The Deadliness of Undevotional Theology

Yesterday I covered the first half of a quote that was attributed to Bishop Moule that engaged the problem with having an untheological devotion to God. There are a lot of problems with not knowing the reasons why you believe–or even what you believe–when it comes to God. We open ourselves up to being deceived into following false teachers when we are not willing to do the hard work of theology for ourselves. The second half of the quote–which was actually uttered by W. H. Griffith Thomas–warns us that "we must also beware of 'undevotional theology.'"

If I had to make a guess based upon my own experience–and I realize that I am about to make some potentially unfair generalizations–that each person will usually fall into only one of the two categories. It has been my experience that more often it is the average lay person that falls into having an untheological devotion to God and it is the scholars and pastors that end up falling into having an undevotional theology. I don't mean that these categories are hard and fast with no movement between the two. There are going to be lay people with an undevotional theology and there are going to be the scholars and pastors that have an untheological devotion. On top of that I would argue the each individual person will have certain areas of untheological devotion while having undevotional theology in other areas.

I would tend to fall into the latter category–the undevotional theology category. W.H. Griffith Thomas defines undevotional theology as such:

"A hard, dry, intellectual study of theology will yield no spiritual fruit. Accuracy in knowledge of Greek, careful balancing of aspects of truth, large knowledge of the doctrinal verities of the New Testament, are all essential and valuable; but unless they are permeated by a spirit of devotion they will fail at the crucial point...a theology which does not spring from spiritual experience is doomed to decay, to deadness, and therefore to disaster."

It is something that can happen to those that engage in deep scholarly study. One of my classmates asked about this very thing during a preliminary visit to my seminary. It is one of those things where you can get into your studies so much that you do not allow your studies to get into you. You get into the Word but the Word doesn't get into you. On one level theology is just like all those other -ology classes that we have taken. There is a need to take a step back and to start looking at theology in a scientific way. This can lead to a gain in knowledge without an equal gain of actionable wisdom. What this means is that there is a great difference between knowing something about God and having that knowledge affect how we think or act. It is one thing to know that God is omniscient and omnipresent but it is a whole different thing to live your life knowing that God knows everything AND that his being always present means that he has and will see every action of every person. How different would you act at times if you could see God standing next to you all the time?

That thought really drives home the idea that it doesn't make a bit of difference to know these things if they don't affect how I live my life.

James tells us this very thing in James 2:14-26:

"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and filled,' without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

"But someone will say, 'You have faith and I have works.' Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe–and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness'–and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."

James starts off by pointing out that our faith needs to actively shape how we live our lives. And this is where the problem of having an undevotional theology hits us all. Whenever we know that we should be clothing and feeding the poor and we do not do so we have an undevotional theology. Whenever we act hypocritical–and we all act hypocritical on a daily basis–our works; our deeds; our actions are not matching our faith and means that our faith is a dead faith.

James is blunt when he says that "faith is apart from works is dead." When we have an untheological devotion we run the risk of believing false teaching. But when we have an undevotional theology we run the risk of being spiritually dead.

Let that sink in for a moment.

An undevotional theology–according to the Bible and not just W. H. Griffith Thomas–is a spiritually dead theology.

Fortunately James also gives us the remedy for an undevotional theology in this passage. He says "I will show you my faith by my works." It is such a simple idea that can be so hard to follow. Yesterday I said that we have to do the hard work of theology to avoid being spiritually deceived. We also have to do the equally hard (or maybe even harder) work of making sure that our actions follow what we believe so that we can avoid being spiritually dead.

Bishop Moule warns us to beware untheological devotion and W. H. Griffith Thomas warns us to beware undevotional theology. We need both of these warnings to avoid being spiritually deceived and spiritually dead.

 

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Posted with Blogsy

Untheological Devotion

Pastor Steve Miller of Village Church in Dyer, Indiana was the guest speaker at my church yesterday and he had an interesting quote in his message. He quoted Bishop Handley Moule as saying that it is important to "beware equally of an undevotional theology and of an untheological devotion." I thought that the quote was really good and fit well into Pastor Miller's message. I would like to share a few thoughts regarding the quote over the next couple of days.

I did a bit of digging because I wanted to properly attribute the quote and it turns out that the quote only partially belongs to Bishop Moule. He said "beware of untheological devotion" and W. H. Griffith Thomas added "We must also beware of 'undevotional theology'" when he quoted Bishop Moule. It's one of those things that can easily happen with quotes and I often found the full quote attributed to Bishop Moule. Poor W. H., he didn't even get the proper attribution from someone like John Stott. At least he had one of those cool names that makes him sound impressive. (I think I am going to start going by M. D. Ignazio Mannino.) The quote is still a very good warning to us even if it doesn't fully belong to Bishop Moule.

There are two distinct warnings in this quote and I would like to start with the first one today. Bishop Moule warns us to beware of untheological devotion. Theology is one of those words that can scare people. It's like any other "-ology" word. We can easily be transported back to our high school and college days when we hear words like biology, sociology, psychology and imgoingtofailthisclassology. For the most part the "-ology" classes were hard (there are even classes that dodn't have the "-ology" in the name but but are feared "-ology" classes like chemistry and physics) and we took them often because we needed to. Who in their right mind willingly engages in serious otorhinolaryngology in their spare time? But theology–or the study of God–is something that we all engage in whether we realize it or not. Everyone has some thoughts about what is true or is not true about God. And we as Christians should be actively engaging in theology every day. We should be reading our Bible and contemplating what it is telling us about God on a daily basis. This is theological study and we cannot fall back on the excuses that it is too hard or that we are not smart enough or that it is only for those that go to seminary.


I realize that there is going to be a difference between the depth of study for different people but this does not excuse us from trying to learn and understand as much as possible about God. I have heard people say things like "I just believe" or "you just have to have faith" in response to things that should not be taken on this type of blind faith. They really are just excuses for not wanting to do the hard work of theology. (It is important to take a moment to point out that there are times where we have to just have faith in God. We all have certain things that have happened in our lives that we do not understand why God has allowed them to happen. We do not see how God is working in these circumstances and there are times that we "just have to have faith" that God is still in control and things will work out in the end.) Having faith does not mean that we do not have reasons for what we believe. The author of Hebrews tells us in the first verse of chapter 11:

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

Faith is not a blind hope; rather faith means that we have an assurance that the things we are hoping for will come to pass. In other words we have been made promises by God and we can know that they will come true because of his character. But if we don't do theology how do we know what promises have or have not been made by God? If we don't do theology then how do we know that God is trustworthy? We have to do some studying about God if we want answers to these questions. Think about it for a moment. Would you want to be devoted to a God that you know nothing about? Could you really be devoted to a God that you know nothing about?

