"Just as at sea those who are carried away from the direction of the harbor bring themselves back on course by a clear sign, so Scripture may guide those adrift on the sea of life back into the harbor of the divine will."
(St. Gregory of Nyssa, b. 331? - d. 396?)
************
"Many years ago, F. B. Meyer was returning to England from northern Ireland by ship. It was night, and as the ship was entering the harbor, nothing was to be seen but a confusing array of lights. Dr. Meyer was concerned as to how the captain could hope to navigate into the harbor safely at night in such a confusing jumble of lights, and said so.
The captain called him up to the bridge and said, 'You see, Sir, it’s really very simple. I’ll show you how. Do you see that big light over to the left? And do you see that other big light over there to the right of it? And now, do you see that outstanding light further still this way? Well now, keep your eyes on those three lights and see what happens.'
Dr. Meyer did so. The big outer light on the left gradually moved in until it coincided with the middle one. Then, as the ship veered further, that light gradually merged into the third.
'There now,' said the boatman, 'All I have to do is to see that those three big lights become one; then I go straight forward.'
Even so, when the Word of Scripture and the inward urge of the conscience and the corroboration of outward circumstances become one, we need have no fear. We may go straight ahead. God’s will is clear."
(J. Sidlow Baxter, "Does God Still Guide?")
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
La Vie Boheme?
I watched two movies that have nothing to do with each other; yet, they both tell the same story. I refer to “Rent” and “The Lion in Winter.” Both were first-time viewings for me. I n case you are wondering where I’ve been, I am not one to rush out and see movies during their hype. I like to let the dust settle so I may digest the event without distraction from the hoopla.
Both movies were remakes of their original. “Rent” (2005) is a direct translation of Puccini’s 1896 opera, “La Boheme.” The story is of the cold, of love and hate, of life and death through the eyes of starving artists in the ghetto. “The Lion in Winter” (2003), starring Patrick Steward and Glenn Close, was a bold remake of the 1968 Hepburn/O’Tool film, which tells the story of King Henry II, of cold, of love and hate, of life and death through the eyes of regal villains scratching for the throne during the 1180’s Britain. This story has been told and retold by Shakespeare (“King John” and subsequent “King Henry” plays) and countless other historians, though eloquently recorded by Winston Churchill (also known as “the last Lion” himself) in the first of his 4-part book series, “History of the English Speaking People.”
Both stories are of bohemianism; that is, both describe the plight of disenchanted people who wished to live non-traditional lifestyles. Old Solomon was right when he said there was nothing new under the sun, and both stories could have the tagline, “No day but today.” While one story counted out five hundred twenty-five thousand six hundred minutes to, in a sense, take a head-count to see who survived, the other story counted out five hundred twenty-five thousand six hundred minutes to see who would be next to go. In “Lion”, the victor gets the spoils. In “Rent”, the victor goes to the spoils.
Both “Rent” and “The Lion in Winter” take place in over Christmas, and in their metropolitan centers. Both concern themselves heavily with “love” and the consequences of abusing it. Both show people living in fear. Both include the theme of homosexuality (Prince Richard/Prince Philip, Tom/Angel and Maureen/Joanne) as a crucial factor in the plots.
The comparisons are uncanny.
King Henry II and Mark/Marcello are despairing, yet want to make a mark in history;
Queen Eleanor and Maureen/Musetta will do whatever it takes to get them on the top and still maintain their eccentric tastes;
Prince John and Angel are the “freaks”, but both are held in highest esteem with their “families,” despite their flaws;
Prince Geoffry and Roger are the “machines,” just plodding along through life with hopes that everything works out for themselves (and if others are helped, that’s great, too);
Prince Richard and Tom Collins are the “go-getters,” working hard and even fighting for what those around them to the fault that they loose sight of that which is closest to them;
Prince Henry and April never appear because they both are dead before the story actually begins, but the impact of their lives affect their families and are never forgotten;
Alais and Mimi are must like innocent bystanders, but both are the key-stone to tragedy: used and user, loved and unloved. Both are openly known to practice unmarried sexual relations.
And the list goes on.
I feel like I’ve been on a roller-coaster ride with only one direction: straight down.
The tragedy is that people really live like this . . .
Both movies were remakes of their original. “Rent” (2005) is a direct translation of Puccini’s 1896 opera, “La Boheme.” The story is of the cold, of love and hate, of life and death through the eyes of starving artists in the ghetto. “The Lion in Winter” (2003), starring Patrick Steward and Glenn Close, was a bold remake of the 1968 Hepburn/O’Tool film, which tells the story of King Henry II, of cold, of love and hate, of life and death through the eyes of regal villains scratching for the throne during the 1180’s Britain. This story has been told and retold by Shakespeare (“King John” and subsequent “King Henry” plays) and countless other historians, though eloquently recorded by Winston Churchill (also known as “the last Lion” himself) in the first of his 4-part book series, “History of the English Speaking People.”
Both stories are of bohemianism; that is, both describe the plight of disenchanted people who wished to live non-traditional lifestyles. Old Solomon was right when he said there was nothing new under the sun, and both stories could have the tagline, “No day but today.” While one story counted out five hundred twenty-five thousand six hundred minutes to, in a sense, take a head-count to see who survived, the other story counted out five hundred twenty-five thousand six hundred minutes to see who would be next to go. In “Lion”, the victor gets the spoils. In “Rent”, the victor goes to the spoils.
Both “Rent” and “The Lion in Winter” take place in over Christmas, and in their metropolitan centers. Both concern themselves heavily with “love” and the consequences of abusing it. Both show people living in fear. Both include the theme of homosexuality (Prince Richard/Prince Philip, Tom/Angel and Maureen/Joanne) as a crucial factor in the plots.
