Words mean things

I spent the last post focusing on a proclamation of the biblical definition of love and a proclamation of the Gospel.  Today, that will serve as a foundation for responding to someone making yet another claim that homosexuality is something Christians should not simply tolerate, but accept and celebrate.  This, of course, is not a new claim, as anyone who has spent more than five minutes on the Internet will quickly ascertain.

There have been many attempts made to make the case for homosexuality in Christianity, but probably the most well-known in popular culture at this time is the Matthew Vines video, as he gives his testimony of sorts and makes various claims about what the Bible "really says" about homosexuality.  Naturally, this apologetic mashup resulted in him making conflicting defenses, and was roundly shredded, most notably by Dr. James White, who dissected the video almost down to the syllabic level in exposing Vines' chicanery.  Vines now spends his days secluded from anyone who might possibly challenge his worldview.

But that dead horse will rest for the moment, as a new contender enters the ring and brings what is at least a somewhat novel argument for why Christians should welcome the new order of things: namely, that Jesus was just wrong, and Christians shouldn't just take His word for it.  Brandon Ambrosino has today's example of blatant eisegesis on the Pacific Standard website.  In an article titled "The Best Christian Argument for Marriage Equality is that the Bible Got it Wrong," Ambrosino proceeds to suggest that Christians can remain Christians, while simultaneously jettisoning entire foundational aspects of their faith, and thus proves the Apostle Paul true in 1 Corinthians 1:

For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.--1 Corinthians 1:22-25

There are a host of problems with Ambrosino's claims in this article, many of which are refuted by similar responses to revisionism like Dr. White's above.  I will focus on my response on his most blatant claim: namely, that Jesus basically didn't know what he was talking about.

Though referring to the Torah with the shorthand “Moses” is hardly proof positive that Jesus was wrong about the books' provenance (many scholars refer to the books metonymically), it’s safe to say that Jesus probably assumed Moses wrote the Pentateuch.
And if he did think that, then he was wrong.
This is a point the Evangelical bible scholar Peter Enns makes in a footnote in his book The Evolution of Adam: “Jesus here reflects the tradition that he himself inherited as a first-century Jew and that his hearers assumed to be the case.”

Calling Peter Enns "evangelical" is, to put it lightly, inaccurate.  "Evangelical" implies a belief in an "evangel," in the Gospel.  Enns has long since left any semblance of a belief in the sufficiency, clarity, or inerrancy of Scripture that would testify to this Gospel, and if you can't hold to those one wonders exactly why you would bother being considered a Christian at all if you reject the foundation of its fundamental beliefs.  Dr. Michael Kruger shredded his most recent work in an article a few months back, and which I highly recommend.

But I digress.  Ambrosino makes it clear that he does not look to the text as having any measure of truth in it, and he is free to declare that Jesus, the incarnation of the Son of God, has no idea about the true authorship of the Pentateuch.  This is exactly the sort of historical bias so common to modern popular scholarship, epitomized by the likes of Bart Ehrman and others who pursue the (long refuted) Bauer hypothesis, that takes Scripture and reduces it into a pile of disconnected phrases that can be pulled apart and set against one another in the pursuit of human autonomy.

Therefore, Ambrosino is under no obligation, in the eyes of the modern scholar, to recognize that by declaring Jesus as an ignorant no-nothing who assumes that things are how he's always been told rather than being the One who tells, he is completely ignoring the multitude of texts in which Jesus identifies Himself with Yahweh and sets out the idea that the Scriptures are not simply true because Moses wrote them.  They are true because they are about Him.

And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen, and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.--John 5:37-40

Jesus speaks to the Pharisees, people who believe that they have righteousness within themselves and within their own acts and are offended by Jesus' statements that they are, in fact, sinners in need of repentance.  And like Ambrosino, they use the Scriptures however they wish in order to prop up their own desires, rather than submit to the full testimony of the Scriptures which point unyieldingly to Jesus Christ.

The bottom line error of Ambrosino's hermeneutic is the same error found in the works of Ehrman, Enns and the like: it rejects any idea of God actually being able to reveal His will to His creation.  God, if there is a God, becomes an unfathomable mystery, and we all get to stand around looking smart as we stroke our chins and ponder the universe.  All the while, we scoff at the thought that God actually is fully capable of speaking into creation and has done so clearly.

