning--a Willy Wonka and Slugworth scenario--but perhaps the truth is just as simple as it is presented. They didn't want to be under God's thumb. Have you ever felt that way? Anyone? Anyone? Then God creates man, another type of free creature. Before long, man has rebelled, and God is setting new parameters for their relationship. In Romans 1, Paul talks about God turning man over to his own depravity, as if to say, "Fine. If you think you can do it better, go ahead." But does that mean God is no longer responsible for these people? Are they truly free of him? In all of the free systems of creation, there are rulers and authorities. From fish to angels, there is a struggle for power and authority. These "ranks" are clearly seen in creation (just watch the Dog Whisperer) and written about in scripture. Life is dominated and defined by these struggles. Living in a Democracy, we participate in this struggle every day. Who is in charge? What authority do they have? How can we have more personal freedom, more rights? Should we rebel? Should we impeach? Jesus talks about this struggle in his parable of the strong man's goods. He says, "If you want to plunder the strong man's possessions, you must first bind the strong man." In other words, you must be stronger. In the spiritual realm, this has nothing to do with steroids and everything to do with authority. When God created man and told him to fill the earth and subdue it, there was some authority given there. The fact that a Spirit of Truth is given to counteract the Father of Lies proves, to some degree, that our freedom remains. Spiritual powers are asking us to trust them, to relinquish our freedom and place it in their control. Apparently, this is our choice. If we surrender our freedoms to God, we live. If not, we die. Spiritually speaking. But above all created beings is one uncreated being. The strongest of the strong men. The ultimate authority. God didn't ask permission to send his son into the devil's world (both Jesus and Paul claimed this), but the devil had to ask permission to "sift Peter like wheat." There is no Biblical evidence that the devil has to ask permission to deal with people that belong to him. Only those that belong to God. Here is my opinion. Feel free to weigh in. God's sovereignty means that no one can tell him what to do. He is the only being that has no authority over him. The ONLY being. That means that if he wants to do something he can go ahead and do it. If God wants to create the world and let it spin alone in the universe, that is his prerogative--and he would still be considered sovereign! Sovereignty means that God can do whatever he wants. Rather than assuming that God is controlling everything, it is better to ask: What does God WANT to do? And don't assume the answer. Food for thought: Why would Jesus pray, "Thy will be done on earth as is it in heaven"? Wouldn't God's sovereignty assume that God's will is being done on earth the same as in heaven?

A New Perspective

2010-08-23T10:22:00.000-07:00

I had to treat my soul like a child. I had to pin it down and demand that it stay put until the Holy Spirit told it to move. I had no idea how stubborn and independent I could be. I was raised with a common belief: God loves me. God has a plan for my life. God is sovereign. He chose me. He saved me. Someday I will live with him in heaven. This perspective was very comforting, but it was also crippling. Imagine if I raised my son to think that, because I gave birth to him and love him and have the power to help him, he could do anything he wants for the rest of his life and it won't change anything. In fact, I'll forgive everything he does, fix it, and make sure he gets a beautiful wife and well-paying job even if he never so much as lifts his butt from the couch cushions. How good of a parent would I be? How good of a person would he be? To say that God is in control and everything happens for a reason, is to close your eyes to the events of the world and even to scripture. But to say that God is not in control questions his sovereignty and power. And especially his love. There seems to be an unavoidable problem there. Since this question is such a big one for Christians and skeptics alike, we should take some time on it. This post will focus simply on the change of my perspective before I pinned my soul to the ground, and after. When God spoke to me, and confirmed his word, it showed me that I had been making "faith" choices without him for most of my life. I just prayed, then acted without hearing back from him. I guess I was like someone leaving a message on a cell phone, assuming that the other person would agree and support whatever decision I made just because I cared enough to call. I also realized that I had been living by a sliding scale. I believe in God's sovereign will, but when I sinned, it was clearly not His will. I felt bad. I apologized. I felt that I had offended God. But how could God be offended or even bothered if he knew what I would do before I did it, and it was all a part of his grand scheme? In fact, I should be thanking him for my sin because, in the end, "all things work together for good." Right? Also, my perspective would change based on the severity of an event. If I tripped on a curb, I was clumsy. But if I tripped on a curb and cracked a tooth, costing me $500 at the dentist, God was testing me financially. If I tripped on a curb and incurred brain damage, God obviously had a mysterious and wonderful plan and I would have to wait and pray, pretending not to be afraid, wondering what it was. Based on the severity of my fall, the event would shift from an accident to a plan. There is one story in the Bible that helped shed some light on this issue for me. In Numbers 22, Israel is approaching Moab on their way to Canaan. Balak, the king, is terrified of Israel, having heard of what happened in Egypt and the destruction of other nations. He calls on Balaam, a man known for his divination powers, to curse Israel. Balaam accepts the offer, but God is angry and sends an angel to block his way. Balaam has an interesting conversation with his donkey, after which the angel is revealed to him. Balaam agrees not to go. However, God allows him to continue, but does not allow him to curse Israel. Only to bless them. For the next couple of chapters, we can read the blessings of Balaam and the angry rants of Balak. However, the blessings don't seem to matter because in the chapter that immediately follows, Israel is sleeping around with the people of Moab and worshipping their gods. Nice. Josephus, when writing the Jewish history for his Greek captors, expands this account, making the transition a little more natural. In his version, Balaam tells Balak that God will not abandon his people, but they could abandon their God. He advises the king to send in their most beautiful women and seduce the Israelites. God doesn't send an angel to block the women. Israel is seduced. Ultimately, it is these same people that were so unfaithful that they never would enter the Promise Land, even though God brought them out of Egypt to do so. This sounds like what the devil is trying to do. Seduction and lies. Apparently we are free to act on temptation, and in doing so, we just might end up like Israel, dead in a desert on the wrong side of the Jordan. Consider some of your own views of sovereignty and freedom. Do you vote? If so, do you think it changes the outcome? Do you feel free? Do you feel guilty when you sin? Are those sinful moments free from God's sovereignty? If so, can other moments also be free? How do you feel about this issue?