The comparisons are uncanny.
King Henry II and Mark/Marcello are despairing, yet want to make a mark in history;
Queen Eleanor and Maureen/Musetta will do whatever it takes to get them on the top and still maintain their eccentric tastes;
Prince John and Angel are the “freaks”, but both are held in highest esteem with their “families,” despite their flaws;
Prince Geoffry and Roger are the “machines,” just plodding along through life with hopes that everything works out for themselves (and if others are helped, that’s great, too);
Prince Richard and Tom Collins are the “go-getters,” working hard and even fighting for what those around them to the fault that they loose sight of that which is closest to them;
Prince Henry and April never appear because they both are dead before the story actually begins, but the impact of their lives affect their families and are never forgotten;
Alais and Mimi are must like innocent bystanders, but both are the key-stone to tragedy: used and user, loved and unloved. Both are openly known to practice unmarried sexual relations.
And the list goes on.
I feel like I’ve been on a roller-coaster ride with only one direction: straight down.
The tragedy is that people really live like this . . .
Thursday, July 09, 2009
The First Commandment and practical paganism
"In yer FACE!"
Does that sound familiar? Not so long ago in a galaxy, well, right here, we used to hear this term used in derogatory ways, “in yer face!” The phrase connotes a retaliatory “same to you and more of it” kind of attitude. Now it is more commonly heard as trash-talk in the venues of sports and games. It’s a prideful insult, “getting’ all up in it [the face].”
Doing Hebrew studies a few years back I learned that Exodus 20:3 (commonly translated as “You shall have no other gods before me”) really reads in a surprisingly contemporary manner. From the Hebrew we read, “No there will be or become from you gods of another kind [according to, on account of, on behalf of, concerning, beside, in addition to, together with, beyond, above, over, by, on to, towards, to, against upon above, over from upon, from over] my face.” In other words, “You will have no other god in my face.”
Will it suffice to say we are to simply have no other gods besides the one true God? No. We are to raise up nothing as deity to His face! Anything but God is “in yer face” to God. There is one God and only one God and beside Him there is no other. Since there is only one God, there is only “one” in terms of those things that pertain to God. He is the sole source of our satisfaction, the conversant in prayer, creator and sustainer of all things. He makes heaven what it is, not a place outside Himself where He dwells.
The issue of getting up in God’s face is seen in the emphasis on the sanctity of worship and the condemnation of polytheism. At its ground level and most basic meaning, God intends that nothing be erected in the sanctuary. Understanding that, there is no need for any other deity (whether they exist or not—and no other deity exists, so don’t try to make one . . . that’s in the second commandment) as the One true and living God who set the captives free is to be receiving the utmost love and attention. Since He is the source and giver of all things whether in heaven or on earth, nothing should take His place.
Why can’t mankind make sense of the simplicity of this primary command? First, “the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” (2 Cor. 4:3-4). Second, though God has given Himself and has made Himself available, scripture says that none will seek after Him. This is the greatest sin of humanity.
So why can’t mankind see? Because he is rebellious. “Sinful humans . . . don’t love God. The don’t delight to do His will. Instead, the law of sin and death has written its bloody signature across the godless human breast (Romans 7:21-24). Our inborn cry is, ‘Not you will but mine be done!’ The devil is our father and his will we gladly do.”[i]
In a survey of Paganism, one cannot help but notice how this animistic world religion is founded on the very breaking of the first commandment. The pagan claims to practice irreligion, a system of absent authority or liturgy; or, one may claim to practice no religion at all, so the first step one takes is away from God, declaring his or her autonomy. Two things happen simultaneously in this declaration: first, man (generally speaking) has set himself up as absolute and supreme authority, a god. “By creating our own divinities we create mental steps for ourselves, up which we can mount toward realizing ourselves as divine.” [ii] Notice how, now that he has taken this stand, he is now in direct contradiction to his own system of absent authority. The balances that he seeks to maintain through the manipulation of forces and powers has begun off-balance! Second, in declaring his autonomy from God he has actually agreed with God concerning the condition of mankind at the very moment of the fall in the Garden of Eden! When Adam disobeyed God, he was declared to be “like one who is abandoned, all alone, autonomous, from it [the tree of the knowledge of good and evil] knowing good and evil.” The pagan has two choices: make his own gods, or revere himself as one. Paganism is hardly a godless system at all.
A second feature of paganism is the attempt through autonomy to elevate experience over dogma. First, what exactly is the “open mind” of paganism toward religion if there are no commandments? They seem to draw the line somewhere. One writer rationalizes, “The lack of dogma in the Craft, the fact that one can worship the Goddess without believing in Her, that one can accept the Goddess as `Muse' and the Craft as a form of ancient knowledge to be tested by experience; these are precisely the things that have caused the Craft to survive, to revive, and to be re-created in this century."[iii] If there is a lack of dogma, how can there be ritual? By definition, ritual assumes some sort of law or custom. If there is no dogma, how can there by ritual? Second, what is the measure of experience? How does one know he has arrived? There must be a standard. A godless divinity and a dogmaless doctine? Hardly.
A third feature of paganism tied to the pursuit of experience is divination, or magick. This is simply an attempt to act divine, or god-like through the raising of power via meditation or concentration; spells or incantations; astral-type projection; herbs, medicines, incense, alcohol and/or drugs; expressions of “freedom” through dance and body function and/or manipulation and blood control. As impressive as these may seem, they hardly qualify for truly divine characteristics as omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence—and these are non-moral attributes. Clearly paganism raises a god that has no moral attributes as love, only fear; peace, only strife; joy, only pleasure that must be replenished; and others.
Now someone must be saying, “Hey! I may not believe in God or whatever, but I don’t believe all this stuff! I am not a Satanist or a pagan!”