Being untheological in our devotion means that we are going to have a hard time separating the truth about God from the lies. When this happens it is all to easy to be deceived and to start following a different god. When we start following a different god we are following a false god and that is a problem. Paul gives us this warning in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15:

"For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds."

There are false teachings about God that are disguised as truth. The only way that we can be assured that we are not devoting ourselves to these false teachings is to engage in the hard work of theology. When we don't we are walking down the dangerous path of untheological devotion.

 

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Posted with Blogsy

Does a wolf in sheepskin know it's a wolf?

When I was getting ready for church this past week I had an odd thought. It was just as I was putting on my shoes and that I was thinking about the idea of wolves in sheep's clothing. It was a rather odd thought before going to church and in no way reflects on how I view the church we were going to or the pastor. It was just one of those random thoughts that came at an odd time. If anything it reflected how I think that my wife and I have been blessed to attend churches where we didn't have to deal with a pastor that taught theology that was dangerous.

The idea of a wolf in sheep's clothing–how we would currently understand the saying–originates from Matthew 7:15-20 and not Aesop. Jesus said the following in the Sermon on the Mount:

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits."

It turns out that this passage is another one of those passages (see Noah and Abraham for other examples) that has been shaped by our culture. I remember watching "Ralph the Wolf and Sam the Sheepdog" cartoons as a part of the Bugs Bunny show when I was young. The premise of these cartoons was that Ralph the Wolf was always trying to steal a sheep by using various plots which often included using a disguise. A key part of the plot was that both Ralph the Wolf and Sam the Sheepdog were obviously aware that Ralph was a wolf using disguises. Ralph might have been using a disguise but he still acted like a wolf.

The thought that I had this past Sunday was how subtle–but substantial–errors can create bigger problems for solid theology than outright and obvious attacks. I don't think that Jesus was talking about a situation like what we see with Ralph the Wolf. Jesus was talking about something far more subtle which is evident by the comparison to fruit trees. I don't have a lot of experience with fruit trees but we did have an apple tree in our back yard when I was a kid. I remember when we planted it. It was a small tree but I still expected it to produce apples right away. It took years and years before it finally produced apples. It took so long that I started to think that there were the apple trees that produced apples and there were the apple trees that didn't produce apples. What I didn't realize was just how long it took for an apple tree to start producing apples.

I think that the same is true for any wolf that comes disguised in sheepskin. It might take a while to really tell that they are a wolf. In fact the wolf might even buy into their own disguise. These are the types of wolves that are really dangerous. I really think that these subtle–but substantial–errors do not come from people that are intentionally and actively trying to deceive people but come from people that are deceived. I really think that this is what Jesus had in mind when he warned us about wolves in sheep's clothing as evidenced by what he said next in Matthew 7:21-23:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'"

We can't just assume that we will recognize Ralph the Wolf because he will be obviously trying to trick us. No, seeing the wolf will be difficult. It will require a lot of attention to detail along with a good and accurate understanding of the Bible. If we don't put out the effort we may not realize that we have a wolf in our midst until it is entirely too late.

 

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

 

Art by Dave Armstrong. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

 

 

John 14, Part 1

My friend Brad Kautz and I graduated from seminary together and now we are also fellow bloggers. Over the weekend we both shared our thoughts on Supreme Sacrifice Day. You can find his thoughts here and my thoughts here. I really enjoy reading his blog and wanted to share some of it here. I was particularly grabbed by his series on John 14. I hope you enjoy:

John 14, Part 1 – By Brad Kautz

This week I had the privilege of giving a lecture on John 14 for the local class of Community Bible Study (CBS). CBS is a non-denominational Bible study with this goal:

“To make disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ in our communities through caring, in-depth Bible study, available to all.”

Our class meets weekly, roughly following the calendar for the school year. After a short devotional time we spend time in small groups, discussing a lesson that we have studied during the previous week. Then we gather as a class to hear a lecture on the week’s Bible passage. And as we leave we receive a written commentary on that same passage, along with questions to consider as we study the passage for the next week.

My history with CBS goes back about 10 years. I started in 2001 and for three years I was a member of a small group. Then for 5 years I was a small group leader. The leaders met together once a week as their own small group and those years in leadership were a time of much growth for me spiritually. Not only did we review the week’s lesson but we also spent time in devotion and prayer. As a part of the leadership I took advantage of the opportunity to lead the devotional time for our leader’s group study, and also about once a year I led the devotional time for the larger class.

I took two years off from CBS when we adopted Kat and this year I was able to return. We are studying the Gospel of John. There was a need for someone to substitute for the regular lead teacher and provide a lecture on John 14. I was asked to do so and now want to share, over several posts, some of the things that I think that are going on in that chapter and the meaning they have for us today.

The setting of John 14 is in the Upper Room. It is after the disciples have shared a meal and instituted what we now know as the Lord’s Supper in the accounts of Matthew, Markand Luke, and after the foot-washing of John’s Gospel. It is after Judas has been identified as Jesus’ betrayer, and he has left the room.

This is the time of Jesus last teaching opportunity with the disciples as a group, a teaching that is spread out over chapters 14, 15 and 16. Soon he will be leaving his disciples and the “teaching” that will occur then will be as they witness his arrest, trial, crucifixion and resurrection. This chapter has 31 verses and includes many verses and ideas that are very familiar to many Christians. A preacher can draw deeply from the material here and one pastor whose work I admire, James Montgomery Boice, preached 17 sermons as he worked his way through the chapter.

I was provided with about 20 minutes for my lecture, so I gave an overview of what I felt to be six key ideas in the chapter, all of them collected around the theme that Jesus primary purpose is to prepare his disciples for his departure by giving them hope and assurance for their future, both in the short-term and eternally.

The first thing Jesus talks about, in verses 1 through 6, is heaven. Jesus doesn’t tell them specifically what heaven will look like. He doesn’t given them visual images. He does tell them that in order for them to go to heaven that he will have to leave them and go there first to “prepare a place,” saying in verse 3,

“And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.”

Jesus gives the disciples assurance that heaven exists, that he will prepare a place for them there, and that he will return to take them there. And that seems to be all that Jesus thinks the disciples need to know about heaven.

The Bible gives us other images of heaven, particularly in Revelation, and I love those descriptions, particularly the images of vast multitudes of people engaged in worship of God. But the relatively sparse information found in John 14 is really enough. Heaven exists, God prepares our place, and one day God will take us there.

