Louder Than Jesus Fish

Jesus and the Sufficiency of Scripture

2008-07-29T12:35:00.002-05:00

I love the Bible. I read it all the time, but I wish I read it more. I make a strong effort to apply it to my life. I know Greek and a little Hebrew. I believe that it is inerrant in its original form (autographs), and that what we have today is a fully trustworthy and reliable representation of those original documents. I also believe that these documents, though written by human hands, were inspired (almost literally "breathed into") by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). I believe that they provide an accurate historical account of the miraculous intervention of God into the world of Men, as well as instruction for Godly living.

Simply put, the Christian doctrine of the Sufficiency of Scripture says that the Bible provides all that we need for the Christian life. It gives us the story of Jesus-- his life, death and resurrection. It tells us how to live our lives as believers, even tackling some specific and difficult issues. Many go a step further and claim that Scripture is all that is really needed to bring a person to Christ (No fancy presentation, exposition, application, interpretation, etc.). Not to put too fine a point on it, the Sufficiency of Scripture (Sola Scriptura, as the Reformers called it) means that Scripture alone is the authority in matters of doctrine and faith (as opposed to the church or a Man, say, the Pope, for instance).

The point that I am going to make here is that we have forgotten one of the other Solas of the Reformation: Solus Christus.

To be precise, Solus Christus (Christ Alone) claims that we are saved by Christ alone, and there is no other mediator between Man and God. And, although I'm sure it was never anyone's intent, this has become the only place for Jesus in the Church. He is our Savior and Mediator, but He has no place in our regular lives.

Why is that?

I think that the problem is that the Bible has taken the place of Jesus in our lives. As a minister, I am constantly encouraging my students to get into the Bible every day. I do it myself (most of the time). How often do I say, "Spend time with *Jesus* every day"? Not very often.

In The Present Future, Reggie McNeal says, "The church is print reliant. The Bible has become for the modern church the supreme manifestation of the Word of God (not Christ) because it is "objective" truth (a modern distinction). It became the fourth member of the Trinity." [the parenthetical comments are McNeal's] It took me a few days to unpack this statement. One of the overall points of the book is that we have gotten so good at "doing church" that we no longer need Jesus to show up. I think that he is saying that we don't need Jesus in our lives anymore because we have a book (that is the "Word of God") to replace that relationship. Do you think Jesus would rather have us turn to a Book -even if it is His Book- instead of coming to Him personally? Is Jesus allowed to speak outside of the printed page?

I already know what you're thinking. It's the same thing that I struggle with all of the time: "If we abandon the Bible, how can we know if what we are "thinking" or "feeling" is really from Jesus?" I share this concern. I'll be the first one to tell you that the human heart is easily led astray by the myriad of distractions and influences around it. However, hear this: I'm not suggesting we abandon the Bible. I just think that we need to keep it in its place.

The Bible has hijacked the place of Jesus in our lives because it is easier to just skip the Jesus step and go straight to the Book. This, I think, is why McNeal said, "It has become the fourth member of the Trinity." We are print reliant and not Jesus reliant. We think that the Word of God is a Book and not a Person. If you asked the Apostle John to describe the Word of God what would he say? "A collection of 66 Books"? No way. He would say, "The Word was God and the Word was with God. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. (See John 1:1-14)" John would describe a person: Jesus, the Christ.

Going back to the original definition of the Sufficiency of Scripture, the Bible is an authority. It is a guide. It is a standard. I wholeheartedly believe that anything we think Jesus is saying to us will align (and therefore, not conflict) with what the Bible already says (because the Bible is from Jesus anyway, right?). The Bible truly has been given to us for this purpose. This is the traditional, orthodox belief on the Bible.

I'm saying that what we should first go to Jesus and listen to His instruction in any given situation, and *then* consult the Bible to authenticate the instruction we think we've heard. In fact, you probably hear this in Sunday School all the time, but have never thought long and hard about what it means. This means that we have to spend time with Jesus, not just time in "prayer and Bible study." We have to ask him about things, and then we have to listen, and if you've ever tried it, that's a lot harder than it sounds.

In conclusion, please allow me to clarify what I have said. I believe the Bible is the word of God (I may even believe it more than you do). However, we should not let it take the place of Jesus in our lives. It is an easy thing to do.

...the scribe tells us what he has read, and the prophet tells us what he has seen. The distinction is not an imaginary one. Between the scribe who has read and the prophet who has seen, there is a difference as wide as the sea. We are today overrun with orthodox scribes; but the prophets, where are they? The hard voice of the scribe sounds over evangelicalism, but the Church waits for the tender voice of the saint who has penetrated the veil and has gazed with inward eye upon the Wonder that is God.A.W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God

Some other things to think about regarding the Bible:

-What did Jesus have in mind when he talked about "the word" in, Matt 4:4; 13:18-23, 24:35, Mark 4:33; 13:31; Luke 3:2; 5:1; 6:47; 11:28; etc.?

-Furthermore, what was the author's concept of "the word" when they wrote the following passages: Romans 10:17; Galatians 6:6; Ephesians 6:17; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; Hebrews 4:12; 1 Peter 1:23, 1 John 2:14; Revelation 19:13. (Keep in mind that they didn't have a print copy of what we now call the Bible at that time.)

-Finally, what was Paul referencing when he said, "All scripture is god-breathed... What was Scripture at that time, when the Bible (as we know it) was still being written?

Links to consider:

9Marks: "Sufficiency of Scripture"
Piper: "Thoughts on the Sufficiency of Scripture: What it Does and Doesn't Mean"

Mission Trip

2008-07-11T06:06:00.008-05:00

I'll be out until July 21 on our Mission Trip to East Saint Louis, IL. In the meantime, enjoy these missions-related links:

The Washington Post has an article about churches Rethinking Missions, specifically what has come to be known as "voluntourism." [HT to MMI.]

Tim Schmoyer has confessed what he calls "Mistakes I Made on Our Summer Missions Trip" in which he reminds us of our priorities when on mission.

The book that started it all (or at least the modern missions movement): An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens in which the Religious State of the Different Nations of the World, the Success of Former Undertakings, and the Practicability of Further Undertakings, are Considered.

...or simply Willam Carey's Enquiry.

"East Saint Louis Toodle-oo" by Duke Ellington

Savage Inequalities

Praying for Gas Prices

2008-07-09T08:28:00.005-05:00

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

[Source]

Rocky Twyman has a radical solution for surging gasoline prices: prayer.

Twyman - a community organizer, church choir director and public relations consultant from the Washington, D.C., suburbs - staged a pray-in at a San Francisco Chevron station on Friday, asking God for cheaper gas. He did the same thing in the nation's Capitol on Wednesday, with volunteers from a soup kitchen joining in. Today he will lead members of an Oakland church in prayer.SF Chronicle

HT to Purgatorio

Thinking Through Al Mohler and Archaeology

2008-07-08T10:47:00.001-05:00

Today Al Mohler wrote about George Washington's boyhood home, Gabriel's Revelation and Archaeology.

...Christians are too often overly excited about the latest "discovery" that gains media attention -- either in elation or travail. Archaeology is an important scholarly discipline, but it is not immune from ideology and many of the conclusions and arguments announced to the public are actually not at all what they first appear to be. Furthermore, archaeology is largely a matter of historical reconstruction, often with little actual evidence. As a rule, the more distant the time, the more difficult the reconstruction. That makes sense, of course, as time destroys both evidence and the preservation of memory.What Should We Think About Archaeology and the Bible?

I'm not sure I agree with Mohler's conclusion, however:

Authentic Christianity is based upon the inscripturated revelation of God -- the Bible -- as our authority. In the end, archaeology cannot prove or disprove the biblical text. Nothing can be found, or not found, that should shake our faith in the total truthfulness and trustworthiness of the Word of God. Archaeology can expand our knowledge and understanding, but cannot establish the authority for our faith.

I love Al Mohler, but I'm either missing his point, or he's using some strange logic. By saying "Nothing can be found, or not found that should shake our faith in the total truthfulness and trustworthiness of the Word of God" is he assuming that the Bible is true a priori, without considering any outside evidence as to its accuracy? Is he assuming the Bible is true, regardless as to what evidence can be found against it?

Don't misunderstand me here, I'm an Biblical Inerrantist (and so is Mohler). I trust it totally, but that's because it stands up to intense and constant scrutiny. If there was compelling "archaeological" evidence to show that it was a fake (say, if there was a security tape from one of the Councils of Nicea, showing church leaders making it up), I'd have to toss it out and find faith elsewhere. My faith in God comes from my trust in the Bible, not the other way around. (Mohler agrees when he says: "Authentic Christianity is based upon the inscripturated revelation of God -- the Bible -- as our authority.") Without the Bible, we have no record of God's words, and that would make all teachings about Him potentially subjective, and therefore unreliable.