Another College Story

2010-08-16T11:35:00.000-07:00

I came to a mental crossroads in my spiritual life in my junior year of college. I got to the point where I was exhausted by "God-speak." I was tired of “giving God the glory” for things that I was probably just doing myself. Would I have to go through the rest of my life hoping that God would keep “opening and closing doors” for me? I wanted to hear from God. I wanted to know what He was doing. I was ready to abandon all guesswork entirely. My opportunity came. I needed a job, and the best job I could find while attending school was as a church accompanist—decent pay, limited hours. I auditioned at a large church and was offered the position, but I needed to start right away and I would have to continue through the summer. If I took the job, I couldn’t go on the summer ministry tour I was planning, and I would have to find housing in the area. I told the choir director that I would pray about it and give her a decision on Sunday. That was Wednesday. While I was driving home from the audition, I thought about what I said. Would I really be able to know what God wanted me to do? I remember feeling very strongly about finding out for sure this time. Did He want me to stay back from a ministry tour just to make money, or would He provide a more flexible job? Before I got home I had made a decision. I would ceremoniously fry myself a cheeseburger and then not eat again until I was sure that God had given me an answer. I went home, ate the burger, and prayed like a maniac. The next day, I was talking to a friend who said that if I wanted to stay in Los Angeles for the summer, I could stay in his apartment and share the rent. If I went on tour, we could lead the ministry team together. It didn’t give me an answer, but it did open up a place to stay. I refused to open my Bible during this time, afraid that I would read into the verses. I felt bad, like I was trying to twist God’s arm, but I knew that I had to persevere. I was so tired of not being sure. By Friday night, “hungry” was an understatement. I remember going to a restaurant with my friends but not planning to eat. Smart. While I was sitting there, watching everyone else eat, I looked over at the friend who had offered to share the summer with me. I can’t explain why, but at that moment, I knew that I should take the accompanist job and stay in Los Angeles. It was a feeling. I didn’t really want a feeling. I wanted a burning bush outside the music building. Later that night, I ate. I didn’t get sick. I didn’t feel guilty. But I have to admit, I didn’t feel confident either. On Sunday, I told the director that I would take the job. “When did you decide?” she asked. “Friday night.” “What time?” I thought back. “Around 6:00.” She looked startled. “That’s interesting. Because at 6:00, Friday night, something told me to stop worrying about the choir job. It was such a strong sensation that I looked at my watch.” So God wanted me to make money and not go on the ministry tour? Funny thing: I got married that summer, but at the time, I wasn't even dating Laurie. How could I have known? I needed to stay home. That first experience in college forever altered my approach to faith. I was finally confident that God could speak to me and confirm His word. I also knew that living by faith was something that I had to pursue. No more open and closed doors. No more superstitious God-speak. No magic Bible verses. No pointless prayers or Christianese. For once, it was real.

Scripture on Scripture

2010-08-02T08:23:00.000-07:00

Do I trust the Scriptures? Absolutely. This may seem to contradict my previous posts, but I have confidence that God has preserved the testimonies of these prophets and spiritual men to guide his church, and to keep us from personal and corporate heresy. However, I don't trust my brain farther than I can throw it. As mentioned in the previous post, we interpret everything we read through our mental filters. These filters tend to make conclusions based on personality, experience, personal study, mentors, and many other things. Once we've made conclusions, we tend to place our entire faith in them, baring our teeth at any doctrine or theologian that would dare to challenge them. It is foolhardy to think that we, physical beings, could become experts in spiritual things with simple reasoning--even with the Scriptures as a guide. However, it would be even more foolish to throw out the Scriptures and rely entirely on feelings or personal experiences. If there are truly spiritual forces at work to deceive us, especially in the church itself, shouldn't we do the best we can to let go of our faulty securities and learn to depend on the Holy Spirit for truth. Paul cautioned the early churches to walk by the Spirit rather than living by the Law. God would not contradict His own law, so there is no danger in abandoning one for the other. Also, he encouraged people to walk by the Spirit to avoid sin. God doesn't sin, so people walking by the Spirit will not sin. True security. I believe that this concept, though intriguing to many Christians, has been abandoned for the more "secure" approach of using the scriptures as the end-all and having seminary-approved interpreters tell us what it means. We still want a king. We need the truth in our face. We need it in our hands, in black and white. It's like we're standing on the ground, but we won't let go of the tree because we can't see our feet. We know the Old Testament Scriptures were important to the New Testament believers. They quoted it constantly, confirming the world changing events surrounding the birth, life, death, resurrection, and continuing spiritual ministry of Jesus. The Old Testament gave the apostles confidence in their faith, along with the signs and wonders they were experiencing. Jesus, as a youth, was recognized as having an incredible understanding of Scripture. He used it while being tempted by the devil, he used it while being challenged by the Pharisees, and he even quoted it on the cross. It cannot be disregarded. The Pharisees were masters of Scripture as well, but Jesus rebuked them, calling them blind men. How could the Pharisees, who memorized the Scriptures, still be considered blind? It is interesting that they knew all of the prophecies, and ended up fulfilling them without even knowing it. Perhaps their interpretations of the Messianic prophecy would be a lot like how we try to predict the events of Revelations. Having read the Left Behind series and seen the Thief in the Night series, we're waiting for some things to happen that just may never come. We know that the devil is bent on twisting the scriptures to lead God's people astray. We need to learn the voice of God, not Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, John Lennon, or John Barnts. We see a perfect example of this in John 1:19-34: This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?" And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ." They asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" And he said, "I am not " "Are you the Prophet?" And he answered, "No." Then they said to him, "Who are you, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?" He said, "I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'make straight the way of the Lord,' as Isaiah the prophet said." Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. They asked him, and said to him, "Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?" John answered them saying, "I baptize in water, but among you stands One whom you do not know. "It is He who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie." These things took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! "This is He on behalf of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.' I did not recognize Him, but so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water." John testified saying, "I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him. I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, 'He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.' I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God." Speculation versus Revelation.