The chapter then shifts to the topic of God the Father, in verses 7 through 11. While the disciples, particularly Philip, take Jesus’ talk of God the Father very literally, and ask to be able to see him, Jesus tells them something radically different. He tells his disciples that his identity and the identity of the Father are intertwined. In verses 10 and 11 he says,

“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 authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.”

All the things Jesus has said and done are not on his authority as a human, or as the Son of Man, but are because he and the Father are ‘in each other,’ or as he said earlier in John 10:30,

“I and the Father are one.”

When I think about the culture that Jesus and his disciples lived I imagine that this claim of unity with the Father must have shocked their senses. They lived in a culture where the very name of God was considered too holy to speak aloud or write. It was only made known in their worship through allusion. They knew the circumstances where the word “Adonai” was being used because the more correct name for God, “Yahweh,” was too holy, too sacred, to even speak. For them to speak the name of God was considered a violation of the commandment to “Not take the name of the Lord God in vain.”

Yet here they were, in the very presence of one who bore that most holy name in his own person. The name that was too holy to speak was in a body and speaking to them. And he speaks to us today.

And because he speaks to us we can know his presence and his love as deeply as the disciples who walked with him for three years. Like the disciples we feast with him at his table, in the Lord’s Supper. And as with his first disciples, we who follow in the footsteps of Jesus, our Lord and Savior, have the same assurance that he is who he says he is and that one day he will carry us to the place he has already prepared for us, our eternal home with him.

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

 

Copyright Brad Kautz 2012. Used with permission.

 

Is your pastor preaching sound doctrine?

The importance of having a sound understanding of Christian doctrine–our particular set beliefs–is one of my great burning passions. And I bet that most Christians, if asked, would agree that properly understanding and conveying what the Bible teaches on a particular topic is important. I am sure that most Christians would also affirm that solid Biblical preaching is an essential part of a pastor's job. That leads to a couple of closely related questions.

• What process does your pastor use to prepare his Sunday morning sermon?
  
• What process does your pastor use to maintain proper Christian doctrine?
  

I bring this up because a couple of the blogs that I follow wrote about a controversy involving James MacDonald and T.D. Jakes. To be honest I don't want to dwell on it too much because I really haven't been following all of the "Elephant Room" chatter. But the headline of one article caught my eye: How the Elephant Room is Redefining the Pastoral Office.

Tim Raymond's main point in the article is that the inclusion of T.D. Jakes–who is considered by some to fall outside of what has historically been accepted as proper Christian teaching–weakens the perception that sound and proper doctrine is an important part of pastoral ministry. Raymond says:

"And for the pastor, thinking that sound doctrine is insignificant is simply not an option...One of the prerequisites to the pastoral office is that a man be able to teach sound doctrine (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:5-9). Part of the basic job description of the pastor is to proclaim sound doctrine and refute error (Titus 1:9). Pastors are charged to train up their entire congregation in sound doctrine (1 Timothy 4:13-16; Titus 2:1). Pastors are to preach the Word in season and out since the time is coming when those who do not tolerate sound doctrine will infiltrate the church (2 Timothy 4:1-4 [parallelism indicates that preaching the Word is preaching sound doctrine]; cf. Acts 20:28ff.). And the Lord’s stamp of approval on a man’s ministry is partially measured by his commitment to sound doctrine (1 Timothy 4:6)."

So how do we know whether or not our pastors are teaching sound doctrine?

Through a lot of hard work. Acts 17:10-11 says:

"The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so."

We cannot simply be content to listen to a sermon–that is the easy way which can lead us down the dangerous path of false teaching. We must be like those in Berea and take the time to carefully search the scriptures to make sure that what is being taught is true. I think that it is also important for us to have an understanding of our pastor's process of developing a sermon and how they actively work to stay doctrinally sound. It is important for two reasons. The first is so that we can be sure that our pastor has a way of remaining true to the Word of God. 

I understand that there will be some pastors that find this suggestion to be a bit too intrusive. They may feel like they are being unfairly watched or critiqued. They may feel like it is an added burden to an already heavy work load. They may feel like their process is a bit to lax to really share with anyone. But it is my contention that if someone is truly dedicated to sound doctrine that they should be willing to share and teach their method to others. Which leads me to the second and most important reason that we should take the time to learn our pastor's ways. We should do this so that we have a way of being doctrinally sound. Even if you are someone that already has a good method we should never stop learning. Being able to incorporate parts of someone's process will only make our own process better. And the results will be of a great benefit to the church.

 

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Is God a Tebow fan?

Talk about Tim Tebow and his faith are quite often taking over every  football conversation. There is the question of whether or not God is playing any part in what have been unbelievable comeback victories for the Denver Broncos. As a Chicago Bears fan I was a first-hand witness to one of these improbable games.

Owen Strachan has a great article on whether or not God has had a hand in these games. The main point he makes is that God does but not in the way that we may initially think. Strachan states:

God oversees and ordains all that comes to pass. This includes, as surprising as it may initially seem, football games. The outcome of every football game ever been played was planned by the all-wise, all-seeing mind of God. But this is not saying what some might think. God has also planned every haircut you've ever had, and every shopping trip you've ever taken. He is lord of football, and he is lord of produce. Nothing happens outside of his sovereign direction.

We err, though, if we equate his general superintendence of this world---the falling of sparrows, the numbering of hairs---with the special working of his kingdom. This is what Costas seems to be protesting, and in a much fuller sense than he understands. God has a special interest in promoting his gospel and building his church (John 3:16; Rom. 10; Eph. 1). This is not to say that he is uninterested in the ordinary things of the world, but rather to note that the mission of salvation begun after Adam's fall holds preeminence for God and, by extension, for his followers.

We must also say that for Tebow, the way he plays football is necessarily a matter of God's glory. In the same way that God gains glory through the work of a faithful accountant, a sacrificial, sleep-deprived mother, and a repentant cellist, God gains glory through righteous athletes who work hard in his name and seek to be a light in dark places. God directs the life and exploits of Tim Tebow, football hero. But he also directs Owen Strachan, Boyce College professor, or my friend Colin LeCroy, a Dallas lawyer, or my friend Emily Duffus, an Atlanta schoolteacher. Tebow may reach more people in his work, but we are all working for the glory of God, who directs and blesses our work so as to magnify his name.

God is not a Tebow or Bronco fan in the same way that you or I may be a sports fan. Rather God does play a part in every sports team victory not because he is a fan of any particular team but rather because he has a greater plan in action. We may not understand why God allows certain things to happen. But it doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility that God has had a hand in Tebow's improbable run simply to get more people talking about God and faith issues.