John Angel James wrote in his booklet on Spiritual Idolatry: “It is obvious that whatever we love most, and are most anxious to retain and please--whatever it is we depend most upon for happiness and help--whatever has most of our hearts--that is, in effect, is our God! It does not matter whether it is friends, possessions, desires--or our own selves! These are the idols of the heart! SELF is the great idol which is the rival of God, and which divides with Him the worship of the human race.”
Psalm 14 helps us understand that God is real because of the foolishness of those that deny Him! To say there is no God is to assume one has absolute knowledge, which would make one out to be a god, even the very thing he denies! The truth is that since nobody has absolute knowledge, one who says there is no God really is unsure, so they act wickedly. The fool insults his own intellect by his immoral behavior. Of Romans 3:10-18 John MacArthur comments, “Paul strings together a series of OT quotations that indict the character (vv. 10–12), conversation (vv. 13, 14), and conduct (vv. 15–17) of all men. Nine times he uses words such as “none” and “all” to show the universality of human sin and rebellion.”[iv]
Just to help us grasp the seriousness of keeping this commandment, try Exodus 20:22, “He who sacrifices to any god, other than to the Lord alone, shall be utterly destroyed.” How devoted should one be in worship? Devoted enough to make sure he gets his worship right, or be devoted to his own destruction (as the 1890 Darby Bible translates).
Consider this quote: “If you find yourself beginning to love any pleasure better than your prayers, any book better than your Bible, any house better than God’s, any table better than the Lord’s, any person better than your Savior, anyone better than your soul, a present indulgence better than the hope of Heaven—take alarm!”[v]
**********
[i] Comfort, Ray. “The Ten Commandments, part 1.” School of Biblical Evangelism. Gainesville : Bridge-Logos, 2004.
[ii] Adler, Margot. Drawing Down the Moon. New York : Viking Press, 1979.
[iii] Adler, Ibid.
[iv]MacArthur, John Jr. The MacArthur Study Bible. electronic ed., Ro 3:10. Nashville: Word Pub., 1997, c1997.
[v]Hardman, Samuel G., and Dwight Lyman Moody. Thoughts for the Quiet Hour. Originally published: Chicago: Revell, c1990., August 15. Willow Grove, PA: Woodlawn Electronic Publishing, 1998, c1997, c1994, c1990.
Does that sound familiar? Not so long ago in a galaxy, well, right here, we used to hear this term used in derogatory ways, “in yer face!” The phrase connotes a retaliatory “same to you and more of it” kind of attitude. Now it is more commonly heard as trash-talk in the venues of sports and games. It’s a prideful insult, “getting’ all up in it [the face].”
Doing Hebrew studies a few years back I learned that Exodus 20:3 (commonly translated as “You shall have no other gods before me”) really reads in a surprisingly contemporary manner. From the Hebrew we read, “No there will be or become from you gods of another kind [according to, on account of, on behalf of, concerning, beside, in addition to, together with, beyond, above, over, by, on to, towards, to, against upon above, over from upon, from over] my face.” In other words, “You will have no other god in my face.”
Will it suffice to say we are to simply have no other gods besides the one true God? No. We are to raise up nothing as deity to His face! Anything but God is “in yer face” to God. There is one God and only one God and beside Him there is no other. Since there is only one God, there is only “one” in terms of those things that pertain to God. He is the sole source of our satisfaction, the conversant in prayer, creator and sustainer of all things. He makes heaven what it is, not a place outside Himself where He dwells.
The issue of getting up in God’s face is seen in the emphasis on the sanctity of worship and the condemnation of polytheism. At its ground level and most basic meaning, God intends that nothing be erected in the sanctuary. Understanding that, there is no need for any other deity (whether they exist or not—and no other deity exists, so don’t try to make one . . . that’s in the second commandment) as the One true and living God who set the captives free is to be receiving the utmost love and attention. Since He is the source and giver of all things whether in heaven or on earth, nothing should take His place.
Why can’t mankind make sense of the simplicity of this primary command? First, “the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” (2 Cor. 4:3-4). Second, though God has given Himself and has made Himself available, scripture says that none will seek after Him. This is the greatest sin of humanity.
So why can’t mankind see? Because he is rebellious. “Sinful humans . . . don’t love God. The don’t delight to do His will. Instead, the law of sin and death has written its bloody signature across the godless human breast (Romans 7:21-24). Our inborn cry is, ‘Not you will but mine be done!’ The devil is our father and his will we gladly do.”[i]
In a survey of Paganism, one cannot help but notice how this animistic world religion is founded on the very breaking of the first commandment. The pagan claims to practice irreligion, a system of absent authority or liturgy; or, one may claim to practice no religion at all, so the first step one takes is away from God, declaring his or her autonomy. Two things happen simultaneously in this declaration: first, man (generally speaking) has set himself up as absolute and supreme authority, a god. “By creating our own divinities we create mental steps for ourselves, up which we can mount toward realizing ourselves as divine.” [ii] Notice how, now that he has taken this stand, he is now in direct contradiction to his own system of absent authority. The balances that he seeks to maintain through the manipulation of forces and powers has begun off-balance! Second, in declaring his autonomy from God he has actually agreed with God concerning the condition of mankind at the very moment of the fall in the Garden of Eden! When Adam disobeyed God, he was declared to be “like one who is abandoned, all alone, autonomous, from it [the tree of the knowledge of good and evil] knowing good and evil.” The pagan has two choices: make his own gods, or revere himself as one. Paganism is hardly a godless system at all.