Misquoting Jesus

2010-07-27T10:42:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading Misquoting Jesus, by Bart Ehrman, a book about the history of the written New Testament. The author, in his concluding statements, made a very interesting point that seems in line with the current topic of this blog. I will quote it here. I hope that you are not derailed by this information, but rather encouraged to reach for the living, present Holy Spirit of God who, as Jesus said, was given to guide us into all truth. As the years went by and I continued to study the text of the New Testament, I gradually became less judgmental toward the scribes who changed the scriptures they copied. Early on, I suppose I was a bit surprised, maybe even scandalized, by the number of changes these anonymous copyists of the text had made in the process of transcription, as they altered the words of the texts, putting it in their own words rather than the words of the original authors. But I softened my view of these transcribers as I slowly came to realize that what they were doing with the text was not all that different from what each of us does every time we read a text. The more I studied, the more I saw that reading a text necessarily involves interpreting a text. I suppose when I started my studies I had a rather unsophisticated view of reading: that the point of reading a text is simply to let the text “speak for itself,” to uncover the meaning inherent in its words. The reality, I came to see, is that meaning is not inherent and texts do not speak for themselves. If texts could speak for themselves, then everyone honestly and openly reading a text would agree on what the text says. But interpretations of texts abound, and people in fact do not agree on what the texts mean. This is obviously true of the texts of scripture: simply look at the hundreds or even thousands of ways people interpret the book of Revelations, or consider all of the different Christian denominations, filled with intelligent and well-meaning people who base their views of how the church should be organized and function on the Bible, yet all of them coming to radically different conclusions. Think back on the last time you were involved in a heated debate in which the Bible was invoked, and someone volunteered an interpretation of a scripture verse that left you wondering, How did he/she come up with that? We hear this all around us in discussions of homosexuality, women in the church, abortion, divorce, and even American foreign policy, with both sides quoting the same Bible—and sometimes even the same verses—to make their case. Is this because some people are simply more willful or less intelligent than others and can’t understand what the text plainly says? Surely not—surely the texts of the New Testament are not simply collections of words whose meaning is obvious to any reader. Surely the texts have to be interpreted to make sense, rather than simply read as if they can divulge their meanings without the process of interpretation. And this, of course, applies not just to the New Testament documents, but to texts of every kind. Why else would there be such radically different understandings of the US Constitution, or Das Kapital, or Middlemarch? Texts do not simply reveal their own meanings to honest inquirers. Texts are interpreted, and they are interpreted (just as they were written) by living, breathing human beings, who can make sense of the texts only by explaining them in light of their own knowledge, explicating their meaning, putting the words of the texts “in other words.” Once readers put a text in other words, however, they have changed the words. This is not optional when reading; is it not something you can choose not to do when you peruse a text. The only way to make sense of a text is to read it, and the only way to read it is by putting it in other words, and the only way to put it in other words is by having other words to put it into, and the only way you have other words to put it into is that you have a life, and the only way to have a life is by being filled with desires, longings, needs, wants, beliefs, perspectives, worldviews, opinions, likes, dislikes—and all the other things that make human beings human. And so to read a text is, necessarily, to change a text. That’s what scribes of the New Testament did.

Faith Comes By Hearing

2010-07-20T10:06:00.000-07:00

I grew up with an unbiblical view of faith. I think I just Christianized the words "belief" or "hope." Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. My personal definition would have been more like "Faith is the anticipation of things hoped for, the belief in things not seen," or something like that. In other words, my faith was built on hope. When I would pray, I hoped that God was listening in on my thoughts. I didn't really have any proof or even a Bible verse that said he could hear my inaudible requests, but I trusted that he could. I also had faith that he would answer, though my "yes, no, or maybe" method allowed for chance or happenstance to look a lot like the sovereign will of God. When it came to doctrines, I had "faith" that mine was correct. I never really acknowledged that there were smart people on all sides of every debate. I just held my ground on my own beliefs and defended them against every contrary opinion. The same was true of my biblical interpretations. However I saw the verses were the way they were meant to be seen. I had faith in my own reasoning. What about my feelings? Until I was older, I never took health, hormones, fatigue, or stress into account. It was amazing how a good night's sleep would affect my devotion time and make me feel better about God, the church, and the purpose of my life. Would we feel differently about God and each other if we've had our V8 every morning? What about Spicy V8?

If you look carefully, you'll find that the "faith" I had growing up, is actually only half of the biblical definition. Paul explains in Romans 10 that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

In context, you'll see that Paul is not referring to the Scriptures, but to the prophets, who were actually hearing from God and speaking to the people. The faith of these people were based, not on a system of doctrines, but the living and active word of God. Some of these words were written down and God expected those to be followed (the law, the temple rituals). In a family, that could be seen as "the rules of the house" along with the daily, spoken interactions of the family.

God does speak through the Scriptures, but he also speaks to his people day to day (directly or through modern-day prophets). This way, our spiritual lives are always relevant to our times, but truth never shifts with it. The rules of the house remain, but the day to day events are more fluid and relevant. If you read through the examples of faith in Hebrews 11, you will see a group of people that listened to God and obeyed. None of them acted "in faith" without hearing from God first. But in Hebrews 4, we read about Israel, who had been given orders from God to enter the land of Canaan, but did not inherit the promise. The word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard. United by faith? So faith is belief coupled with obedience. It is not enough to hear from God. It is not enough to believe. One must act. Remember without faith it is impossible to please God. If you are not hearing from God, how can you have faith? If you are not walking in faith, how can you please God?

The Nervous System

2010-07-13T08:06:00.000-07:00

If God is truly going to be the head of his church, the nervous system must be functional and the body must be responsive. We cannot replace our head with Christian leaders, apologetics, church culture, books, or even the scriptures themselves. I assert that, if Christians are not living by the Spirit of God, they are not living as Christians. They are paralyzed. The living dead. Useless to the body. Have Pentecostal scarecrows chased us out of this fertile field? It seems as if when the Holy Spirit comes up, people just want to talk about miracles and tongues. I'm talking about the normal Christian life. I'm going to be in New York for the next five days, so I wanted to leave some Biblical support for what I have been writing, and allow some time for thoughtful responses. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit can lead his people in clarity and truth? Most of you would say yes. But then, if someone has a word from the Lord there is a surge of skepticism. And for good reason. Most people want to run before they learn to walk. We have spiritual babies prophesying from their souls, soaking in the attention and money like the Pharisees. These zealous believers haven't matured enough to be trustworthy. However, we can't throw the concept out because of these people and just revert back to something more "solid," like a pastor or a book. We need to have our spiritual senses trained. It takes years. I am convinced that this is the greatest weakness of modern Christians. We want a human liaison. It feels safer. We need a pastor. The Jews wanted a king. The Roman Catholics want a pope. The body of Christ needs leaders, don't misunderstand. But these leaders are to be spiritual men, not human governments. We'll talk about church structure at length when we get there. THIS IS A KEY POINT: Spiritual things are accessed in the spirit and processed in the soul. The mind, emotions, and will are involved in this spiritual process, but we should not try to generate a connection to God in those places. Don't approach him emotionally in worship. Don't approach him intellectually in study. Don't start to act without hearing from him. Just be still. Listen. Then let your soul respond. (Jesus speaking to Pharisees) "And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life." John 5:37-40 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” And He answered and said to them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted." Matthew 13:10-11 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” Matt 16:13-17 "He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him." John 14:21 “These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” John 14:25-26 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth.” John 16:12-13 As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him. I John 2:27 (Paul writing about his credibility as a teacher) For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:11-12 This concept of revelation is where the Holy Spirit started with me. Until He was in complete charge of my learning, I could not take a step forward. Before 1997, my Christian life could be compared to a young boy grabbing a gun, putting on camos, and thinking he was in the army. After this, I actually had a commanding officer. For the first time, my spiritual life was active, challenging, and exciting.