And so, having begun with the rejection of the supernatural, we then get to take God's revelation and reduce it down into a million pieces, which we can take apart and reconstruct as we will.  Ambrosino is not doing anything new, he's just being a lot more blunt about it: don't like what the Bible says about a topic?  Well, clearly the writer just wasn't as progressive as you are, so you can reject it.  Sin?  So offensive.  Just look to the nice parts about loving people (without making any effort to understand the full argument being made or any definitions) and we have reduced the text to a mishmash of words that, at this point, mean virtually nothing.

Of course, even as we post-moderns live by this idea that we get to define our own reality, we would never treat our own words like that.  I suspect very much that if I were to take Ambrosino's column and read it the way he reads the Bible--ignoring what I don't like, "reimagining" concepts to fit my framework, and completely ignoring contexts for my own benefit--I daresay he would take issue with that.

I want to close by taking a look at a couple sections that display exactly why this style of cafeteria Christianity is utterly untenable:

What the bible most decidedly is not is some type of handbook for navigating the 21st century. It is not God, nor should it be awarded godlike status. (To treat it as such is to break the second commandment.)

Of course, exactly how we can know what the second commandment is, or why we should listen to any of God's commandments given that Ambrosino's contention is "well, the Bible is just wrong some places" is left unexplained.

Are there universal truths contained with the pages of the bible? Absolutely! Are many of those truths relevant in every age and culture, and binding to Christians everywhere? Definitely—loving your neighbor, forgiving your enemies, and looking out for the weak are obligations that Christ has put upon each person who that claims to follow him. Are there passages of Scripture that should be read as if they are describing historical events that actually transpired in this world? Of course—the physical resurrection of Jesus is a non-negotiable tenet of the Christian faith.

The inconsistencies abound: if Jesus is not who He says he is, on what grounds exactly does He have the right or ability to make anything binding to anyone.  Furthermore, why did Jesus die, and rise again?  I've heard pastors in mainline liberal churches that had little other interest in a solid, grammatically and historically accurate exegesis of the text that could stand up and say "I believe Jesus was a real person, that he died on the cross, and that he rose again."  But that statement had precisely zero impact on anything else they did, on the way they lived their lives, or on the theology that informed any other preaching to their congregations.  As far as anyone can tell, Jesus rose again because He was just such a nice guy, and you can't keep a good guy down.

I would simply ask Brandon: who exactly does he believe Jesus is?  He's an ignorant peasant walking around just parroting the Torah...and He rose from the dead?  There is no consistency, no real desire to see Jesus as a real person here, let alone as who He said that He was.  The consistent and harmonious testimony of Scripture is rejected, and instead the text is pitted against itself as passages, stripped of context and any meaning beyond the surface, are set at odds the original writers would never have agreed with.

So quite simply, the idea that this would be a "Christian argument" is a non-starter.  To embrace it requires rejecting Scripture's clear testimony about Jesus as the monogenes huios, the one and unique Son of God.  If you do that, there is no foundation to believe in anything Scripture says about Jesus, which renders Ambrosino's statements about Christ's resurrection head-scratchingly odd.  Just as John made it clear that those who denied Christ's having come in the flesh (as opposed to the docetists who believed that Jesus only appeared to be human but was really spirit) were not true Christians but in fact were deceivers and false teachers, likewise you cannot claim that Christ was merely a man who said silly baseless things without abandoning your bona fides of the faith.

But this is why the Bible says that "salvation belongs to the Lord."  Apart from the work of the Holy Spirit no one would believe, because on our own we do not look for God but instead we seek after our own selfish desires.  But thanks be to God for His mercy, in calling His people to Himself in the person and work of Christ.  His mercy is everlasting and His grace is to be desired by all men.  I would say to Brandon Ambrosino: repent of your unbelief, and turn to the real Jesus, the one to which Scripture testifies, not your imagined one who can provide no atonement, cannot testify to the truth of the living God, and certainly cannot bring conviction of or repentance from sin.  Your Jesus cannot heal, cannot find the lost (because he is lost himself), and has utterly no value.  This is not the Christ of Scripture or history.  I would call you to repent, and to know Him as Lord and Savior.

Love

I have pondered exactly how to write on the issue of gay marriage in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision to legalize it.  I am torn--not on my position on the subject, because that is firm opposition.  Rather, I am torn in exactly how to approach it.  I have friends near and far and coworkers who consider themselves to be homosexual or to be "allies."  My goal here is not to write an angry rant, because I'm not angry and it would accomplish nothing.  Certainly there is a measure of disappointment but that is tempered by the knowledge that God is God, and while man foolishly believes in his own autonomy, God will ultimately be glorified in all things.