Perhaps Mohler is arguing something along the lines of Spurgeon, speaking on our efforts to defend the Bible:

"How are we to defend the Bible?" Spurgeon was once asked. The great Nonconformist preacher, with a true spiritual insight and a shrewd common sense sometimes lacking in profounder theologians and more versatile scholars, answered, "How would you defend a lion? Open his cage and leave him to defend himself!"Source

Perhaps Mohler's point is that it is improbable that any single archaeological find will ever totally prove or disprove the entire Bible. Furthermore, we, as Christians do not have to defend it, it can defend itself. To paraphrase Voddie Baucham, we don't have to defend the Bible, but we need to be prepared to defend our belief in it. I think that is the distinction that needs to be made here.

Do you agree with Mohler's conclusion? Am I way off base here?

Does it Matter if the Resurrection was an Original Idea?

2008-07-07T15:06:00.001-05:00

[Image Source]

Following in the footsteps of James Cameron's Jesus Tomb, Gabriel's Revelation, an "ink on stone document" that shows some literary links to the Dead Sea Scrolls, is causing a stir in the archaeological community over the Bible's theological roots.

Now, I have no reservations that this is a genuine artifact. I'm concerned that so many sources seem to anticipate that this will cause problems for Christianity, as the stone may contain an allusion to "living" in three days, written in a time that probably pre-dates Jesus and the writers of the Bible.

But what may make the Gabriel tablet unique is its 80th line, which begins with the words "In three days" and includes some form of the verb "to live." Israel Knohl, an expert in Talmudic and biblical language at Jerusalem's Hebrew University who was not involved in the first research on the artifact, claims that it refers to a historic 1st-century Jewish rebel named Simon who was killed by the Romans in 4 B.C., and should read "In three days, you shall live. I Gabriel command you." If so, Jesus-era Judaism had begun to explore the idea of a three-day resurrection before Jesus was born.

This, in turn, undermines one of the strongest literary arguments employed by Christians over centuries to support the historicity of the Resurrection (in which they believe on faith): the specificity and novelty of the idea that the Messiah would die on a Friday and rise on a Sunday. Who could make such stuff up?Time: Was Jesus' Resurrection a Sequel?

I'm sorry. Did you say "novelty"?

I'm not familiar with the argument that claims the Resurrection is true because it was an original idea. I don't see the logic in that. Frankly, I don't think that argument would be very convincing, let alone one of the "strongest" that Christians have to offer.

Furthermore, think that Israel Knohl's interpretation is sketchy at best. All he has to go on is "...some form of the verb 'to live'"? This is hardly Time-worthy scholarship.

The related NY Times article uses similarly ominous language, as though the very foundations of Christianity will be shaken by this [possible] interpretation:

If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time.NYT: Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Here's a bit on Knohl's personality and past work (also from NYT, emphasis added):

...Israel Knohl, an iconoclastic professor of Bible studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem...posited in a book published in 2000 the idea of a suffering messiah before Jesus, using a variety of rabbinic and early apocalyptic literature as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls. But his theory did not shake the world of Christology as he had hoped, partly because he had no textual evidence from before Jesus.

Let's stop for a moment to recap: A scholar seeking to "shake up" views on Christianity (this is mentioned more than once in the NYT article) finds a barely-legible text, and interprets it in a manner that would shake up Christianity. Is anyone surprised? I'm not.

However, I am surprised by the amount of attention this is getting in the media. Look again at the headline: "Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection." One scholar and a faded, smudged text. Newsworthy? Only if it involves doubting the Messiahship of Jesus.

To go a little deeper, let us assume the Dr. Knohl's interpretation is correct, and that the idea of a third-day resurrection existed before Jesus' death. Does that instantly make it untrue? Does it necessarily follow that the disciples used this theology to invent a resurrection story? Hardly.

It may be argued that the Old Testament already holds this theology. Isaiah 53:10-11 references a resurrection, as well as Psalm 16:10 (which could also imply a three-day death), additionally Jesus mentions Jonah's three day ride in the belly of a great fish, which could also hint at Old Testament texts influencing Resurrection theology.

And even if Knohl is right, all this "Revelation" will do is prove to further connect Jewish and Christian beliefs, which should be intimately intertwined, as Christianity sprouts from Judaism, and Judaism finds its completion in Christianity.

Here are a few brief reasons why I trust that the resurrection accounts are true. And, just to be "fair" to those who don't believe it, I'm leaving out mounds of evidence from within the Biblical text itself:

If he was dead, Jesus' grave would've stopped the excitement.
- Opponents would only have to point to Jesus' grave to discredit his Disciples
- Christianity exploded in Jerusalem immediately following Jesus' Resurrection. This was the town where he should have been buried

Jesus' Disciples were changed, and even gave their lives because they witnessed the Resurrection.

The New Testament was written and circulated during the time when witnesses to his death could have spoken out against them. Why weren't claims of Resurrection thrown out as lies?

Links of Interest:

Original Article in Biblical Archaeology Review

Text Translated into English

Reason vs Faith?

2008-07-07T11:53:00.000-05:00

Oh my goodness.

Source

Using Secular Music in Chruch

2008-07-07T08:31:00.001-05:00

There is such a fine line between being "in the world" but not "of it." I think I understand the motivation behind NewSpring's use of Beyonce's Crazy in Love in their worship service this weekend. They want to reach the world by using its language and culture. Even Paul did this in Acts 17 at the Areopagus. Paul quotes two "secular" poets and uses their words to point the Greeks to Jesus.

The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for "'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, "'For we are indeed his offspring.'"Acts 17:24-28

In this speech, Paul quotes what is probably Epimenides of Crete and Aratus’s poem “Phainomena” in order to make a connection with the Greeks. Is using Beyonce the same thing today?

Another question that we must answer lies in the place where the material is used. Paul was on the World's "turf." He was on Mars Hill, a place of philosophical discussion and debate, not in a church or even a synagogue (if there was a line between the two in Paul's day). If it can be appropriate to use secular music/lyrics to connect with non-Christians, is it also appropriate to use it in a worship service?

Here's the video. What do you think?

HT to Slice of Laodicea for the link.

On Patriotism

2008-07-04T17:00:00.000-05:00

[This is actually a comment I left over at Purgatorio a couple of years ago, while I was still in the Army. It speaks about Patriotism in relation to my faith in Jesus Christ.]

I am an American soldier, sworn, willing and able to protect the constitution of the United States with my own life. However, my allegiance is first and foremost to the Kingdom of God.

I love America, with all of her imperfections (to put it mildly!). I enjoy freedom of religion, although I believe that it makes many Christians fat and lazy. I have the ability to teach my family about our God without fear of what would happen to them because of it. I have the opportunity to worship Him freely (although the places where I may do so are shrinking). This is why I love America.

However, I love my God so much more. He has given me a freedom that cannot be taken away by the will of Men. He has set me free from the punishment that I so shamefully deserve. How much more precious is that, over some man-given freedom to attend church!

I thank God for America, the land where I worhsip freely, but I praise Him so much more for giving me the reason to worship!

I am a Patriot, and a Christian, but I take care not to mix the two.

Happy Birthday, America!

Friday Video: Screaming Pastor

2008-07-04T10:00:00.000-05:00

HT to MMI.

Created or... What?

2008-07-03T12:00:00.000-05:00

Cectic.com

This is a common argument against Intelligent Design: "If complexity necessitates a creator, wouldn't our creator need a creator?" Or, to put it another way, if God made the world, then who made God? While this seems to make Creationism untenable, I do not find this argument compelling once one examines the alternatives.

Two Alternatives:

1. The universe came from nothing. Assuming that everything has a cause, or everything that exists was created by something else, this is ridiculous. This viewpoint would say that everything was caused by something, until you get to the beginning of the universe, then... what? Regardless of how one may try to explain it away, the logical terminus of this naturalistic viewpoint is that the universe popped out of nothing. How's that for a miracle?

2. The universe created itself. Very similar argument, very similar response. Nothing can create itself, as it would have to exist before it could create itself. This just doesn't make sense. (Kinda mind-numbing, isn't it?)

I argue that the universe was created by something outside of itself (for instance, God). As the cartoon above shows, this does sound incredible, but when you consider the other options, it actually makes more sense to assume that something beyond our natural system (super-natural, perhaps?), made the universe to exist. If so, it is also possible for this being to be self-existent, needing no cause for itself (a first cause, or uncaused cause).

Now, this is not proof positive, I'll give you that, but look at the alternatives. Which is more ridiculous?

More info at Wikipedia: Cosmological Argument.

...Thank God for Charles Darwin?

2008-07-02T08:49:00.004-05:00

"Evolutionary evangelist" Michael Dowd, released an article yesterday to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Darwinian Evolution. The article, entitled "Why I Thank God for Charles Darwin," explains what evangelicals would call Dowd's "testimony," or story, of how his life has been changed... by accepting both Christ and evolution.

Dowd makes some very interesting claims in his article. Here are a couple:

...It is obvious to me now that God didn’t stop revealing truth vital to human wellbeing back when people believed the world was flat and religious insights were recorded on animal skins. God is still communicating faithfully today, publicly, through the worldwide, self-correcting scientific enterprise. I now see science as revelatory and facts as God’s native tongue.

...No longer do I fear that my family and friends will suffer for eternity in the fires of an otherworldly hell. No longer am I led astray by my instincts—my unchosen nature. And no longer do I find it difficult to live in integrity and know the peace that passes all understanding.