A second feature of paganism is the attempt through autonomy to elevate experience over dogma. First, what exactly is the “open mind” of paganism toward religion if there are no commandments? They seem to draw the line somewhere. One writer rationalizes, “The lack of dogma in the Craft, the fact that one can worship the Goddess without believing in Her, that one can accept the Goddess as `Muse' and the Craft as a form of ancient knowledge to be tested by experience; these are precisely the things that have caused the Craft to survive, to revive, and to be re-created in this century."[iii] If there is a lack of dogma, how can there be ritual? By definition, ritual assumes some sort of law or custom. If there is no dogma, how can there by ritual? Second, what is the measure of experience? How does one know he has arrived? There must be a standard. A godless divinity and a dogmaless doctine? Hardly.
A third feature of paganism tied to the pursuit of experience is divination, or magick. This is simply an attempt to act divine, or god-like through the raising of power via meditation or concentration; spells or incantations; astral-type projection; herbs, medicines, incense, alcohol and/or drugs; expressions of “freedom” through dance and body function and/or manipulation and blood control. As impressive as these may seem, they hardly qualify for truly divine characteristics as omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence—and these are non-moral attributes. Clearly paganism raises a god that has no moral attributes as love, only fear; peace, only strife; joy, only pleasure that must be replenished; and others.
Now someone must be saying, “Hey! I may not believe in God or whatever, but I don’t believe all this stuff! I am not a Satanist or a pagan!”
John Angel James wrote in his booklet on Spiritual Idolatry: “It is obvious that whatever we love most, and are most anxious to retain and please--whatever it is we depend most upon for happiness and help--whatever has most of our hearts--that is, in effect, is our God! It does not matter whether it is friends, possessions, desires--or our own selves! These are the idols of the heart! SELF is the great idol which is the rival of God, and which divides with Him the worship of the human race.”
Psalm 14 helps us understand that God is real because of the foolishness of those that deny Him! To say there is no God is to assume one has absolute knowledge, which would make one out to be a god, even the very thing he denies! The truth is that since nobody has absolute knowledge, one who says there is no God really is unsure, so they act wickedly. The fool insults his own intellect by his immoral behavior. Of Romans 3:10-18 John MacArthur comments, “Paul strings together a series of OT quotations that indict the character (vv. 10–12), conversation (vv. 13, 14), and conduct (vv. 15–17) of all men. Nine times he uses words such as “none” and “all” to show the universality of human sin and rebellion.”[iv]
Just to help us grasp the seriousness of keeping this commandment, try Exodus 20:22, “He who sacrifices to any god, other than to the Lord alone, shall be utterly destroyed.” How devoted should one be in worship? Devoted enough to make sure he gets his worship right, or be devoted to his own destruction (as the 1890 Darby Bible translates).
Consider this quote: “If you find yourself beginning to love any pleasure better than your prayers, any book better than your Bible, any house better than God’s, any table better than the Lord’s, any person better than your Savior, anyone better than your soul, a present indulgence better than the hope of Heaven—take alarm!”[v]
**********
[i] Comfort, Ray. “The Ten Commandments, part 1.” School of Biblical Evangelism. Gainesville : Bridge-Logos, 2004.
[ii] Adler, Margot. Drawing Down the Moon. New York : Viking Press, 1979.
[iii] Adler, Ibid.
[iv]MacArthur, John Jr. The MacArthur Study Bible. electronic ed., Ro 3:10. Nashville: Word Pub., 1997, c1997.
[v]Hardman, Samuel G., and Dwight Lyman Moody. Thoughts for the Quiet Hour. Originally published: Chicago: Revell, c1990., August 15. Willow Grove, PA: Woodlawn Electronic Publishing, 1998, c1997, c1994, c1990.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Admonition In A Lost And Tolerant World
A few years ago our street witnessing team was joined by a visitor. He wanted to go with us, to help spread the good news of Jesus to the lost and dying world, so we let him come along. We went down to our area and “got busy” talking to people, when I suddenly heard our guest (Bible in one hand, tracts in another) use the most foul string of four-letter words as he was talking to a couple of guys. I can’t even remember what I was doing at the time, but I do remember spinning around and was like, “Hey! Watch it, bro!” Needless to say, our witnessing opportunity was over right then and there.
I was asked recently about what I would do if I saw someone doing something that was clearly wrong. The first thing that came to my mind was, “are they a Christian?” We then proceeded to talk about our position in Christ and the “one another’s” of scripture: we don’t confront people because we are better than them, but because of our position in Christ. We use the law to point out sin and lead to repentance, not ourselves as a standard. But it still comes down to it: what is a typical response to wrong-doing? Are we even aware of wrong-doing that takes place around us?
Then we have this wonderful thing called “tolerance” that dictates how we are to confront others with the truth. Is it tolerant for me to allow a pagan to worship any god he chooses, if any at all? To him, yes. But it is intolerance to him if I tell him of the true and living God and salvation only in Christ Jesus. In the same way, when we practice this “live and let live” policy, are we being tolerant of God’s commands? Spinoza said that doubt was the spring of tolerance and social good. James said that doubting is to be in two minds . . . and to be undependable . . . like being a wind-tossed wave. Let’s not confuse Christian Liberty with disingenuine confusion.
Our society places so much emphasis on tolerance that tolerance itself has become deified. With this new idol in place, the practice of biblical admonition is stifled. Next we will find ourselves saying, “Of course I dislike the Nazis. But who is to say they’re morally wrong?”[i] But again, who am I to say.
You know what the problem is? We like to remain comfortable numb. We don’t like pain and confrontation, so we avoid it. You may not believe this, but I know of an entire Christian community that thrives on covetousness and actually steals from one another on a regular basis. I know that though activities are monitored, those “in charge” feel helpless to say anything for fear of hurting someone’s feelings. So they just “love” each other . . . (imposters). Grace comes at a price. This is why Jesus pointed out that the one who is persecuted in His name is blessed.