God's Voice #3

2010-07-06T11:57:00.000-07:00

Knowing God's love did a whole lot for my emotional stability, but very little for my Christian character. Growing up, I was always zealous and argumentative, but my zeal and personal Bible study seemed to have no effect against my arrogant, lustful nature. It was a constant point of frustration for me, especially after my experience on the mountain. My first year after college, I was reading a science fiction novel by C.S. Lewis called Perelandra. The book was set on Venus, but it was really about Adam and Eve. In one particular scene, the Devil character was having a conversation with the Eve character, playing on her naive, childish sensibilities to create a sense of bitterness and confusion between her and the God character. The problem was, I actually found myself agreeing with the Devil character. However, when I saw the inevitable result of his arguments, I realized the error of my thinking. It was then that God spoke to me. The message came just as clear and as moving as it had in High School. Wrong function comes from wrong beliefs. The reason you sin is not for lack of effort, but for lack of truth. In other words, I had weeds in the garden of my belief system, and I thought they were flowers. To settle this new dilemma, I decided to go through the entire Bible with a blue highlighter, marking every verse that had any meaning for me. Then I wrote those verses on 3X5 cards and stored them in plastic containers to be memorized. When it was time to start memorizing, I just grabbed a box. The first cards in the box started with I Corinthians 2, so that's where I started. For the next week or so, as my brain marinated in scripture, I found myself being directed in my understanding. The mental process went something like this (verses in italics): I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. Wait . . . Paul came to Corinth in weakness, fear, and trembling? That’s not how I imagined him. Not in persuasive words of wisdom? Isn’t that what preaching is? Is Paul saying that if I persuade someone to faith with logic that their faith would rest on my wisdom and not on the power of God? Could our current method of preaching actually harm believers, making them dependent on the preachers? Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. What is this wisdom that Paul is referring to? Apparently it is something that mature believers understand and speak to one another. It is spoken in a mystery. It is hidden. It is predestined for the glory of believers—whatever that means. It is something that the world does not understand. Do I? But just as it is written, “Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, and which have not entered the heart of man, all that God has prepared for those who love him.” For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. I always thought these verses were about heaven, but apparently these “things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard” were revealed—past tense—by the Holy Spirit. Maybe these are the mysteries that Paul was talking about. Prepared for those who love him? That must be church, or certain people in the church. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. Man knows man. God knows God. If we want to know God, we have to learn about Him from the Spirit of God. He is given to us so that we might know God and acquire the things freely given to us by God. These “things” are what “eye has not seen and ear has not heard.” The hidden wisdom. Combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words? What is a spiritual thought? One that originates from the Spirit. What is a spiritual word? A spiritual thought released. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. “For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ. People that do not have the Spirit of God will resist the hidden wisdom that the mature believers speak. It will sound like foolishness to them. They can’t even understand it. That would also make sense of the next few verses. First Paul quotes an Old Testament question: “Who has known the mind of the Lord that he should instruct him?” Exactly. Man does not know God. Then he answers the question with a powerful phrase: “But we have the mind of Christ.” Not we might have the mind of Christ. Not, with a little growth, we will develop a mind like Christ’s. No, we have the mind of Christ. Present tense. Through the Holy Spirit. Spiritual men are beyond reproof because their words and actions originate in God himself, therefore a natural man cannot judge them. Do we even believe this as a church? After so many false prophets and corrupt leaders, do we still believe that God can make us into people that are beyond reproach? I think that we have become like an abused woman that no longer believes in love, or a lawyer that has lost his belief in justice. Look at the current trends in our "emerging" church. Has our dependance on our minds and human leaders severed our spiritual spinal cord, causing us to lose our belief in absolute truth?

God's Voice #2

2010-06-30T11:28:00.000-07:00

From early on, I sensed God moving me here and there from time to time, though everything was fairly subtle compared to my experience in High School. After that experience, I continued to have periodic stirrings in my soul, especially in worship, but never stopped wrestling with the challenge he posed to me.

Three years of silence was frustrating. When the word "love" came up in a worship song, I would stop singing. It was a strangling disability. At one point, during my junior year of college, after recalling the phrase "We love him because he first loved us," I demanded that God prove his love for me. I devoted myself to an hour of prayer a day, hoping for some kind of breakthrough.

At the same time, I was just starting to date Laurie, though we hadn't been seeing each other long enough to define our relationship. In February of 1995 she came down from Sacramento to LA to visit me for a weekend. On a Friday night, while I was at a rehearsal, she made dinner for us transforming my college bachelor kitchen in a romantic dining area complete with Italian food and candles. After we ate, we decided to drive up into the mountains to pray together.

Okay, I admit it, it was a move, like telling a nice Christian girl that you want to be a youth pastor. We all know that girls want to marry youth pastors (spiritual leader, good with kids, fun) What's not to like? Anyway, we found one of those movie spots with the lights of the city far below, and parked. Then we talked for a few hours before we finally decided to pray. I took her hand. Isn't that what people do when they pray? Yeah. Nice move.

We prayed back and forth for a couple of hours. As usual, I prayed about the love question, among other things. Then, about three in the morning, we stopped and just sat in that post-prayer silence where no one wants to be unspiritual and speak first.

It was God who spoke first. It all came in a moment, like before, but could be summarized into something like this: "My love is romantic. Your life is like a meal, and all of its phases are like progressive courses. The food, settings, and candles are like the people, places, and events that you experience. They are there to draw you to myself, the person sitting across the table. Then, when all of the food is eaten and the candles have died, it will be just you and me."

With the message came a powerful sensation. It was so strong that I began to tremble and I felt that if it became more intense, it would kill me. It was a love that made every other love (romantic, paternal, platonic) feel limited and small. It changed me. To this day, I will never doubt how he feels, not just about me, but about humanity. Despite any evidence to the contrary, I cannot doubt his benevolent intentions.

Just as I was about to say something to Laurie, she blurts out, "John, God is romantic!" He told her the same thing in the same moment. Isn't that just like him?

Since that day, I am not easily intimidated. I used to be very skittish, especially when it came to demonic situations or dark alleys at night. No longer. I am confident in his ability beyond mine, allowing me to smile or even laugh when situations seem desperate. I am not afraid. I feel solid inside. I really do. But it has nothing to do with my own abilities. I'm not that great.

But who cares? He is.