I found it interesting that Dowd thought the reason behind the Christian aversion to evolution was a moral one. ("it would seduce me away from godly living" --I'm not sure I see the logic in that, but that's what he said... or was told) I don't think that is the main problem that Christianity has with evolution.

Dowd (and most others who claim to accept both Christianity and Evolution) is missing an important point: if Darwinian Evolution is true, the Bible is not, so we can know nothing about Jesus with any degree of certainty, therefore Christianity is truly as baseless as its opponents claim.

Here's what I mean: In Mark 10:6-7 Jesus directly references Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, and it is easily inferred that he believed that humans existed from the beginning of the world. Jesus believed in a young Earth, and even if one may argue that he didn't, Jesus certainly never tried to correct the "false teachings" from the opening chapters of Genesis.

If the world was created through evolution (either Darwinian or Theistic), the Christian is faced with one of two major problems: 1. Jesus was either mistaken or a liar, or 2. The Bible did not correctly record his statements. If option 1 is true, then Jesus certainly was not the Son of God, as how could Deity who was supposedly present at Creation (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16) be mistaken about how the creation occurred?

If option 2 is true, then we can know nothing about Jesus with any degree of certainty. For instance, if this account in the Bible is wrong, how can we know that the account of the resurrection isn't wrong as well?

Everything that Christianity has to offer hinges on the Bible's veracity. If it is inaccurate, then it is not even good enough to be called a good 'spiritual' book, or even a piece of literature (as it would then be fiction that tries to present itself as truth).

As convenient as it may be to try to find a way to reconcile the two, evolution and Christianity are incompatible.

If you'd like more information on Dowd, you can visit his website. I've also found this video. You may find InternetMonk's review of his book helpful as well.

Christian Guy Totally Owns Mormons

2008-07-01T18:00:00.001-05:00

That's not my title. It's the title of this video from Break.com

Christian Guy Totally Owns Mormons
As Christians, should apologetics be about "owning" our opponent, or sharing the Truth in love? Did this guy go too far, or was he justified in his defense of the Bible?

How to Show that Evolution and Naturalism are Incompatible

2008-07-01T11:42:00.005-05:00

Alvin Plantinga, the John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame, has developed a very keen argument to show that Evolution and Naturalism are incompatible. I like this argument because it deals with Evolution head-on.

The Veritas Forum has the full lecture to download as either a video or MP3.

Plantinga defines:
N as naturalism
E as the belief that we human beings have evolved in conformity with current evolutionary doctrine
R as the proposition that our faculties are "reliable", where, roughly, a cognitive faculty is "reliable" if the great bulk of its deliverances are true. He specifically cites a thermometer stuck at 72 degrees placed in an environment which happened to be at 72 degrees as an example of something that is not "reliable" in this sense and suggests that the conditional probability of R given N and E, or P(R/N&E), is low.
Wikipedia: EAAN

The following is a very, very, basic breakdown, put in layman's terms. Forgive me if I'm not technical enough on some of the deeper portions of this argument. This isn't intended to be a defense of Plantinga's argument, it's just a simple presentation of the argument's basic points.

1. What is Naturalism?
2. What is Evolution?
3. What's the problem?

Naturalism simply put, is the assumption that there is no supernatural; the universe is a closed system, and only natural "laws" apply. There are no ghosts, no miracles, no unicorns, no Flying Spaghetti Monster, and no God. In many ways (in fact, in most circumstances) this can be a helpful assumption. This is how man has developed medicines, by assuming that diseases were caused by something natural instead of evil spirits, for instance.

Naturalism depends upon observation and the brain's ability to correctly interpret what it observes. This is why it is so "rational." The Naturalist only believes what he/she can see. If you can't see it, then it doesn't exist. (Of course, this is an extremely simplified explanation of this matter)

Evolution is a part of Naturalism. If there is no God or Flying Spaghetti Monster to create the world, then it must have come from, well, nothing, and evolution explains how that occurred.

The driving force behind evolutionary change is reproduction. Plantinga goes into the details of this in his lecture. Simply put, everything an organism develops is ultimately for procreation, spreading its genetic code.

If evolution is true, then our ability to observe and interpret the world around us is most likely unreliable. If the mind of man has evolved as an engine to get us to procreate, then it probably isn't very good at discovering things like "what is true." And, if it's not reliable for that purpose, how then can it say with any certainty that something like evolution is true?

Naturalism says that Evolution is true, but Evolution in turn, says that we can't trust our ability to be "rational." Then, if we can't trust our ability to be rational, how then can we know that Evolution is true in the first place? See how crazy this cycle becomes?

What are your thoughts on this? Before you respond, I highly recommend listening to Plantinga's presentation of this. I know that this is an over-simplified version of the argument, and frankly, I don't want to spend the next week listening to how flawed my argument is when you can hear the expert for yourself.

New Gospel Presentation: Four Circles

2008-06-30T08:52:00.004-05:00

Christianity Today is featuring the story of James Choung, an MIT grad that works with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, who has come up with a different way to share the Gospel. Now, don't throw it out just because it's new. The Four Spiritual Laws were new once, you know? I don't get the impression that Choung is trying to change the Gospel, just the way the message is presented.

As I'm drawing the four circles, I'll tell a story like this: The world, our relationships, and each of us were designed for good, but all of it was damaged by evil because of our self-centeredness and inclination to seek our own good above others'. But God loved the world too much to leave it that way, so he came as Jesus. He took everything evil with him to death on the cross, and through his resurrection, all of it was restored for better. In the end of time, all will be fully restored, but until then, the followers of Jesus are sent together to heal people, relationships, and the systems of the world.

Choung's presentation, called "The Big Story," is designed to tell the Gospel story to Generation Y, a group that IMHO, Christianity has had a very difficult time understanding, let alone reaching (the business industry appears to be having the same problems)... but that is a different issue.

The main focus of the presentation is fixing the world. Choung says: "The overriding spiritual question today is: What is good? What will really help the planet be a better place? And our faith better have an answer for it to be relevant today." Choung's response to the world's problems is the Kingdom of God. This theme is the focus of the presentation, turning away from traditional methods seeking a decision, and seeking "transformation," as Choung calls it.

When watching the video of the presentation (see below), I was instantly concerned with the lack of Scriptural support and the familiar twinge of "felt needs" evangelism, seeking to bend the Gospel to fix whatever needs a person has (for instance, presenting the Gospel to the alcoholic as a way to break addiction); it seems man-centered, but in a new way.

'No, you can't do this without Jesus. We need Jesus to help us become the kind of good we want to see in the world. Only he can fully help us put to death our self-centered ways so that we can truly live. So if you really want to be a part of healing the world in a way that lasts, you have to go through Jesus.'

It is although Choung is saying, "You don't like the world, then change it! But you need to have Jesus before you can do it," as though Jesus is merely a means to an end. This looks like a sad Gospel presentation indeed.

However, I don't think that is Choung's intent. Choung seems to be searching for a way to explain Christianity, and even to raise questions in the mind of the lost, but, as stated before, without seeking a "decision" for Christ. This may not be a true Gospel presentation, but rather, a simple an overview of Christ's mission. There's nothing about praying a prayer, and there isn't much information about how to "receive" Christ. This is just a starting point for a conversation about the Gospel. In the article, he mentions that "Icons and stained glass windows helped preliterate Christians understand biblical stories and themes." This alludes to the purpose behind his Four Circles.

If I am understanding Choung's purpose, then this would be a great conversation-starter. I think that it would appeal to Millenials. It has a positive, inviting tenor, all while maintaining that Jesus is the only way to God-- a very difficult thing to pull off in our relativistic culture. Additionally, this presentation seems well-suited for explaining Christ's mission to a person totally unfamiliar with Christianity, as is the case as America moves further into its Post-Christian days.

I commend Choung for his effort to put the Gospel into the language of a new generation. This something that desperately needs to be done. Reading his interview and his blog, his desire to share the story of Christ is both fervent and admirable. However, he needs to be more explicit about the use of this diagram. Is it a converstion starter, or is it intended to be a Gospel presentation? If used inappropriately, this could lead to another generation misled about the purpose of God in this world.

What are your thoughts? Check out the article and this video, and let me know what you think:

You may also want to watch Part 2.

High IQ Equals Atheism?

2008-06-27T15:00:00.001-05:00

In a forthcoming paper for the journal Intelligence, Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, will argue that there is a strong correlation between high IQ and lack of religious belief and that average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 countries.

The paper...cites studies including a 1990s survey that found that only 7 per cent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God. A survey of fellows of the Royal Society found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God at a time when a poll reported that 68.5 per cent of the general UK population were believers.

Professor Lynn told Times Higher Education: "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God."Times Higher Education

This may seem threatening enough, but do you see the flaws in Lynn's argument already?

Andy Wells, senior lecturer in psychology at the London School of Economics, said the existence of a correlation between IQ and religiosity did not mean there was a causal relationship between the two.