Further Listening:

Former wide receiver Chris Carter on the Mike and Mike show. He makes the point at the 42:33 mark that you cannot separate Tim Tebow from his faith. Listen here. 

The relationship of the Old and the New.

I came across an illustration by John Phillips from Exploring Hebrews shared by Jared Wilson on his blog The Gospel Driven Church. The illustration does a wonderful job of showing how the New Testament both fits into the Old Testament as well as provides an even better way to God. It is something that I will file away for future reference.

Imagine with me a Moabite of old gazing down upon the Tabernacle of Israel from some lofty hillside. This Moabite is attracted to what he sees so he descends the hill and makes his way toward the Tabernacle.

He walks around this high wall of dazzling linen until he comes to a gate and at the gate, he sees a man. “May I go in there?” he asks, pointing to the gate where all the bustle of activity in the Tabernacle’s outer court can be seen.

“Who are You?” demands the man suspiciously.

“I’m from Moab,” the stranger replies.

“Well, I’m very sorry, but you can’t go in there. You see, it’s not for you. The Law of Moses has barred the Moabite from any part in the worship of Israel until his tenth generation.”

The Moabite looks so sad and said, “Well, what would I have to do to go in there?”

“You would have to be born again,” the gatekeeper replies. “You would have to be born an Israelite, of the tribe of Judah, or of the tribe of Benjamin or Dan.”

“Oh, I wish I had been born an Israelite,” the Moabite says and as he looks again, he sees one of the priests, having offered a sacrifice at the brazen altar and the priest cleansed himself at the brazen laver and then the Moabite sees the priest enter the Tabernacle’s interior. “What’s in there?” asks the Moabite. “Inside the main building, I mean.”

“Oh,” the gatekeeper says, “That’s the Tabernacle itself. Inside it contains a lampstand, a table, and an altar of gold. The man you saw was a priest. He will trim the lamp, eat of the bread upon the table and burn incense to the living god upon the golden altar.”

“Ah,” sighs the Moabite, “I wish I were an Israelite so that I could do that. I would so love to worship God in there and help to trim the lamp and offer Him incense and eat bread at that table.”

“Oh, no, the gatekeeper hastens to say, “even I could not do that. To worship in the holy place one must not only be born an Israelite, one must be born of the tribe of Levi and of the family of Aaron.”

The man from Moab sighs again, “I wish that I had been born of Israel of the tribe of Levi of the family of Aaron,” and then, as he gazes wistfully at the closed Tabernacle door, he says, “What else is in there?”

“Oh, there’s a veil. It’s a beautiful veil I’m told and it divides the Tabernacle in two. Beyond the veil is what we call ‘the Most Holy Place’… ‘the Holy of Holies.’”

“What’s in the Holy of Holies?” the Moabite asks.

“Well, there’s the sacred chest in there and it’s called the Ark of the Covenant. It contains holy memorials of our past. Its top is gold and we call that the mercy seat because God sits there between the golden cherubim. Do you see that pillar of cloud hovering over the Tabernacle? That’s the Shekinah glory cloud. It rests on the mercy,” said the gatekeeper.

Again, a look of longing comes over the face of the Moabite man. “Oh,” he said, “if only I were a priest! How I would love to go into the Holy of Holies and gaze upon the glory of God and worship Him there in the beauty of His holiness!’

“Oh no!” said the man at the gate. “You couldn’t do that even if you were a priest! Only the high priest can enter the Most Holy Place. Only he can go in there. Nobody else!”

The heart of the man from Moab yearns once more. “Oh,” he cried, “If only I had been born an Israelite, of the tribe of Levi, of the family of Aaron. If only I had been born a high priest! I would go in there every day! I would go in there three times a day! I would worship continually in the Holy of Holies!”

The gatekeeper looked at the man from Moab again and once more shook his head. “Oh now,” he said, “you couldn’t do that! Even the high priest of Israel can go in there only once a year, and then only after the most elaborate preparations and even then only for a little while.”

Sadly, the Moabite turned away. He had no hope in all the world of ever entering there!

. . . Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith (Hebrews 10:19-22).

Here it is, a tremendous word of welcome, extended to Jew and Gentile alike, to come on in and worship, not in the holiest place of the human tabernacle, but into the Holy of Holies in heaven itself "by the blood of Jesus."

Source: The Gospel Driven Church

How Should Christians Think About Halloween?

Should Christians celebrate Halloween? It's another one of those questions that will have Christians taking all sides. There will be vehement assertions one way or the other as well as those that simply say "meh..." I have usually approached it from a theological standpoint regarding both the explicit and implicit messages contained within. And usually while I am not generally opposed to the holiday there are certain things that are being glorified within the holiday that I strongly dislike.

That being said, I came across a very different take from one of my fellow seminary graduates. Jeremy Dowsett, pastor of Blacksoil, approached the holiday from an angle that I had not considered. His view is from the social aspects provided by Halloween that have been quickly disappearing in our society:

Our culture is almost completely devoid of spaces where it is socially appropriate to interact with neighbors. The evenings of sitting on front porches, talking with whoever is out for a walk have been replaced with evenings scanning the 300 channels of cable or running on the treadmill listening to an ipod. I don’t even live in an “attached garage” community, and the only people I ever see outside are kids and moms calling kids to come inside.

Halloween is the one day of the year that it’s not only appropriate, it’s actually expected you will go onto your neighbors porches and interact with your neighbors. Not only that, but their is some remnant of generosity and hospitality in this ritual. People are actually giving gifts to strangers and expecting nothing in return (albeit gifts loaded with high fructose corn syrup, but hey its something).

The neighborhood streets near our church were absolutely filled–comparatively speaking–with kids and parents Halloween afternoon. In the past, when I lived in a house where I would actually get trick-or-treaters, it was one of the very few times that I would interact with people from the neighborhood. And I would often sit on my front stoop in the evenings.

Yes there are things about Halloween that are the antithesis of the Christian faith. It has the tendency to glorify demons, vampires and witches which all stem from the evil side of the scale. But there are also aspects of Christmas and Easter which, when we dig deep enough, have their root in things that also tend from that same evil side. But as Christians we have had no problem overlooking them in order to "redeem" those holidays.

Pastor Dowsett goes on to say:

Now why on this one day of the year that’s brimming with potential for meeting and blessing people Christians want to take themselves out of their neighborhoods and do “safe” activities with their kids at some church building somewhere else is beyond me. In theological lingo, Halloween is full of missional potential.