God's Voice #1

2010-06-23T11:31:00.000-07:00

God's voice doesn't sound like mine. I want to be comfortable, smart, and successful. God wants me to grow. When he speaks, it usually feels like the world goes on pause for a moment, as if I just remembered something that I never knew. The message is often clear, though I usually ask for some kind of confirmation. That's because he's asking me to do something uncomfortable. At other times, it comes as the revelation of a concept, which always makes me feel a combination of excitement, humility, and gratefulness. It is very unlike the feeling I get when I solve something with research or logic. The first time I clearly heard God's voice was in my senior year of high school. I was sitting in my home church when the pastor posed the question, "How can we be salt and light on the earth?" I looked across the room and saw this kid who was obsessed with Sacramento Kings Basketball. He knew every player, every stat. He listened to every game on his little radio and never failed to pack my ears full of commentary every Sunday. When I saw him, the Holy Spirit spoke to me. It was not a voice in my head. It was not a voice anywhere. It was a sudden realization that seemed to come more from my chest than my head. The message was imposed, not extrapolated from previous information. I wasn't even seriously considering the question when the answer was given. That was Sunday. On Monday and Tuesday, I preached to the interior of my car as I drove to school in the morning. I coudn't help it. It was a compulsion. Like an itch. My sermon was something like this: That boy was a "light" to Kings basketball. Why? Because he loved it. Do girls need to be compelled to pull out a picture of their boyfriends? Do experienced singers need a gun put to their heads before they'll sing? No. They love it. Why was I not a light for God? I didn't love him. The secret to the Christian life is to fall in love with God, not try harder. Otherwise the relationship is forced and contrived, leading to hypocrisy. I would find myself acting more like the Devil who "masquerades as an angel of light" than God who is the true light of the world. On Tuesday afternoon I was sitting in a little bible study at school and the leader of the Student Council was complaining that he had to speak in chapel in just two days but could think of nothing to talk about. I quickly offered to take it for him. You need to understand something. I had a reputation for being negative and argumentative, especially in spiritual conversations. Also, this was the Student Council chapel. I wasn't even on the Student Council. By some miracle, he gave it to me without hesitation. When I sat down to prepare on Wednesday night, I had so many ideas I was just notating the avalanche of information in my head. It was like a spiritual download. Then, on Thursday morning, I was standing in front of my entire high school preaching the very thing I had heard from God on the previous Sunday. That chapel was my first preaching experience. I was nervous in front of my peers, but also confident in what I had to say. When I was finished, I saw that some of the students were crying. One teacher said that it was the best chapel of the year. I was a little freaked out to be honest. That was my first experience with the voice of God. I have had many since. In most cases, he does something physical to confirm his word to me, just as he did on that first occasion. I have also noticed that the message is rarely given for my own personal benefit. Though he loves us individually and speaks personally to us, he often works in such a way that, at the right time, the message can be given to others. We are not meant to be spiritual sponges, but more like tubes. When we put fuel in our bodies, it is for the entire body, not just one small part. God seems to fuel his body in the same way. What is your first experience with the voice of God?

Body, Soul, and Spirit

2010-06-16T08:56:00.000-07:00

Okay Frank, enough of this "God spoke to me" garbage. Let's hear some proof. What does God sound like? Does he use a booming megaphone from heaven? A still small voice? A feeling? How do you know it's not just your own thoughts or emotions? When does it happen? How often?

I'll get to that in the next post, but before we can analyze the activity of soul and spirit, we need to know the difference between them. Our belief systems, right or wrong, can generate true feelings of guilt, peace, joy, and so on. These feelings cannot be trusted. A sense of peace can come from any number of sources, one of which is Vodka. How can we sort the subtle voice of God from the clutter of our minds and emotions?

Hebrews 4:12 states, "The Word of God is living and active (This is not the written word, but the activity of the Holy Spirit. Sometimes this activity is written down, but not always), sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit...

Hold on! What's the difference between the soul and the spirit? In the Old Testament, the difference is not as clearly pronounced as it is in the New Testament. The Hebrews tended to group the soul into a more general "inner man" category, mixing thoughts and emotions together like a casserole. The Greeks took out the individual ingredients, named them, and described their functions.

The analogy that is used in the next part of the verse helps us to differentiate the two: "...the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow..."

What do joints and marrow have to do with anything? Christians will often glaze over these kinds of phrases, assuming that the author just meant to emphasize that it was really penetrating, but why use these words? Who divides the marrow of a bone from it's joints?

If we draw a parallel between soul and joints, and spirit and marrow, the answer becomes clear.

A bone is being compared to a body. The marrow of a bone produces blood and fat cells, making it alive and healthy. Apparently, this is what our human spirit does for our bodies. When our spirits leave, our bodies die. I once sat down with a Bible teacher that showed some insight in these matters. When I asked him what the human spirit was, he said, "The spirit is you. It is the core of your being. It is the part of you that can interact with the Holy Spirit, the part that makes you different than an animal."

So animals have souls?

What about joints? They allow the bones to move. Our soul is the expressive part of our inner man whether by thought, emotion, or the activity of our will. Our soul can be motivated by the urgings of the body (often called "the flesh" in scripture), causing us to act like an educated animal, seeking only food, shelter, pleasure, procreation, and self preservation. Or it can respond to your spirit.

Animals have personalities. They can think. They emote. But everything is based in their flesh. They don't ponder the future while staring at sunsets. Well, dolphins do. And Sun Bears. But that's it.

A proper understanding of these concepts reveals three kinds of creatures:

Plants: Body only

Animals: Body and soul

Men: Body, soul, and spirit

So how can we consciously sense the difference between our souls and our spirits?

Is the Bible Trustworthy?

2010-05-31T16:18:00.000-07:00

We put a lot of stock in the reliability of scripture. In fact, we base our entire belief system on it. The strongest assertion for most Christians is that each word is inspired by the Holy Spirit and preserved for all time by the same authority and power. We base this assertion on a single verse (2 Timothy 3:16) "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and training in righteousness." Wait . . . we trust the Bible because of a verse in the Bible? That sounds like circular reasoning to me. Besides, Paul would not have been referring to his own letters but the scripture of his day, the Old Testament. How can we know that the New Testament is equally inspired? The Old Testament was meticulously copied to maintain its authenticity. In the 10th Century, a group of Jewish scribes called Massoretes demonstrated the kind of care that was taken with the writings of the prophets. A group of them would copy the same book at the same time. When they were finished, they would total the number of letters in the book, then search for the middle letter. If the letters didn't match, they made a new copy.