Peter had a problem. He was wrong. He was so wrong that the Apostle Paul gave him a severe case of “Opposed Face.” What did he do that was so wrong? Well, Peter used to eat and fellowship with Gentile Christians until he was visited by some folks who led him to believe he had to separate himself from them. Paul saw that Peter and others were not walking out the gospel, so he called them out on it (Acts 10 and Galatians 2:11-21). Paul had to remind Peter that it was not keeping the law of God that saved, but the law points out our helplessness. Separating himself from other believers on the grounds of nationality was no argument at all. Jew or Gentile, the law identifies every man a sinner and in need of the finished work of Christ Jesus for justification. Paul simply says that if righteousness comes by the law then the grace of God is void.
Gal 2:20-21. “I have been crucified with Christ, and I live; yet no longer I, but Christ lives in me. And that life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith toward the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself on my behalf. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness is through law, then Christ died without cause.”
Here’s the thing: when we are crucified with Christ, that’s where we end and He continues. God knows more about life than we do. He knows the future and He knows what is best for each of us. Any other addendum tells God that we are dissatisfied with Him and His way in inadequate. If He is indeed the Lord, we should want what He wants above and beyond our own wants, no matter how much it hurts. We cannot be people pleasers and man pleasers at the same time. If we have to let go of prejudices and preconceptions, then we must let go. If we have to cut loose, then by all means, cut loose.
Phillips Brooks wrote, “The soul that takes in Jesus’ word, the soul that through which the words of Jesus enters into the very person of Jesus, the soul that knows him as its daily presence and its daily law—it never hesitates.”
Acts 11:1–18 contains two lessons that jump out at me, the first being, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” God had showed Peter specifically what converting a Gentile is like and nowhere in his own preaching was the keeping of the law for righteousness. Second, go with the Spirit and go without doubt. Go without doubt and there will be no people-pleasing.
This becomes really important when I hear pastors agonize and say, “I’ve put so much time and energy into learning new modern techniques that I don’t think I can do things the biblical way.” I say: consider this conversation.
Romans 6:3-4 “Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father; even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
Those “as many of us” are the red and yellow, black and white. All who are precious in His sight. And we are on level ground. There is no race but “human.” Furthermore, this reinforces that “crucified with Christ”—where I end and He continues. My opinion of others actually reflects back on me and exposes my attitude of the Creator of all men and Savior of the elect.
Christ did not die for the righteous, but for sinners.
So what would I do if I saw or heard someone doing something wrong? I would open the law to tutor them to Christ and repentance. Our responsibility is not to declare men saved, but tell them how to be saved and admonition is continuing the work of gospel declaration.
************
[i] Anderson, J. Kirby. Christian Ethics in Plain Language. Nelson Reference & Electronic: Nashville, 2005
I was asked recently about what I would do if I saw someone doing something that was clearly wrong. The first thing that came to my mind was, “are they a Christian?” We then proceeded to talk about our position in Christ and the “one another’s” of scripture: we don’t confront people because we are better than them, but because of our position in Christ. We use the law to point out sin and lead to repentance, not ourselves as a standard. But it still comes down to it: what is a typical response to wrong-doing? Are we even aware of wrong-doing that takes place around us?
Then we have this wonderful thing called “tolerance” that dictates how we are to confront others with the truth. Is it tolerant for me to allow a pagan to worship any god he chooses, if any at all? To him, yes. But it is intolerance to him if I tell him of the true and living God and salvation only in Christ Jesus. In the same way, when we practice this “live and let live” policy, are we being tolerant of God’s commands? Spinoza said that doubt was the spring of tolerance and social good. James said that doubting is to be in two minds . . . and to be undependable . . . like being a wind-tossed wave. Let’s not confuse Christian Liberty with disingenuine confusion.
Our society places so much emphasis on tolerance that tolerance itself has become deified. With this new idol in place, the practice of biblical admonition is stifled. Next we will find ourselves saying, “Of course I dislike the Nazis. But who is to say they’re morally wrong?”[i] But again, who am I to say.
You know what the problem is? We like to remain comfortable numb. We don’t like pain and confrontation, so we avoid it. You may not believe this, but I know of an entire Christian community that thrives on covetousness and actually steals from one another on a regular basis. I know that though activities are monitored, those “in charge” feel helpless to say anything for fear of hurting someone’s feelings. So they just “love” each other . . . (imposters). Grace comes at a price. This is why Jesus pointed out that the one who is persecuted in His name is blessed.
Peter had a problem. He was wrong. He was so wrong that the Apostle Paul gave him a severe case of “Opposed Face.” What did he do that was so wrong? Well, Peter used to eat and fellowship with Gentile Christians until he was visited by some folks who led him to believe he had to separate himself from them. Paul saw that Peter and others were not walking out the gospel, so he called them out on it (Acts 10 and Galatians 2:11-21). Paul had to remind Peter that it was not keeping the law of God that saved, but the law points out our helplessness. Separating himself from other believers on the grounds of nationality was no argument at all. Jew or Gentile, the law identifies every man a sinner and in need of the finished work of Christ Jesus for justification. Paul simply says that if righteousness comes by the law then the grace of God is void.
Gal 2:20-21. “I have been crucified with Christ, and I live; yet no longer I, but Christ lives in me. And that life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith toward the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself on my behalf. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness is through law, then Christ died without cause.”
Here’s the thing: when we are crucified with Christ, that’s where we end and He continues. God knows more about life than we do. He knows the future and He knows what is best for each of us. Any other addendum tells God that we are dissatisfied with Him and His way in inadequate. If He is indeed the Lord, we should want what He wants above and beyond our own wants, no matter how much it hurts. We cannot be people pleasers and man pleasers at the same time. If we have to let go of prejudices and preconceptions, then we must let go. If we have to cut loose, then by all means, cut loose.