The heart of man plans his way,
   but the Lord establishes his steps.
--Proverbs 16:9

However, I have come to face the fact that no matter what I say, no matter how calmly or reasonably I seek to discuss this, at this point there is little room for such things in the eyes of many.  The behavior of so many in recent months has made this abundantly clear: anything short of full-throated endorsement of homosexuality and its partners bisexuality and transgenderism will not be tolerated.  I don't say all this to set myself up as a potential victim; rather, I simply want to lay groundwork for this discussion, and pray that those who disagree with me will 1) actually read through this and allow me to speak for myself, rather than inserting thoughts and claims into my words that I do not actually make, and 2) understand this to be written in a spirit of love.

Book review: The Heresy of Orthodoxy

Recently I linked a review of Peter Enns' book by Michael Kruger of Reformed Theological Seminary.  Well, recent by this blog's standards, which is "roughly within the last six months."  I have been meaning to get around to reviewing a book that he and Andreas Kostenburg wrote, The Heresy of Orthodoxy.  I can't recommend this book enough for anyone wanting to deal with the common secular claims about Scripture.  Whether you're dealing with someone who just got done reading a Bart Ehrman book or watching the latest horrible CNN "documentary" attempting to undermine the testimony of Scripture, this book will be an excellent and helpful work to go through because it exposes and examines the root of all those writings: the Bauer hypothesis which is essentially a rejection of any idea of a supernatural establishment of the church, and instead proposes warring groups of Christians with different beliefs that were eventually all subdued under one "orthodoxy" through the power of one of those groups. (You may recognize this as the plot to The DaVinci Code, except with fewer church ninjas.  Not none...just fewer.)

In all seriousness, there are three main reasons this book is a great investment for a believer wanting to understand the history of the church and defend the faith from these sort of attacks:

1. It discusses at length not just the evidence, but the presuppositions that drive the way all evidence is examined by those who follow in the footsteps of Walter Bauer.  The general method of attacking Christianity and establishing a notion of society as a religion-less, secular entity is rooted in the ideas discussed here, that Scripture did not come from men inspired by God and the church does not teach what it does because those men taught the consistent revelation given to them, but rather they just happened to be "the winners" in a battle of differing beliefs.  However, their claims are rooted not in an unbiased examination of historical data, but rather filtering all that data through a worldview that says "there is nothing beyond immediate physical human experience, therefore, it couldn't have happened in the way claimed."  In doing so, those promoting this position make a series of assumptions that reveal that they are not "doing unbiased history," but rather are in fact making theological claims of their own.  
2. It examines the evidence given in support of these claims, and as noted above, shows how the conclusions drawn from their evidential claims require one to start from a position not actually drawn from that evidence, but from a presupposition of secular humanism.  
3. It is written in a way that a lay believer will be able to engage with and understand without having to gain a scholastic vocabulary, and it also has extensive notation allowing those wanting to dig deeper to find many resources to learn more about the subjects being discussed.  

Easter weekend is a time that media outlets love to trot out the latest attempt to undermine the truth of the Gospel, whether it's the latest "Tomb of Jesus" or "Did Jesus really exist?" or "FOUND: The Gospel of ____" nonsense.  This is a time that can be trying for us as we try to evangelize those around us as well as engage in worship with our brothers and sisters: how do we respond to this while still displaying our love for God and our fellow man?  How can we defeat lies with the truth without becoming angry jerks?  Preparing ourselves with what is true, being in Scripture consistently is key, and a book like this only helps to buttress a well-laid foundation with further context.

This is also an excellent opportunity for believers to brush up on their church history, a subject about which many of us are woefully ignorant, which exposes us to this sort of attack.  This book exposes the Christian to and prepares the Christian for that attack with the knowledge needed to engage the thinking behind it, and most importantly, to preach the Gospel meaningfully in response to it.  Not in the "You're a liar and you need Jesus" way I see used so often and so pointlessly on the Internet, but in a way that shows we are listening to what our opponents are saying, and we do have a real response that continues to focus on our need for Christ.  There is another book that focuses on the other common point of attack during this time, but I will review that later...

Anthropology matters

It's been very quiet here, but at long last I'm going to share a bit of what's kept me away.  I've been doing a class through church that has kept me very busy both studying and writing.  There are other things I want to spend time writing, including a review of one of the books I just finished, The Heresy of Orthodoxy, but for right now I want to share one of the papers I wrote for this class.  In italics is the question I based my writing on, and you may judge for yourself if I responded to it effectively.  Check it out below the fold, if you are so inclined.