Comparisons of the Massoretic texts with earlier Latin and Greek versions have revealed careful copying and little deviation during the thousand years from 100 BC to 900 AD. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the writings of Josephus only add to the evidence that the Old Testament books we have today are the same that Jesus and Paul studied and quoted two thousand years ago. But how were the New Testament books preserved? How were they selected for the canon? Were there other worthy candidates that could have helped us to understand Jesus from a more diverse and balanced perspective? Were the texts manipulated at all during the turbulent centuries where the church basically abused and dominated the world? I'm just starting a book called Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman to look deeper into these questions, but for now, these are my initial thoughts and research: The canon of the New Testament was not officially set until 367 AD when Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, came up with a list of twenty-seven books which was later deemed "set" by the Councils of Carthage in 397 under the authority of St. Augustine. Most of the books were natural fits because of their direct association with the apostles (though no originals existed at the time), but there was some debate over the inclusion of certain books. Some believed that Paul used the teachings of Christ to create an unorthodox hybrid between the Hebrew and Roman religions, making a sort of Jewish Mithraism. The Gnostics of the day used the teaching of Jesus and the apostles to support their own beliefs, calling Jesus the embodiment of a supreme being (his Father) who became incarnate to bring special knowledge to an earth that had been created and subjected by the corrupt designs of a malevolent god, the Jewish god of the Old Testament. There was also a lot of debate about the book of Hebrews because of the questionable nature of it's authorship. Ultimately, the issues were settled in councils, and the New Testament was published as twenty seven books. How do we know verses were not changed over time? Well, verses are changed every day. How often does a preacher read a verse of scripture then say, "What Jesus is saying is..." or "What Paul would tell our church today is..." We always extrapolate meaning based on our personal belief systems. Why would the interpreters do any different? There is always a danger in putting things into our own words. That's why I'm not a huge fan of The Message or any other translation written to make things easier for modern readers. I would much rather put my faith in the exact words of the apostles than the seeker-friendly rephrasing of some recent translations. That's just me. When I was in Bible school, my Greek teacher told our class that, in his opinion, the translation closest to the Greek texts was the New American Standard. I bought one. Mine has little underlines of common words so that I can look up the Greek meanings in the back. I like it. For me, accuracy is very important, even though none of the original documents remain (which bothers me in a way).

As I read the New Testament, I recognize that each author is a unique individual with unique spiritual experiences. These men did not write the scriptures in a trance-like state. They were writing memoirs. They were teaching. Preaching. Peter didn't always agree with Paul. Even Paul himself will differentiate his thoughts and opinions with those given to him by the Holy Spirit. But I do have something in common with both Peter and Paul. I have a relationship with Jesus. I want to learn as much as I can from them, inspired or not.

The main reason I trust the scriptures is because the Holy Spirit always leads me back to it. My next few posts will have to do with exactly how that works. I will try to explain what it is like to be led by the Spirit and to hear the subtle voice of God. I will also be eager to hear your own stories.

But for now, I'd like to hear if you believe in the authority of Scripture. If so, why.

Why I Believe in God

2010-05-24T08:30:00.000-07:00

God spoke to me during my senior year of high school, and I would never be confident in my own logic and reasoning again. In college, he met with me in a much more dynamic way. From that day on, I would never again doubt His existence, character, or power. It changed me. I was more secure. More free. More giving. More confident. It was not the faith of my parents that convinced me of God's existence, or the testimony of scripture, or the evidence of creation, or the complexities of science. It was the undeniable contact with my creator. It is hard to prove that any of my experiences were genuine. They were, but how could I convince a skeptic? As a child, I remember being stirred in my spirit, like an astronaut staring at something beautiful and overwhelming in space. The feeling would happen at random moments and would draw me into simple worship, even when I was just riding in a car or lying in bed. From the moment of my conversion (age six) I was a fanatic. I read my Bible every night. I made my own tracts and carried those and a box of Bibles through my neighborhood. By third grade, I had the read the Bible from cover to cover three times in three different translations. By the time I graduated high school, I had read it twelve times. But all of that reading, though beneficial for facts and stories, only led to arrogance. I used knowledge like a weapon. I complained. I boasted. I argued. It wasn't until the Holy Spirit actually spoke to me that I realized I was in a relationship with a being that wanted to interact. This is basically what he said to me: You will never be an effective Christian until you learn to love me. As I continued to grow, I struggled with many of the issues I listed on the previous Skeptic Blogs, but more than anything else, I struggled with the challenge that God gave me. How could I love what I could not see or understand? I prayed constantly about it. I refused to sing or talk about God's love until He proved himself. In February of 1995, he answered my prayers in a way that left me trembling and forever changed. Ask me about it sometime. I have had many stories since, many of which will creep into these blogs, but for now, this will have to do. However, I do have one logical argument, though I hate to use it. There are smart people on every side of every argument, making truth seem unreachable. Thank God for the Holy Spirit! But if you don't have much personal experience with God, I can offer you at least one logical assurance. The law of cause and effect demands that something must pre-exist everything in order for anything to exist. Simply stated: nothing comes from nothing. It doesn’t matter how far back you go in the chain of cause and effect, there must be an ultimate cause that has no beginning. We may not understand a creature like that, but we don’t need to understand it. We just need to accept the necessity of it. If logic demands that something eternal exists, whether it is a tiny germ floating on a space crystal, or a conscious alien being, scientists should be looking for that eternal “thing” that started it all. Thankfully, we don’t have to look far. A spirit that claims to match this exact description has been revealing itself to men and women for as long as history has been recorded. Isaiah, a Jewish prophet, claimed to speak for a being that is "the high and lofty one, inhabiting eternity.” When Moses asked for God’s name, he was told, “I am,” which seems to speak of a creature in an eternal present. Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I am,” designating a contrast between a time-based creature and an eternal creature (was versus am). There is also quite a bit in scripture talking about how God’s power and character never change, another quality of someone living in an eternal present. God’s ability to speak of future events with exact times and places also suggests his ability to see the future as if it were just sitting there in front of him. God is known to challenge men with statements like, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” Decent question. My answer would be: “Uh . . . in Doc Brown’s time mach---” NOTE: This sentence would be cut short by a bolt of lightning. d In the historical record of God working with people (AKA the Bible), we see his creative power in the miraculous. There is a difference between being a manipulator of matter, and a creator of matter. Walking on water, calming storms, causing fish to obey, or healing a human body can all be replicated by any spiritual power. But to turn a boy’s lunch into a meal for 5,000 men requires creative power. To give life to a dead man requires creative power. These powers were on display in Jesus, who claimed to live as an expression of God. I am definitely intrigued by these arguments for the existence of God, but my personal experience with God is what puts everything to rest. Bottom line: I believe in him because I know him. Why do you believe?