Phillips Brooks wrote, “The soul that takes in Jesus’ word, the soul that through which the words of Jesus enters into the very person of Jesus, the soul that knows him as its daily presence and its daily law—it never hesitates.”
Acts 11:1–18 contains two lessons that jump out at me, the first being, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” God had showed Peter specifically what converting a Gentile is like and nowhere in his own preaching was the keeping of the law for righteousness. Second, go with the Spirit and go without doubt. Go without doubt and there will be no people-pleasing.
This becomes really important when I hear pastors agonize and say, “I’ve put so much time and energy into learning new modern techniques that I don’t think I can do things the biblical way.” I say: consider this conversation.
Romans 6:3-4 “Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father; even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
Those “as many of us” are the red and yellow, black and white. All who are precious in His sight. And we are on level ground. There is no race but “human.” Furthermore, this reinforces that “crucified with Christ”—where I end and He continues. My opinion of others actually reflects back on me and exposes my attitude of the Creator of all men and Savior of the elect.
Christ did not die for the righteous, but for sinners.
So what would I do if I saw or heard someone doing something wrong? I would open the law to tutor them to Christ and repentance. Our responsibility is not to declare men saved, but tell them how to be saved and admonition is continuing the work of gospel declaration.
************
[i] Anderson, J. Kirby. Christian Ethics in Plain Language. Nelson Reference & Electronic: Nashville, 2005
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Undragoned
The third week into his first pastorate was Mother’s Day and his wife, Joyce lay their three children down for a Sunday afternoon nap. One final check in the crib brought such deep concern to Joyce that she called her husband to get his opinion on what he saw. Adrian Rogers quickly and quietly scooped up baby Philip and rushed him to the hospital. Adrian and Joyce Rogers came home empty handed, singing “What a Friend We Have In Jesus.”
The very next week the young pastor was visiting and witnessing to hospital patients. One man asked, “Are you still serving God after what He did to you?” Adrian replied, “Of course I am. Had there been no sin, there would have been no sickness and death. Sin came into the world through Satan. He was the initiator of sin, and Jesus is the only answer. I’m not going to line up with the devil. Satan’s got a bigger enemy than he’s ever had. Jesus is the only answer to sin and suffering.”[i]
Many of us will never know what the Rogers’ experienced that day, but most of us have had or will have the same kind conversation with someone. For their own reasons, people call God into question about so many things. C.S. Lewis wrote a fantastic book called “God in the Dock”, the foremost imagery of the title being that God has been placed on the court’s witness stand for interrogation. Most often, however, the questions of skeptics are not aimed at God but at His servants. I think the man Adrian Rogers was witnessing to was not calling God into question solely, but was examining Adrian in an attempt to see if the true faith can be undermined. Does biblical faith in the Christ Jesus really work?
Years ago I worked for a Jewelry Supply Company, selling precious metals and stones to Native American craftsmen. One distinctive of my company was it’s Christian witness into the community. We maintained a large sign outside whereupon we regularly posted short Bible verses and poignant thoughts. I shared the happy duty of changing the sign every so often.
One day I was outside posting some golden nugget of biblical teaching on our marquee when a customer (really, a tourist who stopped in to see our silver-lined walls and bins full of turquoise and other precious stones in the raw) sashayed over to see what I was doing. I’m not certain I could reproduce any of the conversation here, but I remember distinctly him asking why we posted Bible verses. He would ask questions and I would answer—but he was not searching for a reason to believe. He was more interested in the validity of the faith in light of the television evangelists whose sins were being exposed and dragged into public view. He was interested in how we could continue talking about forgiveness from sin while our readers remained immersed in it.
How does one respond? How can one stand there and talk about Jesus and the love of God and forgiveness of sin while our brethren are love-lacking, complaining, lying, stealing, etc. so forth and so on . . . even sinners know something ain’t right. Then we hem-haw and look down and jingle the change in our pockets and mumble something about “theresomanypeoplewhoknowthetruthandevenpretendtosubscribe toitbutwhoinactualitydonotliveforthegloryofGod” and we secretly hope in our hearts the hearer will not equate “me” with “them.”
Can it be true that there are so many people who really do know the truth and pretend to subscribe to it but who, in actuality, do not live for the glory of God? Is this the same as dismissing it all by saying “each person is held responsible for his or her actions before God?”
The fact of the matter is that many feel they are in a position in their belief system to be able to put God on trial. They are really interested in those who serve God. Their point is to undermine God Himself, to get a consensus that all He says cannot be trusted, and all He does fails. Animosity is not really aimed at the servant but at the Master. But why? Why put God in the dock?
Because what He says is true and what He does actually works. Jesus had enemies because when He came around, people just cannot stay the same—well, they can, they just won’t enjoy who they are as much. Jesus is the pride-humbler, the hypocrisy-pointer, the self-righteousness dethroner. The leaders wanted to be like Him without holding to the fundamentals. They wanted the popularity and the following, but not the principles. To make matters worse, Jesus was called “rabbi” though none of the Sanhedrin remembered handing him the certificate with their stamp of approval—did he ever ask to be called Rabbi? Nobody could remember.
The same attitude is heard today. Jesus is recognized as one of the great religious leaders of the world, but nobody remembers who put Him on the list. The world cannot understand why we mark our calendars by His birth and nobody else’s. Voltaire went the opposite direction, stating that 50 to 100 years after his death Christianity would be dead and the Bible would be obsolete (he died in the late 1700’s). Voltaire was so disgruntled with Christianity he boldly declared in childlike frustration, “I wish I’d never been born!”