So, what is a "casual relationship"? It means that just because both numbers seem to match, there is nothing that proves that higher intelligence causes lack of faith. Here is a diagram that illustrates another seeming correlation but no causal relationship (click for larger):

This is disappointing scholarship. I'm shocked that a person could get any press or even an audience to present this kind of work. I don't think I could get away with it in my current Master's program. Lynn is jumping to conclusions based on simple data without any investigation as to the cause of these trends.

Of course, this totally ignores the poor logic that Lynn uses, see the third quoted paragraph above. He equates an "academic" with "higher intelligence."

At this point, Lynn's conclusions are simple conjecture. He would need to do some significant studies to find some correlation between "higher IQ" and agnosticism/atheism.

Friday Video: Evangelism Linebacker

2008-06-27T07:00:00.001-05:00

This is a little old, but I still laugh so hard I cry when I watch it.

Colson: Greenhouse Pigs Must Die

2008-06-26T21:34:00.004-05:00

Chuck Colson has a great article about the results of the "misanthropic [use that word sometime this week!] worldview of the environmental movement."

He writes about an online game for kids that shows them how much their lifestyle impacts the environment. However, it shows how long you should have lived according to the rate at which you consume environmental resources. If you exceed the amount allowed, it shows you the age that "you should die at."

Is it worth killing humans if it means saving the planet? If you follow a naturalistic worldview to its logical conclusion, yes. And this game subtly shows us this.

Colson's article is quick and to-the-point. It only takes a few seconds to read, then you should check out that crazy game

Using the Bible to Prove God is not [always] Circular Reasoning

2008-06-26T15:35:00.011-05:00

Let me begin by saying that more often than not, the Bible is used in a circular argument. But what is circular reasoning? It is a logical fallacy in which the original premise is assumed true, and it therefore provides no evidence for its conclusion. Thus: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."* Sometimes this can be called “begging the question.”

Common boneheaded example:
Q1: Is there a God?
A1: Yes.
Q2: How do you know?
A2: Because the Bible says so.
Q3: How do you know the Bible is correct?
A3: Because it was inspired by God.
From “How Thinking Goes Wrong”

I hope that this argument seems silly to you. Can you see how the next logical question is to start over again with “Is there a God?” This could go on forever. Yet, I hear this kind of argument all the time. So do many non-Christians, specifically atheists and agnostics. And people have seen this so many times that if you even begin a conversation about the existence of God with the reason that the Bible says so, instantly the other person in your conversation will plug his ears and begin screaming, “Circular Reasoning! Circular Reasoning!”

The trouble with this (besides making a person burst out screaming in a public place) is twofold: 1.) The person screaming is using a term from logic, and that makes them look smarter than you, whether they are or not, and 2.) The circle in the circular reasoning hasn’t quite been completed yet. They may think you are begging the question, when in fact, they are jumping to conclusions.

Here’s what I mean: They haven’t asked Question 3 yet (How do you know the Bible is correct?), and you haven't had a chance to respond. This is where things get interesting, and this is where we Christians need to understand what we believe. (By the way, if you don’t know why the Bible is reliable, can you really say that you trust the Bible?) For, if your response to Question 3 is nothing more than Answer 3, you have nothing to offer neither yourself nor the person to whom you speak.

I’ve been working my way through Voddie Baucham’s The Ever-Loving Truth, a book about engaging post-Christian culture. Additionally, I’ve found some of his stuff on YouTube, and I like his approach. Here’s what he says about the Bible:

[The Bible is…] a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses that report supernatural events which took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim to be divine, rather than human in origin.

I like that he points out the Bible is made up of “historical documents.” It is not merely a silly “spiritual” book. It includes accounts of actual events, documented by lots of people (not just one person).

My argument here is that if one can prove that the Bible is a reliable source of historical fact, then one has a good start on proving that the Bible is a reliable source of information on the existence of God.

Now, one common counter to this kind of claim is that there is no “scientific proof” that the Bible is true. Let me just let Baucham speak for himself on this one.

Seriously, go check out that link. The original poster disabled embedding, so I can't post it here. Just be sure to come back.

Here’s the main point: the Scientific Method cannot prove anything unless it is observable, measurable, and repeatable (this is part of the problem I have with all of the certainty about evolution, but that’s another post for another day). The past is “proven” through the Evidentiary Method which requires internal consistency, corroboration, and reliability. Baucham’s argument is that the Bible meets these three requirements far better than any other historical documents from that time period.

I would like to add that this is not a new, groundbreaking argument. It is very similar to things I have seen from Josh McDowell and Hank Hanegraaf. But the reason why it is used often is because it makes the point very well. Baucham simply clarifies the difference between the Scientific and Evidentiary Methods.

Conclusion: The Bible can be used to support the argument of the existence of God, but its reliability must be proven first, and that cannot be done by the scientific method, but rather by evidentiary means (which are just as “rational”). Furthermore, the Bible stands up to this test quite solidly.

Here’s the playlist of his entire message, just in case you’d like to hear the whole thing.

Ministry Idea - Cardboard Testimonies

2008-06-25T15:20:00.002-05:00

Hillside Christian Church in Amarillo has posted a video on GodTube with a powerful way to share testimonies in your worship service. I like this because of its simplicity. The message of each person's life is shown in a quick, vivid way. Have you ever tried anything like this?

How To be Ineffective in Ministry

2008-06-24T08:00:00.017-05:00

If there's one thing I know, it's how not to do something. Now, I've been in ministry for around 10 years now, and one thing I've learned is that I'm no expert, but I have come up with a few tried-and-true methods on how not to be effective in ministry.

Here's the List:

6. Base Your Ministry on Programs
5. Stop Growing
4. Stop Caring About People
3. Fail In Your Personal Life
2. Forget What is Really Important.
1. Stay Away From Jesus

6. Base Your Ministry on Programs
Programs are the framework around which we structure ministry. And, to paraphrase A. W. Tozer, without the working of the Holy Spirit programs can be a great way to prop up a spiritually dead ministry. In fact, if you find a meeting format that really works, you can turn it into an automated ministry machine, simply change the scripture reading each week.

Another thing you can try is to change your programs with every new ministry fad. Surely if it worked in Southern California, it will work in your [Midwestern/Northeastern/Southern] congregation. And, if that doesn't work for you, try something else- quick. I'm sure you can find a large selection of books on this topic at your local (or online) Christian Book store.

5. Stop Growing
I've found that one of the best ways to be effective is to share what you are learning and going through with your congregation. Ergo, if one stops growing they can certainly suck the life out of their ministry with little or no effort.

This is a great method for the person who has already figured out the answer to life, the universe, and everything. Be a know-it-all. Don't read books. Refuse to accept challenges to your theology or methods. In fact, you may even want to avoid other ministers from whom you can learn.

4. Stop Caring About People
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that you should be mean to people. That would be way too overt. Just stop caring about them. Avoid conversation. Don't pray for your people. Be sure that you only handle crises that occur during business hours. Even better, stay hidden in your office all week long- don't even go out in public where you may accidentally have a soul-bearing conversation with another person.

3. Fail In Your Personal Life
Nothing can invalidate years of ministry faster than personal failure. I have several friends that turned away from Jesus because our ex-youth minister literally left his wife and kids for a church organist. How's that for ineffectiveness?

Burn out by doing it all yourself. Never delegate. Sexual failure is easy if you have unhealthy relationships with the opposite sex. Ruin your home life by neglecting your family and working too many hours. Get caught with your hand in the cookie jar; steal money from the church. Of course, the easiest way to wander into these traps is to avoid accountability.

2. Forget What is Really Important.
This works for both workaholics and lazy ministers. Find something else to do. For the busybody, find something else "good" to do, like have a Christian Blog (wait a minute...), or take on someone else's ministry responsibilities. Start a new project. Make lots of phone calls. John Piper calls these things "sacred substitutes."

For the ministers who need help with GTD, play on the internet all day. Get a Facebook or MySpace account. Try Homestarrunner.com or YouTube. Find a hobby and work on it during your office hours. Read the paper. The most important thing you can do is to lose sight of the most important thing you can do.

1. Stay Away From Jesus
Far and away, this is the best way to not be effective in ministry. If you neglect daily prayer and Bible study, you most assuredly fail in every spiritual endeavor that you pursue. Why? Well, because our relationship with Jesus is what it is all about, right? It is the source of all direction and passion in our ministry. If you cut that out, what is left, besides a lifetime of work without heart or purpose. Is there any better way to define "ineffective"?

Conclusion
While I'm sure that this is no exhaustive list, I think that there is a lot that I have learned through making (most of) these mistakes. I hope that you can see through the dripping sarcasm and find some truths you can use.

How does your ministry measure up? Are you already following any of these methods? What have I forgotten to mention?

Intriguing New Tool - Wordle

2008-06-23T19:28:00.013-05:00

This is the entire text of 1 John entered into Wordle, a tool that generates word clouds based on the number of occurrences of each word in a block of text. [Click for larger image ]

This could possibly give some interesting results by visually displaying the importance of words based upon the author's frequency of use. As you can see (if you click on the pic above), besides the word "God," John uses the word "know" even more frequently than "love" in his first epistle. This visually (and therefore, quickly) underlines the purpose of John's letter: "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life." John was combating the lies of the false teachers by giving assurance and knowledge.