Some Saturday reading

Yes, I'm still alive.  No, I've not been hiding, but it has been a very busy fall without much down time.  I would like to report that the classes I've been taking through church have been excellent, and so a lot of my writing time has been focused on that.  I will be reposting some of my work from there, for whatever small edification it may offer.

I did want to post up and recommend reading this review of Peter Enns' new book, The Bible Tells Me So.  The review is by Dr. Michael J. Kruger, a professor at Reformed Theological Seminary, and coauthor of a book I'm currently reading and also highly recommend, The Heresy of Orthodoxy.  I'll post up a review when I'm done, though certainly I am far less qualified to speak to this subject than he is.  What this review and that book both testify to, however, is the fact that there is an active war against the idea that God has revealed Himself and that He is knowable at all.  Enns doesn't present an atheist perspective or even a Bart Ehrman-like agnostic one.  But like those perspectives, Enns' book basically echoes the tempter's question of "Did God really say...?"  Kruger strongly demonstrates: yes, he did, and the grounds Enns gives for doubting is weak at best.

More later.  Go read!

Loving the truth

Christians, at least Western Christians, are an odd bunch.  Even within denominational lines you have varying battles over what's right and true, what's central to Christianity and what isn't.  My observation is that there is a struggle for people to really engage in these debates and see them through to the end; so many times I see people throw up their hands after the first or second response and walk away simply because they dislike conflict.  That's understandable; I know of few people who enjoy getting into fights with others.  But the problem here is that by not taking a firm stance on defining what Christianity is and what the truth is on many subjects, the faith has absorbed a strange mishmash of beliefs that, in reality, bear no resemblance to biblical Christianity.  For example, this particularly vexing bit of malarkey from Joel Osteen's wife, Victoria, followed by very poignant commentary by Bill Cosby:



There has been a lot of commentary and snark on this, unsurprisingly, but I want to respond to this with a much more serious tone.  My concern is one for my family, my friends, my brothers and sisters in the faith who hear this and may not be deeply rooted in the Word or simply don't think that what she's saying here is really that big of a deal.  I've responded to Joel Osteen before, and I want to flesh out my problem and preach the truth of the Gospel to my friends and family that happen to read this here.

Firstly: I've seen responses to this that offer a tongue-clucking "Poor dear, she just had a little slip-up" excusing of her bizarre, patently unbiblical statements.  I do not agree.  What you are hearing from her is not atypical from the prosperity gospel crowd, because it's precisely what they believe about God.  You would never hear the Westminster Catechism's "The chief end of man is to glorify God" because they view salvation and, in fact, all of God's activities, in an ultimately man-centered way: Jesus died to save us from our sins, yes, but the reason isn't because God is glorifying Himself by displaying both His mercy and His justice.  It's because He is just so into us that He can't think of doing anything but making us happy.  In this philosophy Jesus is not the mighty King of the universe who will return wielding a sword to vanquish His enemies.  Instead, He is a meek servant that waits on us kingdom kids hand and foot, taking away anything that might stop us from having a grand old time.

"But doesn't the Bible promise rewards to the faithful?"  Absolutely it does.  And it also promises that those who follow Christ are walking in a way that is contrary to what a man who is dead in his sin believes is right, and because of that, this life is not one of ease and pleasure, but rather one that involves sacrifice and, often, persecution:

“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.--John 15:18-20

This is not to say that Christians therefore can expect painful lives of drudgery either; certainly we take a great deal of joy in what God does provide us, and He knows exactly what we need so that we might live to His glory:

And he said to his disciples, “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat, nor about your body, what you will put on. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds! And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? If then you are not able to do as small a thing as that, why are you anxious about the rest? Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass, which is alive in the field today, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith! And do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be worried. For all the nations of the world seek after these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek his kingdom, and these things will be added to you.--Luke 12:22-31

Believing that your relationship with Jesus exists for the purpose of giving you something else that you want, even something undefinable like "happiness" or something ostensibly good like healing from sickness, is not Christianity.  It's idolatry, for two reasons: 1) Scripture says that the only thing we can earn from God is death.  That which we receive from God that is good is a gift from Him.  "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 6:23) 2) You cannot make God owe you anything.  "The Lord does not let the righteous go hungry, but he thwarts the craving of the wicked." (Prov 10:3)  Is this a God which can be made to perform based on our deeds, words, or our "faith?"  Of course, when listening to a prosperity preacher, faith is not the gift Scripture describes it to be, but a tangible commodity that one can gain or lose and without which God is incapable of acting because of...something.  "Bring no more vain offerings;
    incense is an abomination to me.
New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations—   I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly."--Isaiah 1:13
God is speaking to the Israelites who are doing--on the outside--exactly what he commanded them to do, and He is telling them that He wants nothing to do with it.  Is this a God who can be manipulated into action?  Of course not.  God is our source of life, of existence, He provides all things and lays out our steps in life.  Read the Psalms--firstly, of course, because they are amazingly worshipful and refreshing to the soul, but also because there is no way to study them and come away with a picture of a God who is constrained by anything or who is standing there trying to please us.  Quite the opposite: "Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases." (Ps 115:3)  