But one thing Jesus did do with His words and His works—He claimed deity. Why ask for rabbi-ship when you are God? I mean really! Boy, were the religious leaders upset about this! He claimed to be the Messiah, the Son of God, the Savior of the World! It was one thing for the leaders to want the followship, but ask them if they want to be the Messiah—they would say, “No! I mean, HECK no!” But Jesus had dared to go into the temple, the place where all religious authority dwelt, and cast them out. He humiliated them.
This is why people don’t like Jesus. He humiliates. But they don’t allow Him to exalt. They walk away from Him before He finishes. See, Jesus breaks everything He uses. The world is the opposite, using everything until it breaks—then it goes out and finds another. Ask anyone if they would lay down their life they start to backpedal. But everyone wants to be God—in charge of their own destiny, etc.
Go a step further. Folks don’t want to criticize Jesus. They don’t put Him on the dock to point and yell and gripe about Him. They want to kill Him. They don’t want to see Him just dead. They want Him to stay dead. And He has a hard time doing that.
And He doesn’t stop. Jesus won’t shut up. Once He knows your listening, He gets louder and pointier and the light gets brighter. Oh, He is not your little brother who pokes you to get a rise. He is God and He loves so much He wants change!
Remember Eustace? Eustace was a dragon. Well, not just any dragon. He was really a boy, but he was made into a dragon because he was a nasty boy. He was not always a dragon, and he certainly did not remain one because of the lion.[ii]
Eustace told Edmund, “I was lying awake wondering what on earth would become of me. . .”
“Go on,” said Edmund, with considerable patience.
“Well, anyway, I looked up and saw the very last thing I expected: a huge lion coming slowly toward me. And one queer thing was that there was no moon last night, but there was moonlight where the lion was. So it came nearer and nearer. I was terribly afraid of it. You may think that, being a dragon, I could have knocked any lion out easily enough. But it wasn’t that kind of fear. I wasn’t afraid of it eating me, I was just afraid of it--if you can understand. Well, it came up close to me and looked straight into my eyes. And I shut my eyes tight. But that wasn’t any good because it told me to follow it.
“You mean it spoke?”
“I don’t know. Now that you mention it, I don’t think it did. But it told me all the same. And I knew I’d have to do what it told me, so I got up and followed it. And it led me a long way into the mountains. . . . So at last we came to the top of this mountain I’d never seen before and on the top of this mountain there was a garden . . . In the middle of it there was a well.
“I knew it was a well because you could see the water bubbling up from the bottom of it, but it was lot bigger than most wells—like a very big, round bath with marble steps going down into it. . . . the lion told me I must undress first.
“I was just going to say that I couldn’t undress because I didn’t have any clothes on when I suddenly thought that dragons are snaky sort of things and snakes can cast their skins. Oh, of course, though I, that’s what the lion means. So I started scratching myself and my scales began coming off all over the place. . . . my whole skin started peeling off beautifully, like it does after an illness, or as if I was a banana. . . .
“But as I was going to put my feet into the water I looked down and saw that they were all hard and rough and wrinkled and scaly just as they had been before. . . .
“Then the lion said . . . ‘You will have to let me undress you.’ I was afraid of his claws . . . but I just lay flat down on my back and let him do it.
“The very first tear he made was so deep that I thought it had gone right into my heart. And when he began pulling the skin off, it hurt worse than anything I’d ever felt. . . .
“And there was I as smooth and soft as a peeled switch and smaller than I had been. Then he caught hold of me . . . and threw me into the water. It smarted like anything but only for a moment. . . . after a bit the lion took me out and dressed me . . .”
Undragoned.
*********************************
[i] Rogers, Joyce. Love Worth Finding: The Life of Adrian Rogers and His Philosophy of Preaching. Nashville: Broadman, 2005.
[ii] Lewis, C.S. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. New York: Harper, 1980.
The very next week the young pastor was visiting and witnessing to hospital patients. One man asked, “Are you still serving God after what He did to you?” Adrian replied, “Of course I am. Had there been no sin, there would have been no sickness and death. Sin came into the world through Satan. He was the initiator of sin, and Jesus is the only answer. I’m not going to line up with the devil. Satan’s got a bigger enemy than he’s ever had. Jesus is the only answer to sin and suffering.”[i]
Many of us will never know what the Rogers’ experienced that day, but most of us have had or will have the same kind conversation with someone. For their own reasons, people call God into question about so many things. C.S. Lewis wrote a fantastic book called “God in the Dock”, the foremost imagery of the title being that God has been placed on the court’s witness stand for interrogation. Most often, however, the questions of skeptics are not aimed at God but at His servants. I think the man Adrian Rogers was witnessing to was not calling God into question solely, but was examining Adrian in an attempt to see if the true faith can be undermined. Does biblical faith in the Christ Jesus really work?
Years ago I worked for a Jewelry Supply Company, selling precious metals and stones to Native American craftsmen. One distinctive of my company was it’s Christian witness into the community. We maintained a large sign outside whereupon we regularly posted short Bible verses and poignant thoughts. I shared the happy duty of changing the sign every so often.
One day I was outside posting some golden nugget of biblical teaching on our marquee when a customer (really, a tourist who stopped in to see our silver-lined walls and bins full of turquoise and other precious stones in the raw) sashayed over to see what I was doing. I’m not certain I could reproduce any of the conversation here, but I remember distinctly him asking why we posted Bible verses. He would ask questions and I would answer—but he was not searching for a reason to believe. He was more interested in the validity of the faith in light of the television evangelists whose sins were being exposed and dragged into public view. He was interested in how we could continue talking about forgiveness from sin while our readers remained immersed in it.