I need to check if Wordle works with the ancient Greek text. Give it a shot with the text you are working on and let me know what you find.

Calvinism: So Easy a Caveman can do it

2008-06-23T16:51:00.004-05:00

Plush Plagues

2008-06-23T10:29:00.003-05:00

Keep this in mind for Passover season next year:

Keeps the kids entertained during Passover. This plush yellow plagues bag contains representations for all of the plagues...The frog, lice, cow and locust wriggle and roll their eyes, quiver, buzz and move when you pull their string.[Judaism.com]

Christianity and Stephen Colbert

2008-06-21T05:07:00.002-05:00

Watch these two videos and notice how aggressive the host and crowd are during Tony Perkins' interview on Homosexuality versus NT Wright's book about Heaven. What does this say about the concerns/priorities/questions that our society has?

For Ben

2008-06-20T17:05:00.005-05:00

I stumbled upon this pic today, and I just had to share.

Friday Video: 'Pissing' Against the Wall

2008-06-20T16:10:00.005-05:00

I came across this a few weeks ago, and I just thought I share this insightful sermon...

You know, I've checked out Steven Anderson's website and a few of his videos on YouTube, and I have to admit that although I disagree with this man's overall theology and praxis on so many levels (it is at some points ridiculous), I think like him. Granted, there are some ways that the man couldn't be more wrong, but Anderson is definitely dedicated to preaching the Gospel. In fact, I don't think that he would like neither me nor my theology at all, but I would be proud to call him my brother in Christ. He's definitely a King James-Only Independent Fundamentalist, but he is working hard at his role as an Evangelist and Preacher.

We need to be sure that we don't forget what is the most important in life and ministry. I'm reminded of Augustine's exhortation: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity."

I guess the hard part is differentiating between the "essentials" and the "non-essentials." Where's the line?

Religion or Relationship?

2008-06-18T13:49:00.001-05:00

If Christianity is really not about Religion, but about a Relationship, then Then why do we invite people to church and not to Jesus?

That's all for now, thanks.

2008-06-18T09:56:00.002-05:00

Tim Schmoyer on Sin

"Dear Wormwood,
...On the outside he appears to many people to be the perfect guy, someone people of all ages admire, respect, and trust. However, sometimes his own hypocrisy defeats him on the inside as he struggles with God working effectively through his gifts but seemingly inactive with the areas in which he desperately needs God’s transformation..."[Tim Schmoyer]

Tim's got some good thoughts on sin, guilt and distraction à la The Screwtape Letters.

2008-06-17T14:45:00.011-05:00

How to Share Your Faith Using the Incredible Hulk

"Whether you're an action/sci-fi movie fan or not, if you find yourself in the midst of conversation about The Incredible Hulk, try using the conversation to talk about stress - how you deal with it and how your personal relationship with Jesus impacts you when stressful times smash into your world and threaten to turn you into your own raging version of The Hulk."
[Christian Post]

Now, don't get me wrong, but I don't remember any place in the Bible that talks about Jesus dying for our stress. Sure, He's the Prince of Peace, but it doesn't seem to me that Paul, for instance, had a low-stress life. Remember all that stuff about being beaten and stoned and shipwrecked and hungry and cold and naked? Should we include that in our Gospel presentation?

Is this sort of Evangelism misleading?

How To Organize a Rummage Sale

2008-06-17T08:00:00.002-05:00

I've decided that I'm going to start a regular column of How-to posts, and I thought if I posted them every Tuesday, I could call it "How-Tuesdays" but I don't know if that term would be very Search Engine Friendly, so I'll just keep that term in the tags and not the title of the post.

First up is something still fresh on my mind, the church-wide Rummage Sale. We held one this weekend, and it was incredible! This type of event can be a great way for your church to raise funds for building projects, church ministries, or mission trips.

I take my list from my days in the Army (if that isn't already apparent):

Steps for a Successful Sale:

Step 1: Planning. Don't fall victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: Poorly-planned Rummage Sales can turn into a disaster... fast.

It goes without saying, yet it must be said that you must pray about this before you start. Everything we do as the Body of Christ must be done under His leadership. Before you consider any part of your promotions or sales policies or even what brand of Hot Dogs to buy, ask yourself, "Is this the sort of thing for which Jesus died?" Don't turn your church into a circus for Jesus.

Be sure you know what you are getting into. A good Rummage Sale (hereafter known as "the Sale") takes many people working many hours with the potential to raise minimal funds. The amount of funds you are able to raise will vary directly in proportion to the amount of effort you spend during the planning phase working out details and finding problems before they happen.

Consider the following questions:

Will our Church members support this kind of fundraising?
Where will the sale take place?
How will we represent Christ through this event?
Will you have information about your Church available to visitors?
Who will be in charge of _______?
Will we have concessions?
What will be our policy on check writing, returns, etc?
What will we do with the leftovers after the sale?

Be vary careful as you choose a date. Make sure you aren't competing with the town fair in the next community down the road. Saturdays seem to work best, but don't pick the first Saturday of summer vacation, because everyone else will.

Don't forget, of course, that this will certainly bring people to you who wouldn't otherwise step inside of a church. The only thing stronger than most people's aversion to Christians is their attraction to a potential deal. This, as is anything we do in- or outside of the Church building, can be a chance to reach out with the Gospel. Be prepared.

Step 2: Preparation. The largest part of this step involves gathering donations for the sale. The easiest way to do this is simply to announce it to the church. Use handouts explaining what kinds of donations you need, when/where the sale will take place, and when/where to take the donations (You figured that out during the Planning phase, right?). Will you offer to pick up donations? If so, who will be in charge of that?

You must advertise. This is one of the single most important factors in the success of your sale. The most important place to advertise is in the want ads of your local paper. This is cheap, and people looking for sales look there first. You may also want to take out ads in nearby communities as well. TV and Radio stations often have free Community Calendars that will give you some free advertising.

There is a plethora of free places to advertise on the internet. Use them. Craigslist is a great place to start, but do some research on Google for other places to put your ads.

This is also when you gather supplies. You're probably going to need bunch of stuff to pull this off. Here's a list of some things you will most likely need:

Cash Register
Dolly or Handtruck
Clothing Racks
Millions of Hangers
Lots of tables
Sacks
Tons of masking tape and markers
Trash Bags
Food for Concessions
Lots of friends with Pickup Trucks

Don't forget any city/county/state permits you may need (e.g., Garage Sale, Food Service, etc.). Don't try to slip past this one. Christians need to lead the way in integrity in our communities. Besides, can you imagine the headline if you get caught? "Local Church Found Operating Illegal Garage Sale"

Allow lots of time to sort and price your donations. Make sure the cutoff for accepting donations allows for time to get the donations ready for the sale. We spent 4-5 hours on 5 straight nights preparing the sale. To give you some size comparison, our church size is around 150 people at Sunday Morning worship, so be sure to allow more/less time as needed based on the size of your sale. Don't underestimate.

Step 3: Execution. The day of the sale, make sure you are ready to open early, as there will most certainly be antique dealers, eBay enthusiasts and others who will be ready to burst through your doors as though their livelihoods depend upon it (because it does). We opened a half our early because we were ready.

Make sure your sale is clean and organized. It may be called a "Rummage Sale," but if you just have piles of stuff, people will assume it is all trash. If your items are valuable enough for you to fold and display them neatly, then they will be valuable to your customers. We tried to sort things by department, like a retail store.

One of the most significant lessons we learned this weekend was that you need people out on the street to attract people to your sale. You don't have to have clowns and a ferris wheel, but a few students with signs or someone grilling and selling hamburgers can draw attention to your event. This can be a lot of fun, and helping out on the grill can be a good way to get a snack and some fresh air if you need a break during the day.

Step 4: Exit Strategy. After the main event, be prepared to clean up the mess. If you hold the sale at your church, and if it is on a Saturday, how will you re-set the church for Sunday Services?

The best way to start cleaning up is to have less stuff to clean up. This means getting rid of your sale items before the sale is actually over. This, I've found, is best accomplished by having a 50% off sale during the last few hours of your sale. If you have signs/people outside the building, make sure this is prominent. Don't advertise this in advance. For instance, don't state in your ad in the paper "Everything 50% off after 3 PM." People may wait too long to come to the sale.

Make sure you have a place to store your leftovers that won't interfere with your regular church services. We utilized some unused class space for this.

Besides having a bonfire in the parking lot, how will you get rid of all the leftover stuff? Give it away! Who can used your unused stuff?

Charities
Thrift Stores
Groups preparing for Mission Trips
Shelters

You may even be able to find some groups who will pick up your stuff for free! Try to arrange this in advance so that you can get rid of the leftovers as soon as possible.

One final tip: Be sure to sort the leftover goods. Put clothes into trash bags and label them with masking tape. Mark boxes. Organize them as you store them. Put clothes in one area and old LPs in another. This will help if one or more of your charities are only taking one kind of item. For instance, we helped a mission team that only needed shoes, and they were easy to find because we labeled the boxes clearly in our storage area.

Our sale was a great success. We managed to raise more than three times what I had originally anticipated, plus we had a great time getting to know people from our church. I hope that yours will be just as great!