The Power of Belief

2010-05-17T10:39:00.000-07:00

We don't give Belief enough credit. There is nothing more potent in our lives, for good or for evil. Belief manipulates our emotions. It dictates our actions. It prompts our will. Children, spouses, friends, culture, politicians, the media, and all kinds of spiritual forces battle to influence our belief systems, but that is one thing that they can't take by force. It is yours to surrender. But what about God? Does he have the ability to manipulate belief? If so, when and why? Go to http://www.biblegateway.com/ and do a word search for Believe. If you read through the New Testament references, you'll find that Jesus teaches a lot about the consequences of believing and not believing. In John 6, when the people asked him, "What shall we do, that we may do the works of God?" Jesus told them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he has sent." Jesus did miracles, spoke of things before they happened, and prayed aloud specifically so that people would believe his message. He complained about people that refused to believe despite the evidence. Why not just make them believe? Why not manipulate their hearts? Well, that has happened. Romans 9 gives a few examples. Apparently, at times, it is necessary for God to manipulate hearts to accomplish his work. It seems reasonable to think that God would prefer not to manipulate the free belief systems of man, just like a parent would prefer a child to obey and participate freely in a family. But sometimes, for whatever reason, a kid needs to be taken by the arm and forced. Apparently, God is the only being with the ability and authority to do that. Most Calvinists believe that every conversion is a result of soul manipulation. God calls, men must respond. Most Arminians believe that God calls, and they can decide whether or not to pick up the phone based on the evidence provided and whether or not they had enough sleep the night before. Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Skeptic Wrap-up

2010-05-10T11:42:00.000-07:00

Have I mentioned how much I'm enjoying this? I hope that you continue to visit in the months to come as we move away from questions and start working toward answers. The plan is to have a weekly topic, set up a poll, and write three or four related posts. I will try to generate discussions that anyone with an interest in spiritual things can join. If you think I'm wandering off the path of orthodoxy, let me know. But be ready to back it up. And please, try to avoid Christianese.

The poll for this past week shows that there is approximately a 2-to-1 ratio of people that feel nervous or terrified in evangelism versus those who are okay or confident. Why do we feel so nervous? If I discovered a cure for cancer, would I feel nervous divulging that information? If I was single and getting engaged to a world-famous celebrity, would I feel nervous about advertising that union? We should feel eager and excited.

So why are we so nervous? Here are a few possibilities:

We believe the gospel, but we don't understand it well enough to share, afraid that a skeptic will ask a question that we can't answer.

We are muzzled by our own sinfulness, and do not feel qualified to share.

We don't want to impose our beliefs on others, recognizing that everyone has the freedom to live by their own convictions.

We hate the anxiety associated with those awkward conversations.

We are so saturated by Christian culture, we don't even talk to non-believers.

It is important to widen our view of Christianity so that we can approach issues from all different angles, seeing the concepts so clearly that our explanations are completely comprehensive. I feel that the gospel message has been packaged into a neat little formula that gives humanity a limited view of the larger picture, like trying to look at the Grand Canyon through binoculars.

I feel that, with such limited understanding, we settle into our God marriages in a way that is anything but world changing. We attend church every Sunday, pan for devotional nuggets every morning, pray when something bad happens, and maybe attend a mid-week Bible study. It seems like Christians tend to tread water until they die, waiting for the afterlife where things are really going to get interesting. If that's true, this whole Earth Experiment seems dumb. Why not just create humans in heaven and hell and forget all the drama in between?

In Hebrews 6:1, Paul encourages his people to leave the elementary teachings about Christ and press on toward maturity. I feel like the elementary principles are all we know. If we knew what maturity looked like, we might try harder to get there. I think most Christians walk around with an attitude that says, "We'll never really understand anything until we get to heaven, so we might as well just focus on sin management until then."

Not only is this unbiblical, it mocks Christ's sacrifice. What if I had a baby that never grew up? It just drank milk and cried all the time. Sometimes it would spit up, but that's okay. Daddy loves to clean it up, right? Abba? Abba? Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Spiritual maturity brings confidence, power, and wisdom. The desire for sin fades naturally, just like the appetite of a child changes over time. We get to know God in ways that are more familiar, but also more challenging. If you're tired of feeling spiritually weak and ignorant, it's time to move forward. It's time to start growing up.

Skeptic #4

2010-05-03T10:10:00.000-07:00

Statement #4: To experience God's love and plan, we must individually believe and accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. There is no controversy in this statement, just a moment of truth. Will you decide, based on the urging of your mind and heart, to make this eternal commitment? Like Magnus VonHayden mentioned in one of his comments, this is a contract, like a marriage. For many, even those who are moved by their own sin and the offering of divine forgiveness, there are still a few questions to be answered before they pick up their soul pens. To stay with my skeptical stance, I am purposefully ignoring the work of the Holy Spirit in evangelism, though most of you would probably see this as ignoring the sugar in a batch of sugar cookies. What about the billions of people who never get the chance to hear the terms of the contract? I'm talking about children, the mentally ill, people in third world countries, and so on. Are they subject to the penalties of rejection? In other words, do they have to burn in hell for an eternity for their ignorance? What about all of the violence and injustice that God commanded Israel to do in the Old Testament? If I am to believe that God is loving and just, I must have a resolution to these concerns. Christian history is filled with stories of arrogant men fighting over doctrine and leadership resulting in cheating, stealing, lying, abuse, and murder on a massive scale. If the gospel does not have the power to change its people for the better, why should I sign up? There are many more reasons. If you want them, just go to exchristian (dot) net and spend some time getting into the heads of some former church goers. The testimonies may frustrate you or make you angry, you also might get a little depressed, but I hope, at the same time, it challenges you. What can you say to defend the questions of skeptics? Is your faith strong enough to stand on its own two feet, or do you prop it up against the company of like-minded individuals? I'll save my personal feelings for the final post of this week, but for now, I would be interested in hearing yours.

Skeptic #3

2010-04-26T13:45:00.000-07:00

Statement #3: Jesus Christ is God’s solution for sin, making it possible for believers to connect with God and experience his love and plan for their life.

Imagine yourself as a movie-goer, stepping out of The DaVinci Code, wondering whether your should stop by Starbucks, grab some Macho Nachos, or believe that Jesus had consensual relations with Mary Magdalene. As you exit the theater, a college guys with sunglasses on his head asks if he can have a moment of your time. At first you think he's looking to sell you his self-made demo CD or handing out discounts for Fuddruckers, but instead he wants to talk to you about Jesus.