How does one respond? How can one stand there and talk about Jesus and the love of God and forgiveness of sin while our brethren are love-lacking, complaining, lying, stealing, etc. so forth and so on . . . even sinners know something ain’t right. Then we hem-haw and look down and jingle the change in our pockets and mumble something about “theresomanypeoplewhoknowthetruthandevenpretendtosubscribe toitbutwhoinactualitydonotliveforthegloryofGod” and we secretly hope in our hearts the hearer will not equate “me” with “them.”
Can it be true that there are so many people who really do know the truth and pretend to subscribe to it but who, in actuality, do not live for the glory of God? Is this the same as dismissing it all by saying “each person is held responsible for his or her actions before God?”
The fact of the matter is that many feel they are in a position in their belief system to be able to put God on trial. They are really interested in those who serve God. Their point is to undermine God Himself, to get a consensus that all He says cannot be trusted, and all He does fails. Animosity is not really aimed at the servant but at the Master. But why? Why put God in the dock?
Because what He says is true and what He does actually works. Jesus had enemies because when He came around, people just cannot stay the same—well, they can, they just won’t enjoy who they are as much. Jesus is the pride-humbler, the hypocrisy-pointer, the self-righteousness dethroner. The leaders wanted to be like Him without holding to the fundamentals. They wanted the popularity and the following, but not the principles. To make matters worse, Jesus was called “rabbi” though none of the Sanhedrin remembered handing him the certificate with their stamp of approval—did he ever ask to be called Rabbi? Nobody could remember.
The same attitude is heard today. Jesus is recognized as one of the great religious leaders of the world, but nobody remembers who put Him on the list. The world cannot understand why we mark our calendars by His birth and nobody else’s. Voltaire went the opposite direction, stating that 50 to 100 years after his death Christianity would be dead and the Bible would be obsolete (he died in the late 1700’s). Voltaire was so disgruntled with Christianity he boldly declared in childlike frustration, “I wish I’d never been born!”
But one thing Jesus did do with His words and His works—He claimed deity. Why ask for rabbi-ship when you are God? I mean really! Boy, were the religious leaders upset about this! He claimed to be the Messiah, the Son of God, the Savior of the World! It was one thing for the leaders to want the followship, but ask them if they want to be the Messiah—they would say, “No! I mean, HECK no!” But Jesus had dared to go into the temple, the place where all religious authority dwelt, and cast them out. He humiliated them.
This is why people don’t like Jesus. He humiliates. But they don’t allow Him to exalt. They walk away from Him before He finishes. See, Jesus breaks everything He uses. The world is the opposite, using everything until it breaks—then it goes out and finds another. Ask anyone if they would lay down their life they start to backpedal. But everyone wants to be God—in charge of their own destiny, etc.
Go a step further. Folks don’t want to criticize Jesus. They don’t put Him on the dock to point and yell and gripe about Him. They want to kill Him. They don’t want to see Him just dead. They want Him to stay dead. And He has a hard time doing that.
And He doesn’t stop. Jesus won’t shut up. Once He knows your listening, He gets louder and pointier and the light gets brighter. Oh, He is not your little brother who pokes you to get a rise. He is God and He loves so much He wants change!
Remember Eustace? Eustace was a dragon. Well, not just any dragon. He was really a boy, but he was made into a dragon because he was a nasty boy. He was not always a dragon, and he certainly did not remain one because of the lion.[ii]
Eustace told Edmund, “I was lying awake wondering what on earth would become of me. . .”
“Go on,” said Edmund, with considerable patience.
“Well, anyway, I looked up and saw the very last thing I expected: a huge lion coming slowly toward me. And one queer thing was that there was no moon last night, but there was moonlight where the lion was. So it came nearer and nearer. I was terribly afraid of it. You may think that, being a dragon, I could have knocked any lion out easily enough. But it wasn’t that kind of fear. I wasn’t afraid of it eating me, I was just afraid of it--if you can understand. Well, it came up close to me and looked straight into my eyes. And I shut my eyes tight. But that wasn’t any good because it told me to follow it.
“You mean it spoke?”
“I don’t know. Now that you mention it, I don’t think it did. But it told me all the same. And I knew I’d have to do what it told me, so I got up and followed it. And it led me a long way into the mountains. . . . So at last we came to the top of this mountain I’d never seen before and on the top of this mountain there was a garden . . . In the middle of it there was a well.
“I knew it was a well because you could see the water bubbling up from the bottom of it, but it was lot bigger than most wells—like a very big, round bath with marble steps going down into it. . . . the lion told me I must undress first.
“I was just going to say that I couldn’t undress because I didn’t have any clothes on when I suddenly thought that dragons are snaky sort of things and snakes can cast their skins. Oh, of course, though I, that’s what the lion means. So I started scratching myself and my scales began coming off all over the place. . . . my whole skin started peeling off beautifully, like it does after an illness, or as if I was a banana. . . .
“But as I was going to put my feet into the water I looked down and saw that they were all hard and rough and wrinkled and scaly just as they had been before. . . .
“Then the lion said . . . ‘You will have to let me undress you.’ I was afraid of his claws . . . but I just lay flat down on my back and let him do it.
“The very first tear he made was so deep that I thought it had gone right into my heart. And when he began pulling the skin off, it hurt worse than anything I’d ever felt. . . .
“And there was I as smooth and soft as a peeled switch and smaller than I had been. Then he caught hold of me . . . and threw me into the water. It smarted like anything but only for a moment. . . . after a bit the lion took me out and dressed me . . .”
Undragoned.
*********************************
[i] Rogers, Joyce. Love Worth Finding: The Life of Adrian Rogers and His Philosophy of Preaching. Nashville: Broadman, 2005.
[ii] Lewis, C.S. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. New York: Harper, 1980.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