Care to share your experience/advice? Let me hear it in the comments!

1 John 2:1-2 - Sinless Perfection is Required?

2008-06-16T09:05:00.018-05:00

My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.[1 John 2:1-2]

I tend to question everything I hear come out of a preacher's mouth. I believe that when a person makes a claim, especially when they claim that they are speaking for God, I want to have some verification, something to substantiate that claim.

There are so many times when the Bible calls for a Christian to live a Holy life-- one that does not sin, one that obeys Christ commands. In fact, we will see that John (the one called a "Son of Thunder" by Jesus because of his bold speech) says this very thing several times in this letter (1 John 2:3, 29: 3:6, 9-10, 24; 5:4, 18).

Preachers always tell us that, of course, John isn't talking about total sinless perfection, but I've never heard anything to substantiate that claim. I've never been given a serious explanation. They tell us that John means that a Believer's life will not be characterized by sin. Sure, it just makes sense that God doesn't expect Christians to be flawless, it's just not possible. But I've seen too many other examples in which human logic (or even what seems "fair" or "just" to us) fails to match God's expectations (as a basic example: "Surely a loving God wouldn't send people to Hell").

So, I've always had this annoyance in my mind, somewhat like buying a puzzle and finding that one piece in the background is missing-- a piece that isn't critical to make out the subject of the puzzle, like missing an eye on that fluffy puppy dog. But even missing part of the background would make me want to take the puzzle back. How do we know for sure (e.g. from Scripture) that the Bible doesn't call for sinless perfection from Believers? Where is this one piece, the solid evidence for the argument that we must live Holy -but not flawless- lives?

Right here in 1 John 2:1.

We see in this verse that even though John makes some very black-and-white statements about following Christ's commands, he does leave room for grace. He says, "I don't want you to sin, but if you do..." This is how we know that Scripture does not call for sinless perfection among believers.

But how does all of this mesh with John's requirements for flawless obedience? Let's take a look at 1 John 3:6-10.

No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.[1 John 3:6-10]

There are two very interesting observations that we can pull out of the Greek in this passage. The first is that John doesn't always use the verb "to sin" to put the action in his sentences. Several times he uses the verb poiew, which means "to do" in its simplest form. This makes his statements read something like "to do sin." The action is in the doing, or practicing of sin.

The second observation is that when he does use the verb "to sin" it is in the Active voice, which, in the Greek, means to do something in an ongoing or recurring fashion. In fact, Greek students would render an Active verb as "sinning" instead of merely "to sin."

The point: John's words clearly tell us that it is the regular practice of sin that shows that one "has not been born of God."

In contrast, John speaks of abiding in Christ (3:6), and that God's seed remains in [those born of God] (3:9). These two words (abide and remain) are from the same Greek word, meaning "to live" or "to dwell" (see John 15). So, while an Unbeliever lives a life in sin, the Believer lives a life in Christ, a life under the covering of His sacrifice (1 John 2:2)

In conclusion, John makes it very clear that a true Believer will life a Holy life, but it is not assumed that he/she will be absolutely sinless. This is true for two reasons:
1. He makes an allowance for forgiveness as found in 1 John 2:1; and
2. Even in John's calls to Holiness, he says that believers will not live a life of sin, but rather a life in Christ.

The final question we must answer, then is: "How do I know if I am simply sinning or living a real lifestyle of sin?" What do you think?

Friday Video - New Counseling Technique

2008-06-13T14:50:00.004-05:00

If only it were this easy...

1 John 1:5-10 - Part 2 - The Modern Deception

2008-06-13T10:17:00.034-05:00

We ended the last study with the statement that John's audience was confused about what it meant to have Fellowship with the Son of God. My point here will be that John's words are relevant today, as people still are mislead about what it means to be saved.

If you are a Christian, if you are saved, how do you know it?
Take the time to answer that question. Your response will be important in a moment.

Now, let me ask you this: Does Baptism save someone (this is called "Baptismal Regeneration")?*

For a Baptist, the answer is an easy "No." Why is this such an easy response? Because this battle was fought during the 19th century for us. But how does this relate to our conversation?

The idea 150 years ago was that at Baptism a person "received Jesus Christ." This sounds ridiculous to a modern Baptist, but today we still follow a strikingly similar practice.

The modern theological fad is "Decisional Regeneration." We never think of it as such, but essentially, most of us believe that when we "make a decision for Christ" He saves us. But this is not Biblical at all. Did Jesus ever ask someone to pray a prayer? What about Peter or Paul?

Most of us don't know it, but the invitation at the end of a sermon is a practice that is only around 200 years old. The Altar Call has its roots in Revivalism, and was made popular by, among others, Charles Finney, an (in)famous lawyer-turned Evangelist. Now, I'm not going to take the time to bash Finney. I'm just noting that the Invitation is a relatively new development in Christianity (and I'm also inviting you to question why you do what you do every week in church).

The point here is that a Decision doesn't save a person any more that Baptism does. So, if the Decision, and likewise, Baptism aren't the mark of a true Christian, what is? This is exactly what John tells us in this First Epistle.

A Believer is someone who...

Admits they are sinful (1 John 1:6-10)
Keeps Christ's commandments (2:3-5)
Loves his brother (2:9-11)
Does not love the World (2:15-17)
Confesses the Son (2:23)
Abides in Him (2:28)
Practices Righeousness (2:29)

...And this is only a cursory reading of the first two chapters. This book is filled with the description of a genuine Believer. Did you catch the main point? It is all about action. These things are all about how one lives his/her life.

If you told most modern pastors that you weren't sure if you were saved, they'd probably ask you if you ever prayed to receive Jesus. I don't think that would be John's response. He'd ask you to check your life. Are you fighting sin in your life? Are you loving those around you with action (see 3:18)? Finally, do you have His Spirit (4:13)?

Take some time to question your salvation. It's okay. In fact, it's encouraged by both Paul and Peter:

Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?[2 Corinthians 13:5]

...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling...[Philippians 2:12]

Therefore, my brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure... [2 Peter 1:10]

In fact, ask your congregation to test their salvation. John Piper, speaking to pastors, said this:

Catch on to the affectional nature of Christianity, conversion. It is not merely a decision to believe a fact. It is a heart treasuring Christ and His glory more than football, sex, money, power, play, toys. You gotta make this an issue Sunday after Sunday so that they feel scared that they're not saved.

You know, I think some pastors are so afraid that somebody might walk up at the end of the service and say, "you really jostled my assurance this morning." If we don't jostle people's assurance when they're not saved, we send them to hell.[Watch the Video]

There is a great article about the connection between Baptistmal and Decisional Regeneration Here.

Tim Challies has an old article on this topic as well.

This article was the one I read many years ago that first opened my eyes to the problem of how we use the Invitation. If you only follow one link on this post, click this one.

NOTE: I'm a Baptist, and to keep things simple I'll assume that I'm writing to Baptists. We believe that Baptism is not essential to salvation, but rather, it is a public display of one's faith in Christ. If you disagree, that's okay with me (for right now). I don't want to turn this into a debate about a side issue. My point here is not to argue Baptismal Regeneration. Cool your jets and stay with my main point: How do we know we are saved?

Dealing with Sexual Failure

2008-06-12T21:44:00.008-05:00

Verwer’s burden in that conference was the tragic number of young people (like many of you) who at one point in their lives dreamed of radical obedience to Jesus and were joyfully willing to lay down their lives and sacrifice anything to make Jesus known among the nations, but then faded away into useless, American prosperity because of a gnawing sense of unworthiness and guilt over sexual failure that gradually gave way to spiritual powerlessness and the dead-end dream of the middle class security and comfort.

In other words, what seemed so tragic to George Verwer—as it does to me—is that so many young people were being lost in the cause of Christ’s mission because they were not taught how to deal with the guilt of sexual failure. [John Piper]

For the amount of effort John Piper has put into fighting for Christian Hedonism, it is surprising that the most popular resource on his website right now is a message from Passion07 entitled "How to Deal with the Guilt of Sexual Failure for the Glory of Christ and His Global Cause." As you can see from the quote above, his focus is on restoring those whose lives and potential ministries have been destroyed by guilt over sexual sin.

Is this something you're familiar with?

Although I may have been able to guess the gist of his message theologically, Piper's wisdom and insight to even address this issue is fathoms beyond me. While so many of us are focusing on teaching purity and resisting sin (excellent things!), Piper knows the heart of those called to ministry and shines a bright light onto the hidden weight that hinders of so many young ministers.

Piper sets the foundation of his encouragement upon our forgiveness that was secured by Christ's death on the cross. He then pauses to address what some may see as a license to sin (Romans 6:1-2). Perhaps the most illuminating statement I found in this message is Piper's remarks on true, saving faith:

The mark of faith is not that I never sin sexually. The mark of faith is that I fight. I fight anything that dims my sight of Jesus as my glorious Savior. I fight anything that diminishes the fullness of the lordship of Jesus in my life. I fight anything that threatens to replace Jesus as the supreme Treasure of my life.[emphasis added]

Have you ever fought sin (in whatever form it may be) for so long that you wondered if you really were a Believer? Piper's words here are the most wonderful encouragement for my soul. He would argue that the simple fact that one is fighting sin shows that one has faith in Christ.

