10,000 Reasons

I haven't been blogging with much regularity lately and I will share more on that later. I came across this Matt Redman song this morning and wanted to share it.

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

Succeeding at Failing

I saw a very interesting statistic while watching the Cubs game on Sunday. One of the allures to baseball is how statistics are used to define everything. The advanced statistics that they use to try and quantify the game of baseball are incredibly complex. I still like the basic or "old school" stats like Hits, Runs,RBI and so on. I am sure that things like WAR (wins above replacement) can tell you something interesting and important about the game. But the fact that there is no clear or standardized way to figure the stat makes it less valuable to me. Although it may also have something to do with the fact that I am somewhat of a baseball purist. The Designated Hitter needs to go and at least 6 teams need to be eliminated from the league. (Pick any six out of the perennial attendance laggards Baltimore, Cleveland, Kansas City, Miami, Oakland, Pittsburg, Tampa Bay, and Washington.) But I digress.

The interesting stat that I saw was the top ten all-time leaders in making outs. For those that are not real familiar with baseball making an out is when the batter fails to do what they were trying to do. This list showed the ten guys that experienced the most failure–in terms of hitting–as baseball players. Let me share that list with you:

1. Pete Rose
2. Hank Aaron
3. Carl Yastrzemski
4. Cal Ripken
5. Eddie Murray
6. Rickey Henderson
7. Dave Winfield
8. Robin Yount
9. Omar Vizquel
10. Brooks Robinson

I don't know if there is a single player on that list that I would not have wanted playing for the Cubs in their prime. All but Vizquel and Robinson ended up in the top twenty in other significant career statistics like Hits, Runs Scored, Runs Batted In, Home Runs and Stolen Bases. The career leader for each of those statistics (discounting Barry Bonds' home run record) is on this list. Eight of these guys are all in the Hall of Fame. And each of these guys played Major League Baseball for at least 20 years. So what this list means is that these guys failed a lot in order to also succeed a lot. In fact they were far more successful at failing than they were at succeeding.

How often are we willing to experience a lot of failure in order to succeed? How often do we allow our fear of failure to control our success?

 

Posted with Blogsy

Making Heroes out of Criminals

Tim DeKay (on the left) and Matt Bomer (right)

One of the TV shows that my wife and I watch is called White Collar. Since we don't have cable we watch it via Netflix. We don't watch the normal "cops and robbers" shows like CSI; CSI: Vegas; CSI: Springfield; CSI: Antartica; CSI: Moonbase Alpha; CSI: Outback (it was the dingo); or CSI: Old Guy Pretending To Still Be Cool. We will watch the quirky ones–Psych being a good example–or even the ones that don't pretent to be reality based (CSI: Using Equipment And Techniques That Don't Really Exist Which Makes Real Law Enforcement Jobs Harder) which is where White Collar comes in.

The premise behind White Collar is "the unlikely crime-solving partnership between Neal Caffrey (Matt Bomer), a charming con man turned consultant for the FBI, and Peter Burke (Tim DeKay), the Federal Agent charged with keeping him on the right side of the law." The idea is that Caffrey's extensive background as an art thief, forger and general con man gives Agent Burke the advantage in capturing other criminals. Caffrey is released from prison and put on home arrest. He has to wear a tracking anklet except when he is working a case undercover. Then alternate means of monitoring (wearing a wire or a gps enabled watch) is used. This doesn't prevent Caffrey from getting himself into illegal situations. He has a trusty sidekick–a fellow con man that has not been convicted–named Mozzy that helps Caffrey out on the cases but also helps keep Caffrey involved in illegal activities. For the most part Agent Burke works to keep Caffrey out of trouble and even tries to catch Caffrey when he suspects Caffrey in stealing a large amount of Nazi stolen treasure.

The stolen treasure ends up playing a pivotal role when it turns out to be the ransom demand for Agent Burke's kidnapped wife. The treasure (or at least half of it) is used to draw out the kidnapper (who is an "archenemy" of Caffrey) and everything seemingly works out. The kidnapper takes credit for stealing the treasure in the first place which gets Caffrey off the hook. Burke knows that Caffrey had the treasure (which was technically stolen by Mozzy) and it becomes a point of contention between the two. It all leads up to the Season 3 finale where Caffrey has a hearing to determine whether or not his sentence is commuted. It turns out that Burke–knowing that Caffrey was involved in the stealing of the treasure and other art work–testifies that Caffrey has become a valuable asset to the FBI and good citizen who should have his commuted. Of course this testimony comes just as Caffrey is cutting his tracking anklet and making another escape.

Up to this point I thought the struggle that Caffrey was having between being a reformed criminal and reverting back to his old ways was an interesting insight into what grounds a person. The more Caffrey became rooted through friendships and his work with the FBI the less Caffrey wanted to give that up and live a life on the run. That part I understood. But the turning of Agent Burke from being honest and straight forward to someone that was willing to cover up for Caffrey because the situation was working really bothered me.