He asks you about the movie, nods at your answers, then starts to pry into your belief system. Soon he's targeting your conscience, trying to get you to see what a terrible person you are. The moment you admit to some weakness, a solution is posed: the death and resurrection of Jesus. He might open a Bible and read something like: "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." He might call you a lost sheep. He might tell you that you need to be washed in the blood of Jesus. He might ask if you want to ask Jesus into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior.

For Christians, these phrases seem harmless and helpful, but for an outsider, they must sound like cultish nonsense. Washed with blood?

The death and resurrection of Jesus is arguably the most important event in human history, but to a skeptic, there are some serious problems with it. I'll mention a few:

If I truly love someone that has hurt me, and they come to me with an apology, I don't demand a blood sacrifice to restore that relationship. Why does God, who should be more loving and reasonable that his creation, require a human sacrifice to forgive sin? Besides, Jesus was forgiving sin before He died.

Thanks for the invitation to join God's family, but if God is in the habit of killing his own children, I would prefer to opt out of the adoption process.

Why should we believe the record of the New Testament when there are so many gospels and letters left out of the canon? Besides, after such a long and questionable history, and so much translating and retranslating, can we even trust the Bible?

If Jesus and God are the same person, then the Biblical account of his death and resurrection is insane. God was so angry at man’s sin, that he became a man himself, killed himself, then brought himself back to life. He felt much better after that and forgave everyone who believed. Was Jesus praying to himself in the garden, asking himself to let himself off the hook? While dying on the cross, did he ask himself why he had forsaken himself? Did he commit his own spirit into his own hands? It defies logic.

Would you have a reasonable answer to these questions?

Skeptic #2

2010-04-19T09:51:00.000-07:00

Statement #2: You are a sinner, separated from the loving plan of God. My skeptical self would have less trouble with this statement, at least at first. Most of us would admit that we aren't perfect. Who is? Christians would say that Jesus and Adam were perfect, but does that mean they were really good at Calculus? Did they ever trip or jam a finger? Did they ever get sick? Did they poop? If so, did it smell like garlic mashed potatoes? In evangelism, when we talk about "perfect," we're talking about going through life without a single bad thought or selfish act. But what if we don't act on those natural impulses? Are we still sinners? What if we act on them, but our actions harm no one? It's easy to tell a convicted criminal that they are a sinner, but what about a moral person with an honest and caring heart? There are many of these people working in world, saving lives, helping people, and many of them are not Christians. What makes the Christians any more pure than the well-meaning non-Christians? My skeptical self would respond to my Evangelical self by saying, "I'm just as much of a sinner as you. Why do I need your salvation?" In other words, if salvation is innefective in a tangible, practical sense, why should I believe in the rest of your gospel message, including the parts about heaven and hell? The Reformed tradition emphasizes the Total Depravity of man as the first pedal of their TULIP (their five-point summary of the Christian faith). This depravity is sort of like a virus, a curse, that humans contract from Adam. If you could see it, it would probably look like the black tar that turned Eddie Brock into Venom, but on your soul. Jesus takes the tar out when you're saved, but the stain remains, which basically means you'll act the same, but he won't hold it against you. I plan to blog on sin and depravity at another time, but for now, I just want to stir the pot. Remember, I do believe in the Christian faith, but faith is not blind. Let's not ignore these things and use "faith putty" to fill our gaps of logic. That dishonors God, and it makes Christians look foolish. I have another problem with telling people that they're sinners. If the skeptic is logical, he will realize that a faulty product is not to blame for it's own faultiness. If I buy a new car and the steering wheel comes off while I'm driving, I don't get angry at the steering column. If I survive the inevitable wreck, I'd go straight back to the manufacturer and demand a refund. I think you see where I'm going. If God is perfect and man was created perfect, how could the human race go wrong so quickly? I recognize that we have a free will, but why, in her freedom, would Eve choose the wrong thing before the tar-like depravity kicked in? Was she created with a propensity toward rebellion, or was she just naive? Why did Adam go along with it? The spiritual being that deceived her was another example of one of God's creatures gone wrong. We all know he wasn't naive. If God's creatures, left to their own devices, have a tendency to rebel against their Creator, it seems like there is something wrong in the programming. It would seem that sin was God's intention from the beginning. Besides, wouldn't God have foreseen all of these rebellions and done something about them? He wasn't even present at the Fall of Man. He knew it would happen. He knew they would sin. It almost seems as if the Fall was God's intention from the beginning. Thoughts?

Skeptic #1

2010-04-10T12:46:00.000-07:00

I'm going to play a skeptic. Then I'm going to witness to myself and get defensive about it. I'll use the Four Spiritual Laws as a progression to confession, keeping my feet firmly planted on the Romans Road. STATEMENT #1: God loves you and has a plan for your life. Despite the nice sentiment, my skeptical self is bothered, not encouraged, by this statement. These are the kinds of questions that immediately come to mind: 1) If God is so loving, why is the world such a horrific mess? 2) If God is so loving, why would he kill his only son under any circumstances? 3) If God is so loving, why did my mother die of cancer and my uncle lose his arm in an accident? 4) If God has a plan for my life, why doesn't he share it with me? 5) Did God have a plan for my next door neighbor's life? He's a loser. He'll die a loser. 6) Why would God make a plan knowing that I would blow it anyway? 7) Why would God make a plan for my life if, in the grand scheme, it's all pointless anyway. 8) With so many people in the world, why would he even want to know me, much less care? Imagine an ant farm the size of the Grand Canyon. Now imagine God as a zealous ant farmer, naming every ant and paying attention to each and every one of them. He loves them enough to keep tabs on their journeys to and from the surface, making sure there are no leaves or sticks in their way as they carry lumps of mud and dead things to their queen. Sometimes he puts a rock in their path to see what they do with it, or even squashes a few, but it's all part of grand scheme that no ant could understand or imagine. Most Christians like to answers these kinds of questions with big words. We explain that God is omnipresent, which is how he can pay attention to each one of us. He is also omnipotent, which is how he can plan each life and imbue each person with the skills and talents to accomplish those plans. But why would he use all of his omnis on little old you? Are you that lovable? As for the human chaos, we may use a parable to explain: Think of each human life as a thread in a great tapestry which God is patiently weaving throughout history. All we see in this world are the tangled mess of threads in the back, but some day, in the next world, He’s going to turn the tapestry around and show us the beautiful and complicated finished product. It's a nice parable, but is it true? How would you defend these questions?