I hate to admit it publicly, but I needed to hear that.

The rest of the article is a great read. Be sure to check it out.

Do you struggle with guilt? How do you handle sin in your life?

About the Author

2008-06-12T16:30:00.013-05:00

I'm John Regan, author of Louder Than Jesus Fish. I'm writing this blog for two reasons: 1.) To encourage and challenge ministers in their personal and 'professional' lives; and, 2.) To discipline myself to carefully interpret, exposit and apply Scripture.

The Christian life is about knowing God, not knowing godliness, or even knowing about God. In a postmodern American Christianity where people carelessly espouse Jesus with their words, yet live even more careless lives, I want to inspire a simple solid relationship with Jesus. I want to get back to the basics of Christianity. I've seen too many ministers that are caught up in sin or distractions (even good ministry-related distractions!) and have forgotten what life is all about. My hope is that my writings will offer Bible Study with some real substance for those in the trenches of spiritual warfare, as well as thought-provoking discussion to motivate and encourage fervent action over mere cognitive validation of the truths of Scripture.

I'm pretty much a regular guy. I'm a husband, father of three awesome kids, Army veteran, "Minister of Students and Worship," and seminary student.

2008-06-12T11:13:00.009-05:00

Every Porno Has Somebody's Daughter In It

'Nuff Said. Live Offensively.

2008-06-11T14:36:00.003-05:00

You've Been Left Behind
Apparently people can find a way to cash in on anything Christian, even the Second Coming. Simply put, this website will send an email to all of your friends should the rapture occur. You can contact up to 62 email addresses, write a personalized message, and even leave documents for your un-raptured friends... all for the low cost of $40/year.

So, what happens if you are a Postmillenialist? Wouldn't it be too late for them then?

YouveBeenLeftBehind.com

HT: Purgatorio

1 John 1:5-10 - Deception

2008-06-11T10:37:00.013-05:00

This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.[1 John 1:5-10]

So the primary reason for the gap in “Daily” posts is that I have been at our Association’s Youth Camp for the last week. The secondary reason, however, is that I’ve been wrestling with the present passage. You see, I’ve come to the conclusion that if the Bible is truly the Word of God, then each sentence, phrase, and word must have significance, and I’ve set out to dig it up. For this reason, my “Daily” posts may be less than daily as I seek to uncover the Truth which may be buried in the text.

Case in point: These six verses are very common to someone who has been a believer for any length of time. In fact, they seem very simple on the surface. But something told me that there must be more to them than simple exhortations to “live by the truth.” There must be real significance in their meaning. The question I asked this passage (and should be the question we ask all texts) was, “Why did John write this?”

To begin, verse 5 is typical John. He loves analogy and uses Light and Darkness often in his writings (e.g. John 1:4,5). The following verses (6-10) are linked. There is some sort of pattern to them. They each begin with “If we say…” and they seem to say the same thing--that we shouldn’t claim to be sinless. But is that all? They all speak of light and truth and forgiveness/purification. There is something connecting these exhortations, these warnings. What was John getting at?

To further analyze it, I broke the passage into three parts:

#1.) vv.6,7- If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

#2.) 8,9- If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

#3.) 10- If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

After I wrote out each statement individually, I marked the ideas that were repeated. I found that the metaphors were all intertwined. For instance, in #1 “fellowship” is repeated within itself, and there is a link to #2 through a “redemption clause” (as I call it), both tell us that there is a way out of our sin. (“But if we walk in the light...” and "If we confess our sins...")

There are several connecting points between the three verses, For instance, they all talk about claims we may make, but they do not all discuss the exact same claim. #1 speaks of Fellowship, while #2 speaks of having (literally, holding) no sin, and #3 speaks of not committing the act of sin.

To break down this passage even further, I diagrammed each sentence. I’ll spare you the crumpled notebook paper full of scribbles and lines, but I will tell you that finding the central verb in each part, the center of the action, helped me sort all of this out.

In #1, the central thought is the word pseudometha, a verb that means, “we are lying”. #2 is different. Split between two words it is “we lead astray / ourselves.” Finally, #3 says “we are making / him / a liar”.

Do you see the connection in the action here? I didn’t at first, but then it hit me. After 4 days of tossing this around in my mind I found only one common link: Deception. This is the key to this passage and, as I quickly noted, the theme of this entire book.

As noted previously, John started this letter with great effort to establish his credentials as a reliable witness to Jesus’ life. Also, he is combating false teachings (most likely Gnosticism), as noted in 4:1,6. If you connect this introduction with the action in these verses (6-10), it becomes obvious that John was trying to expose lies and present the Truth.

At this point in my study the words began leaping off of the page. John was warning about the lies being spread among the believers. He was urgently trying to show them what was Truth as well as how to identify the lies.

2:26- “I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray.”
3:7- “Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray.”

This is why he repeatedly uses words like light, darkness, confidence, false prophet, antichrist, liar, truth, believe, and testify.

Perhaps the most striking is the use of the word “know.” John uses it (in its many forms) 33 times in this short letter. The only New Testament book that uses the word more frequently is John’s Gospel. The only other book that even comes close (with 27 occurrences) is Luke. Obviously, knowledge is the assurance of the facts. However, this word has an even deeper significance.

Gnosticism is a heresy that, at its core, says that one must obtain secret knowledge to get to heaven. In fact, Gnosticism has its root in the Greek word, gnosis, which is the same basic word that John uses so many times in this book (gnosis is a noun, and we have been discussing its verbal form). It is as though he is specifically trying to undermine Gnostic influence among the early believers.

Over and over again, he gives tests--almost quantitative measures--of what it means to be a true Christian. In fact, 1:6-10 includes three of them. This letter is riddled with ways to recognize a believer:

2:9- “Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness.”
3:6- “No one who lives in him keeps on sinning.”
3:21- “Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God.”
4:8- “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.”
5:12- “He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.”

It is obvious that John was writing to a people who lived in a culture filled with lies and deception, people who were confused about what it meant to have Fellowship with the Son of God.

More on this tomorrow, including some application. For now, what are your thoughts?

"I'm Not a Christian Anymore"

2008-06-09T13:03:00.007-05:00

While ironically wasting time on GTD blogs today, I found this very revealing introduction to an article on self-forgiveness. Heads up; there's some strong language in the full article.

I’m not a Christian anymore. Perhaps I got a raw deal when God was passing out churches—mine was shaken apart in my late teens by a pastor who got busted for sneaking a few hundred thousand out of the offering plate to buy Nazi war memorabilia, not to mention banging a few dozen women who came to him for marriage counseling—but I’ve made my peace with the Prince of it.Joel Johnson, 43 Folders

1. What does an article on self-forgiveness on a GTD Blog tell us about the human spiritual condition?

2. What does this say about importance of integrity in the life of a minister?

Do you tell people to pray a prayer?

2008-05-30T19:32:00.007-05:00

I found this ad on CNN.com while searching for "religion." I thought it was interesting. A bit strange, perhaps, but interesting.

Is this really how we are saved? Do we "accept" Christ? Are we saved by praying a prayer? Did Jesus ever ask someone to pray a prayer? Did he ever ask anyone to accept him? For that matter, is there any precedent in the New Testament for this? What do you think?.

To be fair, it seems that Christians are quick to attack one another on seemingly minor areas of theology, instead of focusing on the big picture of reaching the world with the Gospel. That's not my intent here. I'm just asking some questions. I think our invitation to Christ is just as critically important as our presentation of Christ.

Check out this website, watch the video, and let us know what you think.

Friday Video - Lifehouse Everything Drama

2008-05-30T08:00:00.002-05:00

I liked the first 1:30 of this video, then all of a sudden, its theology seemed as though it was quickly degrading to match so much of what I see around me, presenting a loving, but impotent Jesus. However, at the end of the drama it totally redeems itself. Watch the whole thing. It's worth it.

Christian Wrestling... Really?

2008-05-29T19:48:00.012-05:00

...there are rip-off trinkets of every kind—a Christian version of My Little Pony and the mood ring and the boardwalk T-shirt ("Friends don't let friends go to hell"). There is Christian Harlequin and Christian chick lit and Bibleman, hero of spiritual warfare. There are Christian raves and Christian rappers and Christian techno, which is somehow more Christian even though there are no words. There are Christian comedians who put on a Christian version of Punk'd, called Prank 3:16. There are Christian sex-advice sites where you can read the biblical case for a strap-on dildo or bondage (liberation through submission). There's a Christian planetarium, telling you the true age of the universe, and my personal favorite—Christian professional wrestling, where, by the last round, "Outlaw" Todd Zane sees the beauty of salvation.

Slate has an interesting book review about an even more intriguing book, Rapture Ready by Daniel Radosh. The book seems like a good read, but it was the discussion of this topic by the book reviewer, Hanna Rosin, that caught my attention.

The book itself is about the paradox of Christian Consumerism, the attempt to mix materialism with spiritualism. At the beginning of the article, Rosin points to an example from her past of the hypocrisy of a group of "evangelical college boys" she knew who regularly watched (and enjoyed) The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. She points to the fact that Christians have a "deeply neurotic relationship with popular culture."