There seems to be this trend that I have observed in many Christian circles where we want to insulate ourselves from evil rather than separate from it. Just before going to the cross Jesus prayed:

I have given them (the Disciples) your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.

We are not supposed to try and insulate ourselves form all things evil. Jesus asked the Father to protect us from evil while we are interacting with the world. Halloween is an excellent example where we can interact with the world while shunning the less savory parts of the holiday. It is a good opportunity to interact with people that we may otherwise never interact with.

Are Evangelicals Dangerous?

Albert Mohler—the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary—gave his answer to the question “Are Evangelicals Dangerous?” in an article written on cnn.com.

He concludes by saying:

Above all, evangelicals are those who believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and are most concerned about telling others about Jesus. Most of America’s evangelical Christians are busy raising their children, working to support their families and investing energy in their local churches.

But over recent decades, evangelical Christians have learned that the gospel has implications for every dimension of life, including our political responsibility.

We’re dangerous only to those who want more secular voices to have a virtual monopoly in public life.

And I am sure that—if the 70+ pages of comments are any indication—people on both sides of the argument are going to hotly debate the issue. But there was something else he said that caught my attention.

The New Yorker accused Bachmann of being concerned with developing a Christian worldview, ignoring the fact that every thinking person operates out of some kind of worldview.

The idea of operating out of a worldview is something that is relatively new to me. The first time that I started to pay attention to the term was only about 10 years ago. It was one of those light bulb moments. Once I heard the notion of a worldview explained it made all the sense to me. Quite simply it is how our beliefs shape how we look at and interact with the world.

It is also interesting to note how our worldview in action does one of the best jobs of defining what we truly believe.

If Evangelical Christians do not engage in the realm of political and cultural ideas then what are we saying about our beliefs?

Let me use a non-religious example. Let’s pretend that we have discovered that the use of a gizmothingabob is very dangerous. Its danger is not always immediately apparent but their use—in the long run—is always disastrous. But the use of the gimothingabob does not just affect the individual; it also affects those that the person comes into contact with. The problem is that not everyone agrees with the threat assessment of gizmothingabobs. I, as a concerned citizen, have two basic options. I can either warn people about the use of gizmothingabobs even if they do not think the same way as me. Or, I can just keep quiet and let people use the gizmothingabobs at their own risk.

My actions either way speak to how I really view the danger of the gizmothingabobs as well as how I view other people.  In the first option I view the danger as very real and people’s safety as very important. In the second option I don’t view the danger as being all that bad and I don’t view the safety of others as being as important.

The same is true when it comes to our beliefs about the implications of Christianity on life in general. If we do not allow it to shape our actions in every aspect of life then that speaks very loudly about how important we really believe our religious convictions to be. I don’t consider it a bad thing to be considered “dangerous”* by those with an opposing view point, rather I find it disturbing when those same people do not consider me to be at least a little “dangerous.”

*Just to be clear, I absolutely do not mean dangerous in an assault & battery sort of way. I mean it in the sense that those with opposing view points find my views to strongly conflict with theirs. For example I hope that an Atheist would find my views on the existence of a God to be dangerous and challenging towards their views of the non-existence of a God.

Should I vote for a Mormon?

With the political silly season quickly approaching I have seen a number of posts from an Evangelical Christian perspective regarding Mitt Romney's Mormon beliefs. There is a great debate about whether or not a Christian should vote for a Mormon. What complicates the matter is that there is also a debate about whether or not Mormons are Christians. And it is in this second debate that we hear the big "C" word:

"Mormonism is a Cult."

Unfortunately this statement is both true and false at the same time. It is important that we define our terms which include defining what we mean by "Christianity" and what we mean by "cult." Amy Hall of Stand To Reason does a great job of showing how the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) and Orthodox Christians are using the same term "Christian" in two very different ways:

The word "Christian" actually means something. It doesn't simply refer to a person who follows the ethical teachings in the New Testament, nor does it refer to everyone who uses the name "Jesus." Christianity entails an entire worldview—a particular view of God, man, salvation, purpose, heaven and hell, etc.

She goes on to detail just how different Mormonism and Christianity are on key beliefs. The views of the nature of God, Christ and man are different enough that they are obviously not the same religion.

The other term that needs to be defined is "cult." The most basic definition is "a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies." So every religious belief system is technically a cult. Mormonism also fits the definition of a cult in relationship to Christianity in that it differs significantly from the orthodox view. The problem is that, as Denny Burk points out, we do not usually use the term in this manner:

In popular usage, the word cult is associated with bizarre and sometimes threatening behavior (think David Koresh and Jim Jones). The term is seen as pejorative and an unfair attack when applied to groups who don’t live in exclusive communes and commit mass suicide. Most people would acknowledge, for instance, that the average Mormon cuts a different profile than a Branch Davidian.

So it seems to me that we need to be careful about the words that we use and how we are using them. I would strongly argue that Mormonism, as much as they may protest otherwise, is not a Christian denomination or sect. However I would hesitate to use the term cult simply because of the connotations that are contained in the word.

And that brings me to my original question. Can I, as an Orthodox Evangelical Conservative Christian, vote for a Mormon?

The simple answer is yes.

First, Christianity is a religious belief system. While it does inform my political, social, economic and other views of the world, it does not require a particular person to be my national leader. It doesn't even require a particular form of government. When asked about paying taxes to the Roman government, Jesus said: "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God that which belongs to God." In other words there are things that fall into the realm of civil government and there are things that fall into the realm of God's kingdom. Without getting into a great debate here about what belongs in which realm, suffice it to say that they are separate from one another.

Second, our nation is not a Christian nation. We may have been founded on Judeo-Christian principles but we are not a theocracy or a religious based nation.

Given a choice, I would much rather vote for someone that was a Mormon that would uphold more of the principles that I see fitting into the overall Christian worldview on governance than for a Christian that would not.


For further reading on this debate:
The Theological and Political Errors of Pastor Jeffress
A Vote for Romney Is a Vote for the LDS Church
Mormonism 101

The Ignorance of Westboro on Steve Jobs

Disclaimer: I had absolutely no intention of blogging about Steve Jobs today. I figured that there would be enough chatter on the web that I wouldn't have to add to it. Just to clarify, this post is about judging others wrapped in the thin candy shell of Steve Jobs.