What bothered me wasn't the fact that Burke was making a pragmatic choice. We make pragmatic choices every day. When we find something that works we usually stick with it and hold to the truth of the situation. It is where we get the saying, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it." What bothered me is that the elevation of someone that we would consider a criminal to the position of hero. But it was more than that. If we look at the heroes of the Bible (particularly those of the Old Testament) they were not always good guys. They lied, cheated, murdered, committed adultery and more. Yet they were still considered heroes. They all had to face the consequences of their sins. What really bothered me about the direction of White Collar is that it was designed for the viewer to root for Caffrey to get away with it. We don't want to see Caffrey arrested and put back in jail. We want to see things somehow work out without the consequences.

Unfortunately the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross tells us that the things we do wrong has consequences. Even when we receive forgiveness for our sins there was still a price that needed to be paid. There might not be an eternal consequence that we have to pay (there may be earthy ones) but someone still had to suffer the consequences. I think that it sets a bad tone when we start rooting for criminals (even fictional ones) to get away with their crimes. While they may escape the consequences for their crimes there is still a victim somewhere that has had their life negatively affected by the crime.

 

Posted with Blogsy

What about the Willow Creek Association?

Over the past couple of days I shared some reflections (Day 1 and Day 2) on the Willow Creek Association's Global Leadership Summit. Today I wanted to share some of my conflicted thoughts about Willow Creek. I think that it is important to differentiate between the Willow Creek Association and Willow Creek Community Church. I realize that this is like splitting a hair and then claiming that the two halves are different. But bear with me for a moment.

There really is an important difference between the two. One is a church and the other is an association of churches. While they are lead by the same people and one is an offshoot of the other, they have different functions. Willow Creek Community Church (WCCC) states that their mission is:

"...to turn irreligious people into fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ."

Where as the Willow Creek Association (WCA) states their mission is:

"To inspire and equip Christian leaders to lead transformation-minded churches."

There is a fundamental difference between the two. One exists to teach theology and doctrine while the other exists to teach Christian leaders how to lead. I might disagree with some of the theology and decision of WCCC but it is a whole different thing to recognize that there are things that I can learn from both WCCC and the WCA. It is also worth noting that there is a big difference between having former President Bill Clinton being interviewed about leadership during a WCA event (which happened) and having him address the congregation during a WCCC worship service (which did not happen). I wasn't at that interview and I have not seen a video or read a transcript. So I don't think that it would be completely fair for me to judge that particular event. It could be that it was a very bad move on the part of the WCA and Senior Pastor Bill Hybels. Although, in general, I don't have a problem with hearing from non-Christians speaking at Christian leadership development events.

At the risk of sounding heretical let me say that Christ is THE TRUTH and all truth comes from God but that does not mean that the church can claim to be the sole possessor of all truth. In order for that to be so we would have to claim that EVERY bit of discovery and knowledge uncovered outside of the church to be false. This doesn't mean that everything that the world holds to be true is in fact true. What this means is that there are always going to be things that the church can learn from the world. (I realize that saying this might put me at risk of waking up in the middle of the night to loud angry mobs with pitchforks and torches demanding my excommunication.) We can learn from those outside the church however we must carefully sift through and discern what is worth keeping and what needs to be discarded.

In the past I have learned solid leadership principles from non-Christian sources. When we look at examples of good leadership in the world we need to realize that they work because someone is following the truth of God whether or not they realize or acknowledge that he is the source of that truth. These leadership principles are not true because they work. They work because they are based upon the truth that God infused into the foundation of the world. Whether or not a physicist recognizes God as the author of the law of gravity does not change whether or not the law exists and works.

The Apostle Paul also recognized that there are things that we can learn from the world. His imagery of the Armor of God in Ephesians 6:10-18 was using the Roman soldier as an example of how we should equip ourselves. Paul is saying that we should not engage in spiritual battles without the proper equipment in the same way that the Roman soldiers would not think of going to war without their equipment. Paul also used the imagery of Olympic athletes in 1 Corinthians 9:24-27. Paul is telling us that we need to have the same self-discipline as those athletes that win. I am sure that there are plenty of things about Roman soldiers and Olympic athletes that Paul wouldn't want us to emulate but that doesn't mean we can't learn from the good aspects.

And that is my approach to Willow Creek and the Global Leadership Summit. There is plenty good to learn and there is plenty bad to leave behind. And one of the side benefits to having non-Christian speakers come and speak at a Christian event is that we rub off on them. This past week we heard from a tearful Carly Fiorina of how she has come back to her faith in Jesus Christ as a result of her involvement with Willow Creek and Bill Hybels. We also heard how Jim Collins, who has been speaking at the Global Leadership Summit since 1997, is starting to very seriously explore Christianity. It sounds like he could make a commitment to becoming a Christian in the near future. I may have issues with Willow Creek on a theological and even an ideological level but I do not think that all that they do is reprobate or irredeemable.