She then makes a keen observation:

At this point in history, American evangelicals resemble the Israelites at various dangerous moments in the Old Testament: They are blending into the surrounding heathen culture, and having ever more trouble figuring out where it ends and they begin.

"American evangelicals resemble the Israelites"? Wow. I'm not sure that most evangelicals know enough about the Old Testament to make this distinction. Regardless, I think that Rosin is on to something. Among many other admonitions from the Prophets, I am reminded of what God said to Samuel when the people of Israel demanded a king instead of a judge:

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah and said to him, "Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations." But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." And Samuel prayed to the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, "Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. According to all the deeds that they have done, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you. Now then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them."[1 Samuel 8:4-9], emphasis added

The rest of the article is great food for thought. There are probably 20 places I'd like to quote here, but I'll spare you all the superfluous formatting. I highly recommend you check it out. I'm going to keep an eye out for Radosh's book.

Questions:
How do you feel about the blurring of the line between what is "worldly" and "spiritual"? Where exactly is the line?

More importantly, how should we as Christians fight and/or embrace the culture around us?

Preaching is Theology on Fire

2008-05-29T13:46:00.000-05:00

What is preaching? Logic on fire! Eloquent reason! Are these contradictions? Of course they are not. Reason concerning this Truth ought to be mightily eloquent, as you see it in the case of the Apostle Paul and others. It is theology on fire. And a theology which does not take fire, I maintain, is a defective theology; or at least the man's understanding of it is defective. Preaching is theology coming through a man who is on fire. A true understanding and experience of the Truth must lead to this. I say again that a man who can speak about these things dispassionately has no right whatsoever to be in a pulpit; and should never be allowed to enter one. What is the chief end of preaching? I like to think it is this. It is to give men and women a sense of God and His presence.
[Martin Lloyd-Jones]

Daily- 1 John 1:3-4 -True Fellowship

2008-05-29T08:35:00.000-05:00

...that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.
[1 John 1:3-4]

Yesterday we saw that John had a message to proclaim concerning “The Life,” Jesus. John had witnessed Jesus’ life and teaching firsthand. It is important that John used the phrase “we have heard” instead of simply saying “we have seen and touched.” Hearing implies receiving a message. John’s message, found in verse 2 is that the Life was made manifest. God revealed eternal life to John, and now John proclaims it to the recipients of his letter.

First Things First
Now for John’s purpose. This is very telling. It is easy to assume that John is “proclaiming” this eternal life to the lost. However, the motive that John intimates to us is simply fascinating.

He says, “that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that ____.”

____________________________________
(you too may have fellowship with us)

That we may have fellowship with them [him]? That’s his purpose? What does that mean? Isn’t Fellowship a potluck dinner or an old-fashioned picnic on a Sunday afternoon? Did they have potato salad in the first century?

------------------------------------------------------------

It goes without saying that Fellowship is much more than a get-together. The Greek word for Fellowship, Koinonia, is brought into the English in several ways: association, community, communion, and joint participation. The English word I find most illuminating in describing Biblical Fellowship is “intercourse.” [source] Granted, this is a social, not sexual intercourse, but this does paint a very vivid picture of the depth of social connection that is described by this word.

John wants you to hear about this eternal Life so that you may have a deep connection with him. This sounds a bit strange until we read the next sentence. Whom else does John have fellowship with?

____________________________________
(The Father and his Son Jesus Christ)

John has a deep connection with God and His Son, and he wants you to have this connection with him. It seems that John wants to serve as a connecting point, a link, between the lost and this eternal Life. John knows the Life, and John knows the lost. Now he wants to bring the two together.

John’s evangelism strategy is quite different from the way most of us share Christ with people, is it not?

The point here is that Fellowship is a very important- even sacred- word. It is, in fact, a component of salvation. Jesus said in John 17:3 that eternal life meant knowing God. Is there not some Fellowship involved in that equation?

What have we done? We’ve reduced this wonderful type of relationship to fried chicken and baked beans!

Two very important questions for you to answer:

1. How does John’s use of Fellowship relate to how we do (or should do) Evangelism?
(Here’s some more information on a sort of “fellowship-based” evangelism)

2. How does this information change the way you will use Fellowship in your church?

Daily- 1 John 1:1-2 -Expert Witness

2008-05-28T10:25:00.000-05:00

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us...
[1 John 1:1-2]

Just like the opening of the Gospel of John, I find this passage to be a great introduction to both John’s letter and the person of Jesus Christ. However, when these opening words are translated into English the structure is complicated, so today’s study will help you to sort out John’s intended message.

First Things First
If you were to boil down 1 John 1:1-2 to its main point, what would it be?

____________________________________

I believe the answer is “The Life was made manifest.” If you strip away all of the other qualifiers and phrases, this is what remains. The Life appeared; it was revealed. That is John’s basic message. Is this not the message of the entire Bible? Is this not the message of every believer’s life? In a short sentence, is this not the Gospel?

Supporting Action
There are three other actions (verbs) in verse 2 that relate John with “The Life.” What are they?

------------------------------------------------------------

John says, “we have seen it," and, “we testify to it," then finally, “proclaim to you.” The first verb is a Perfect, focusing on the accomplishment of the action. The other two are active verbs. A literal translation of these would be something like "we are testifying to it and we are proclaiming it to you."

How does he plan to accomplish all this? Well, look at the previous verse. Verse 1 is the testimony that John is speaking of in verse two. It is as though John is going to testify before a court, and he is proving his credibility as a witness concerning The Life.” He uses four “which” phrases to describe “The Life.” What are they?

____________________________________

____________________________________

____________________________________

____________________________________

(That which was from the beginning)
(which we have heard)
(which we have seen with our eyes)
(which we have looked at and our hands have touched)

The first, “that which was from the beginning,” reminds us of the opening of the Gospel of John, when he says, “In the beginning was the Word…” This connection (and many like it) helps us to verify that this book was in fact written by the same author as the Gospel of John. “From the beginning” displays the eternity of Jesus, the one of whom John is speaking.

The second, that “which we have heard,” tells us that there was a message given. John has received a teaching. Is he going to pass it on? I think so. John did say that he had something to proclaim.

“That which we have seen with our eyes” tells us that John has witnessed Jesus. This is a firsthand account. John is an authority. “We saw him with our own eyes,” he says. Likewise, the next phrase proves to clarify this even further. John uses another word for “see,” then says that they even put their hands on Jesus. The Greek here means that they felt around on him. I wonder if John was remembering when Thomas touched the holes in Jesus’ hands and slid his own hand into Jesus’ side (see John 20:27).

The Expert Witness
John and the Apostles have personally experienced “The Life.” John has spent a great deal of effort to prove that. Why? Perhaps verses 4:1 and 4:6 have a clue.

____________________________________

Conclusion
Today we have learned that John’s central message is that Jesus is the Life, and that life has appeared. John knows this because he has experienced it. The writings in his Gospel show that John walked, talked and ate with The Life. He knows this Jesus through and through.

We will see over the coming days that John has several purposes in writing this letter, but in verse 3 he will tell us his immediate purpose. Join us again tomorrow as we examine exactly what John has to say to us.

First Try

2008-05-21T09:07:00.000-05:00

I recently went through a very difficult time in my life. I was weighed down by stress, blinded by anger, and distracted by depression because of a broken relationship with someone in my immediate family. To complicate things even further, sin was creeping up on me. It was a bad time; one of the worst. I actually questioned whether or not I had a real relationship with God.

For several weeks, I stumbled through sin, trying to find something to distract me from the pain in my life. I kept asking God to deliver me, but it didn't seem like He heard me. Finally, I started asking what I needed to do to get Him back. I started bargaining.

Needless to say, it didn't work.

Finally, I woke up one night at 2:30 AM to go to the bathroom. As I stumbled down the hall in the darkness, my tired soul said to God, "What do you want from me? What do you want me to do?"

I stopped and stood in the dark hallway. The response was quiet but clear: "I want to be first in your life."

------------------------------------------------------------

I paused for a moment to let this message sink in. ...then I hurried down the hall to make it to the bathroom.

We have a way of complicating our relationship with God. It is easy to forget how to really make things right with Him. We try to make deals with Him. We try to make up for our mistakes by doing extra-good things. We beat ourselves with guilt and condemnation. Eventually we find that none of those things work.

The kicker is this: we can't make things right with Him. We're in much deeper than we think. All of our effort is like trying to bale the ocean out of a sinking rowboat. It's useless.

I know this is a no-brainer, but somehow I forget it so easily. There is nothing we can "do," no liturgy or formula of penance or ritual that can improve our relationship with God. He gives His Presence. We don't earn it.

The only requirement upon us is to be devoted to Him. Simply turning our eyes off of ourselves and letting go of our sorrow, anger, guilt and/or shame.

"You will find me when you seek me with all of your heart." (Jer 29:13) Not when you get your act cleaned up. Not when you make it up to Him. You will find Him when you get serious and seek Him.

Why is this lesson so simple, yet so hard?