I came home from our midweek service at church last night to find out that Steve Jobs, former CEO and Co-Founder of Apple, had passed away. My first thought – after the shock of his passing – was to marvel at his timing even in death. He was the ultimate showman in terms of his keynote speeches that introduced a new technology. He wasn’t flashy or boisterous. Rather he had a great sense of timing that increased the desire and anticipation of a new product. So his passing after new Apple CEO Tim Cook introduced the new iPhone struck me as just another example of Jobs not wanting to upstage the product. I get the sense that he knew that people were never really that interested in him at those keynote speeches but rather the product was the star of the show.

Fast forward to this morning…I came across a posting from the website Big Government that was detailing how Westboro Baptist Church is going to picket Steve Job’s funeral and the irony of posting their intentions on Twitter via an iPhone app.

I don’t want to spend too much time on the irony but it is worth taking a moment to simply enjoy it…

I also don’t like giving Westboro any publicity. (They tend to get enough already through their inane actions.) But there is a mistake in their theology that is evident within this simple post.

Steve Jobs, as far as I know, was a Buddhist and not a Christian. So to be upset at him for not giving Glory to God is silly. To be upset with him because he “taught sin” is silly.

Let me explain.

A fundamental belief of Christianity is that we are all sinners and are all guilty. 1 John 1:10 states: “If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” We are all sinners and this includes all Christians…even those at Westboro.  Paul states in Romans 3:10-20 that no one is righteous and no one seeks God. We don’t give God glory on our own. And in a certain sense we all “teach sin.” It is only because of the work of God that followers of God even attempt to give glory to God and to teach anything other than sin. So why would we expect those that do not follow God to give him any glory?

In 1 Corinthians 5 we see Paul condemning the Corinthian church for allowing a member of the congregation to have a sexual relationship with his stepmother. He goes on to say in verses 9-13: 

“I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing you to not associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. Purge the evil person from among you.”

Paul is stating that we should not judge those outside the church by the same standard that we judge those inside the church. We should have absolutely no expectation that a non-Christian would live up to the religious standards of Christianity. 

Update: I changed the title to be more accurate as to what I was trying to convey. While one might argue that certain actions are idiotic, my post is more about pointing out the ignorance of Westboro's theology in this matter. I also apologize to the people of Westboro Baptist Church for the inflammatory nature of my title. While I strongly disagree with Westboro's actions in many cases, my intention here was merely to correct a misunderstanding of theology.

Further Reading:

The Scoop on Judging

Christians Aren't Allowed to be Jerks

How to Force Your Morality

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Are God's commands more than a list of "Do's and "Don'ts?"

In discussing the role of Jesus in my Credo I state the following about the commands that he gives to us:

Jesus also tells us how we should live. His commands—The Sermon on the Mount being a good example—are more than just a list of “do’s and don’ts.” However, it is very easy to look at these commands and to start categorizing them like we do with the Ten Commandments that God gave to Moses and think of following Jesus in terms of “Thou Shalt Not…” It is very easy for me to fall into that trap and in a certain sense I am guessing that it is only natural. But Jesus did not simply come to tell us about all of the things that we do wrong. Rather, Jesus' instructions help us to live a better life (but not in a self-help way) and how to show care and compassion towards others. When Jesus tells us not to do something it is usually because whatever he is telling us to not do is bad for us.

For example in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us not to worry:

“Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing…And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life…Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble."
Matthew 6:25,27,34

I have purposely left out a number of verses from Jesus statement on worry and normally I really dislike taking verses out of their context. But I did it here for a reason. I think that those other verses help to put this command into the “Thou Shalt Not” category and miss part of why Jesus was giving us this command.

Here are just the omitted verses:

“Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they…And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not be anxious saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.”
Matthew 6:26,28-33

Looking at these verses makes it very easy to pick out a number of reasons that Jesus is telling us not to worry:

• By worrying we are not trusting God to take care of us.
• By worrying we do not believe that God values us.
• By worrying we are not seeking after the most important things in life.

These are all true and very valid reasons, but there is also a more practical reason why Jesus is telling us to not worry as well. Jesus asked, “Can you add time to your life by worrying?” No. We cannot. In fact we have come to learn that worrying actually shortens our lives. Chronic worry – or stress – can also make us very unhealthy. Jesus’ commands are more than “because I said so,” they are our guide to living a better life. We might not always have all the things that we want but if we followed all of his commands – like taking care of the poor – life would be better for us as well as others.


Further reading on the effects of stress:
Stress symptoms: Effects on your body, feelings and behavior by the Mayo Clinic
Stress: Constant stress puts your health at risk by the Mayo Clinic
The Effects of Stress on Your Body by WebMD

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Should Christians Keep the Sabbath?

I would assume most Christians see the “Ten Commandments” as being an authoritative rule for our lives. But we only seriously try to follow nine of them. We willfully ignore Commandment 4. 

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”
Exodus 20:8-11

Even if we try to keep Sunday as a day for God we are not keeping the Sabbath. Saturday – not Sunday – is the Sabbath. But are we as Christians supposed to observe the Sabbath? Can we willfully ignore this commandment?

One thing that we need to remember is that keeping the Sabbath went further than not doing any work on Saturday. Both Exodus 23:10-12 and 15:1-7 speak of taking a Sabbath year as well. Every seven years it was to be a year where the people did not work the land. Rather the land was to rest and whatever it provided on its own was to be the food for that year. It seems quite obvious that we as Christians do not really observe Saturday or every seven years as the Sabbath. But should we? Is this a law for us to follow?

The Law as given to Moses is what we consider the Old Covenant. It was given to the people of Israel at Mt. Sinai. It was for the people of Israel. It was not given to Gentiles – or non-Jews. On top of that God spoke in Jeremiah 31:31-34 of his New Covenant – which was made complete in Jesus. Jesus reiterated each of the Ten Commandments (1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 9, 9, & 10) throughout his ministry except for the commandment on the Sabbath. Rather he challenged the common understanding of the Sabbath. Jesus made the point that the Sabbath was made for man to rest rather than man being made to observe the Sabbath. That, I think, really changes how we should view the Sabbath.

When the Disciples were debating what rules the Gentile believers had to follow in Acts 15 they came up with the following list:

“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
Acts 15:28-29

This is far from a complete list in that it does not say anything about murder, stealing, bearing false witness or coveting. But it seems safe to say that these things were not considered optional. What is also interesting is that the early followers of Christ started gathering together on Sunday to worship God.

Paul speaks of our freedom in Christ in terms of the Sabbath in both Colossians 2:16-17 and Romans 14:5. It is my take that we are free from keeping the Sabbath as a requirement of the Law. However, I do not think that we are free from the principle of needing rest that is conveyed by the Sabbath Law. We as human beings are not blessed with unlimited energy. We are like a rechargeable battery that needs to sit and recharge every so often. So while we are free from the requirement of the Law we are not free from the spirit of the Law. We should take a day of rest every week. 

Further Reading:

Christians and Biblical Law

Does God Require Sabbath Keeping from Christians?

Sunday is not a second Saturday

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Faith of our fathers?

Thursday's post covered the topic of whether or not God holds us accountable for our parents' sins and the answer is an emphatic no. But what about our parents' faith in God? Does that transfer over to us?

I has the privilege of interviewing a number of people that became Christians later in life. Some of them reported having little or no religious background or influence while growing up. Some of them reported having a nominal religious background where their parents had some sort of faith in Christ but it was not very explicit. Then there was one person who told me how they were raised in a Christian home and went to church every Sunday. They even taught Sunday School and Vacation Bible School. But it wasn't until after this person was married and had children that she really made her beliefs her own beliefs.

I also had a very similar experience. I was born and raised in a Christian home. There was never any real doubt about what I believed growing up. It wasn't until I was an adult that I realized that I had to make a choice for myself. Don't get me wrong, I had made a choice for myself in terms of actually trusting in Jesus when I was young and that decision has held firm since then.

But as an adult that decision had to weather many different storms.

The first major storm was in regards to how I was going to live my life. As an adult I no longer went to church because my parents went to church. I had to do it for my own reasons and initially I did not do so because I had not made my own decision to make my faith my own faith. I had to make a decision to pursue Christianity on my own.

The next major storm was in regards to Christianity in general. I ran into an odd pair of friends in college on day. One was a Muslim and the other was an Atheist and they engaged in a sort of tag-team challenge to my faith. I remember as I was fielding their questions thinking about how odd these two were. They were obviously friends and had approached me together regarding my belief in Christianity. Some of their challenges sent me in a tailspin. I realized that I could not simply rely on the beliefs of my upbringing and needed to start getting my own answers.

That is when I started to do some very serious research into the reasons that I should believe in Christianity that went beyond saying, “Well the Bible says…” Do not hear what I am not saying. I am not saying that the Bible is not sufficient for life and faith. But rather I was being like the Bereans in Acts 17:11. I needed to see if what the Bible said was reliable. Is there any evidence for what it says?

As I started doing this research I ran into authors and speakers such as Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Hugh Ross and Greg Koukl to name a few. It was at this point that I really started to make Christianity my own faith rather than simply the “faith of my fathers.”

We all face this decision and can go one of two ways. We can either try to continue relying on the things that we were raised to believe. Or we can make them our own.

But it isn’t just a onetime thing. What I really started to think about the other day was how I am constantly coming up against the “faith of my fathers.” There are certain doctrines - or sets of beliefs - that I realize that I have held simply because that was the way I was raised to believe. It is not that they were wrong but rather I had not thought them through and truly decided what I believed. Quite often I have affirmed the belief but I now have the belief for a completely different reason. And then there are the beliefs that I have come to change. (I must state that at this point I am talking about peripheral and not essential beliefs.)

It really drives home the idea that we are in a continual growth and learning process and will never really know it all.

The Coloring of Creation and the Image of God

For my Facebook friends, you may have seen my paraphrase of the conversation my wife and I had following last night’s Adult Bible Study at our midweek service called FEAST!:

Onya: I really liked coloring at Bible Study tonight. It wasn't boring like last year.
Me: Last year?
Onya: Yeah, right before we broke for the summer.
Me: You mean when I was leading?
Onya: Uh...maybe boring isn't quite the right word.

It was quite funny at the time and had us laughing hysterically. My wife is really good at keeping me grounded and busting on me when it is necessary. And in all seriousness I do know what she actually meant. Drawing and coloring based upon the Days of Creation found in Genesis 1:1 – 2:3 is going to be more fun and a much lighter topic than talking about poverty and hunger.

As we were drawing our pictures for Day Six…and for me I use the term draw very loosely…I started to think about what it means to be created in God’s image.

Ludwig Feuerbach said that we as humans project our greatest attributes or our greatest desires onto what we want to be God. And while I disagree with what he means by saying that theology (the study of God) is really just anthropology (the study of man), I think that to a certain extent his notion of projecting what we want onto God is right.

It can be really easy for me to “need” something from God and to then think of God in terms of my needs. For example, when I have done something that I know that I should not have done, it is very easy for me to think of God as a merciful and gracious God. And of course these traits are accurate. But it is inaccurate for me to emphasis these traits at the expense of his justice and righteousness.

It also is very easy for me to think of God’s attributes in terms of my own understanding. Whenever I think of “love” in terms of how I understand “love” and then think of God as a loving God in those terms I am projecting my own wants and desires on Him. What I need to remember is that my love is an imperfect reflection of God’s love. The same thing is true for God’s grace, justice, righteousness and so forth. Remembering that my understanding and reflecting of these things is incomplete as well as imperfect is something that is very difficult to do at times. A fairly frequent rereading of the first few chapters of Genesis can go a long way in reminding me of this fact.

Is the Trinity Biblical and Does It Matter?

I find that the Trinity is one of those difficult doctrines to explain and to source. As Fred Sanders pointed out in his article Think Bigger in Biola Magazine, there really is not a “Trinity Verse”:

…I would prefer to have a doctrine be stated clearly and concisely in one place. I like my doctrines verse-sized. I sometimes wish there were one verse that said, “God is one being in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

But unfortunately the single slam-dunk case closed verse does not exist. So the question remains, is the Trinity Biblical? While Sanders’ piece is not a comprehensive handling of (there has been, and to a lesser extent remains, quite a bit of debate over what all should be included in) the doctrine of the Trinity, he does a good job of showing how the doctrine can be built in shorter passages. This is one of those doctrines that I touched on in my Credo Paper (See my posting The Intersection of Revelation and Apple Pie for an introduction to my Credo Paper) where my head-knowledge and foot-knowledge diverge a bit. Although in this case it is different. I touched on how I know having a personal God does not always affect how I act but this disconnect is different. In my Credo I state:

All of God’s attributes exist within each member of the Trinity. God is of one fundamental nature that exists in three persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Each member of the Trinity is a distinct person from the other but is of the same substance. This one fundamental nature, or essence, is also called the Godhead. The Godhead’s separate persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all operate in unity with one another (John 14:10-11, 15:26, 16:13-15). Each person of the Trinity being of the same substance means that each member is Divine and therefore worthy of worship. 

This doctrine does not always translate into foot-knowledge simply because it can be so difficult to wrap my head around. I get that each member of the Trinity is of the same substance. I get that each member of the Trinity is distinct and separate from each other. I get that each member of the Trinity together make up what is called the Godhead and together they are one God. I get that all works together at the same time but I do not understand how.

The doctrine of the Trinity should have a very real impact on my life. Because of the Holy Spirit lives within me, I can have the peace of God through Jesus Christ even when the world is going to pieces around me. I have to admit that I must put the word “can” in the previous sentence. It should be “do” but I do not always have “do”.

It should also have a very real impact on my worship of God. Yet there are times that I simply focus on one person of the Trinity. I think that it happens because I tend to have a modal view of the functions of God. I see God the Father doing one thing, God the Son Jesus Christ doing something different and God the Spirit doing something completely different. What I need to try and move from head-knowledge to foot-knowledge is that all three persons of the Trinity are working together in order to accomplish the same thing.


For further reading on the Trinity:

Bob Passantino has a good apologetic article called Is The Creedal Doctrine of the Trinity Biblical?
And Greg Koukl at Stand To Reason (one of my favorite resources) has a couple of good articles: The Trinity is Biblical and Does the Trinity Make Sense.

Don’t Lose Sight of Christ

I came across an article by Sinclair B. Ferguson entitled A Preacher's Decalogue in the Gospel Coalition's latest issue of Themelios. Overall it is a really good article and one that I am going to need to reread many times. One of the points that really struck me was number 3: "Don't Lose Sight of Christ." It sounds so obvious but I know that I have had the tendency to fall into the trap that Dr. Ferguson is warning about.

"Paradoxically not even the systematic preaching through one of the Gospels guarantees Christ-crucified centered preaching. Too often preaching on the Gospels takes what I whimsically think of as the “Find Waldo Approach.” The underlying question in the sermon is “Where are you to be found in this story?” (are you Martha or Mary, James and John, Peter, the grateful leper . . . ?). The question “Where, who and what is Jesus in this story?” tends to be marginalized."

I find it easy for me to relate to the characters in the Scriptures and therefore preach in the "Find Waldo Approach." I realize that it is not always the case-or the intention-but I never considered how self-centered this approach can be.

It seems to me that when we "find" Jesus in a passage that we will then be able to see where we are in relationship to him because Christ did not come to be crucified for his own sake but rather for our sake.

The Great Theologian Bill Cosby

As I was reading the story of Noah in Genesis 6-7 this morning it initially felt somewhat incomplete. Where was the part where Noah didn’t know what an Ark was? Where was the part where Noah asked God what a cubit was? Of course if you have ever heard Bill Cosby’s Noah routine you know exactly what I am talking about. Now I have nothing bad to say about Mr. Cosby’s comedy; I have often pictured other scenes of the Bible in a very similar way. In fact we have the story of one of Gideon’s conversation with God that could very easily have been a Cosby skit. What I find interesting is that I know that Cosby’s material is not in the Bible but to a certain extent it still colored my reading.

I remember reading reviews of the Veggie Tale movie Jonah that question the Biblical accuracy of the closing act of the Jonah part of the movie. (I really tried to find one of the reviews to link here but that was almost 10 years ago.) The movie goes into the part of the story where Jonah sits outside the city of Ninevah and waits for it to be destroyed. When God spares the city, Jonah gets mad at God. But that part of the story is not always told when it comes to kids versions of Jonah and the Whale. I remember reading it as an adult in amazement.

I must admit that I find how our current culture and ideas shape my reading of the Bible to be interesting. And it is something that I need to always be aware of.

If you haven’t seen (or seen it in a while) the Bill Cosby’s Noah it is worth the watch. It is also worth the watch just to see a very young Bill Cosby.

Attributes of God and The Problem of Evil - Updated

(In my rush to finish before heading off to church I forgot to wrap up my line of thinking.)

God can be known through both his negative and positive attributes. Talking about God’s negative attributes is not talking about God’s “bad traits” rather it is explaining something about God in a way that says what he does not have in order to say something about what he does have as an attribute. For example, I have already said that he is eternal and by this we mean that he does not have a beginning or an end. God is also is omniscient—there is nothing that he does not know. God is also omnipotent—there is nothing that God cannot do. God is also fully sovereign over all things. There is nothing that God does not rule over. He sees all things and is ultimately in control of all things. God’s rule and control over the universe is also combined with his intimate relationship with creation. It is this combination that gives us what is called God’s providence; his maintaining and controlling of his plan for humanity and all of creation.

Yet it is very easy for me to forget that God is ultimately in control of everything that happens.

When it comes to the idea of God being in control there are two ends of the spectrum. The first end is that God has strictly determined everything (and I mean everything) that has or ever will happen. If this were the case then, among many other issues, all of our life experiences would be at best a mere illusion and at worst a deception. We either only have the perception of being in control of our decisions or God is deceiving us into believing we have control over them. Neither of these options fit into what we experience in life or what we read in the Scriptures.

The opposite end of the spectrum is that God is not in control at all. He merely set things in action and is sitting back to see what is going to happen. Each and every thing that happens is a surprise to both us and God. If this is the case then things like prayer are completely pointless in that God doesn’t intervene and everything is controlled by mere chance. Again, I don’t see this fitting into what we experience in life or read in the Scriptures.

That God is ultimately in control lands somewhere in between the two ends of the spectrum. He is in control but also allows us the freedom to make choices. God being ultimately in control does not mean that God is a puppet master pulling all the strings. It is good to remember that there is a difference between what God predestines to happen and what God allows to happen. There are certain things that God allows to happen that we just do not understand.

Why does God allow so much evil and suffering in the world? This question leads to one of the most difficult questions that Christians face: The Problem of Evil. Of course, as Brett Kunkle points out, the problem of evil is not just a difficult question for Christians but it is a difficult question for everyone.

The best we can say is that any suffering and evil that we encounter in the world is allowed by God for reasons that are beyond us. Yet in the overall scheme of life, Jesus Christ provides us the ultimate comfort. While in this life what he provides is the salve to get us through, ultimately and eternally he provides the cure for our suffering. One day Christ will return and set all things right.

For further reading/viewing on suffering and the problem of evil consider:

Greg Koukl’s articles A Good Reason For Suffering and How Christians Can Deal With Tragedy

Lee Strobel’s video Why Does God Allow Pain and Suffering?

William Lane Craig’s video Do Pain and Suffering Disprove God’s Existence?

Peter Kreeft’s article Suffering

Attributes of God and The Problem of Evil

See Updated Post.