So let's move from criticizing a lie to this post's title: the truth, and why it is critical that we love the truth.  As I said, it is impossible to study the Word in any depth and come away with an image of God that is in any way weak, needy, or anything other than absolutely sovereign and in control.  He is infinite, all-powerful, yet utterly personal, and it is His good pleasure not simply to "make us happy," a simple yet ultimately meaningless goal, but to make us His:

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.--Ephesians 2:1-10

We were spiritually dead, He made us alive.  We were astray, He put us on the path of righteousness.  He took out hearts of stone and replaced them with hearts of flesh.  And we can take credit for none of it.  Our God is in the heavens and He does what pleases Him, and what pleases Him is to save a people for Himself through Christ's sacrifice on the cross and His role as the first of the resurrection, and as great high priest for all who are His.  Why on earth would I waste my time on the God of the prosperity gospel, one that can't act unless I "have enough faith" and offers nothing but the same earthly pleasures that everyone else pursues, that will all perish in the end?

If we will not love the truth, we will be caused to love a lie.  For this reason, and because there is no greater calling to which a human can aspire, I call on my readers, my friends, my family, to love Jesus and follow the King!  To repent of sin and leave your burden nailed to the cross is true freedom, to grow in grace is true joy.

And Jesus cried out and said, “Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. And whoever sees me sees him who sent me. I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness.--John 12:44-46

A Jesus for every taste

Now it happened that as he was praying alone, the disciples were with him. And he asked them, “Who do the crowds say that I am?” And they answered, “John the Baptist. But others say, Elijah, and others, that one of the prophets of old has risen.” Then he said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Peter answered, “The Christ of God.”--Luke 9:18-20

I try not to simply mock things on here, as I would prefer interactions here to be thoughtful rather than short, unpleasant slapfights.  I've also learned the hard way the truth about how dangerous a weapon a man's tongue can be, and so I take full advantage of the fact that writing allows me the maximum time to be thoughtful in word and deed.  On the flip side, I have to be honest: I really hate bumper sticker theology.  There is nothing more unhelpful to sharing the Gospel than some fool who's stuck a "How would you like your eternity: regular, or extra crispy?" on the back of his car.  Likewise, theology by meme is usually just as unhelpful; in a world that so despises anyone who tells them of absolute truth, they certainly like their world served up in great big Impact letters pasted across an image, leaving no room for discussion or thought.

Which brings me to this:

I've seen this floating around in the past, and a friend recently posted it again on Facebook.  I think her reason for posting it was legitimate, in that the desire was to see Christians cooperating and showing love to their fellow man, both true and worthy things to desire.  What Jesus is to someone saved and transformed by the Holy Spirit is King, Lord, Savior, Author of our faith, and we should be saying "Come here and drink this living water Jesus has brought!"

The thing is, most people aren't interested in the Jesus that believers know, that the Bible talks about.  They aren't interested in the king who became a servant, lived a life none of us could ever live and paid the penalty for our rebellion and wickedness.  No, the Jesus most people want is the Jesus that's just like them, and that would never condemn them.  Above we see "hippy Jesus," who just wanted everyone to love and help everyone; there's Republican Jesus, who stands apart and pronounces judgment on sinfulness while patting the righteous on the back (he looks a lot like Democrat Jesus, who stands apart and pronounces judgment on greed while patting redistributionists on the back).  There's Western Evangelical Jesus, who wears a shiny white robe with a red sash just like the paintings and turned water into grape juice, and just wants to smile and pat you on the back because you're doing a great job, buddy!  The point is, we ought to look at these sort of images and be able to say, "I don't know what Jesus he's talking about, but it's not the one who saved me."

Why does this matter?  Why can't I just let people have what they want?  Because I love Jesus, and I want others to love Him too: the true Jesus, not one of our own imagining.  This weekend we celebrated Easter, which is to say, we celebrated something very real and meaningful: we remembered Christ's death on the cross and what it means that He accomplished our salvation, and His defeat of death in His resurrection.  This is critical, and understanding who Jesus is and what He did in His life and ministry is part and parcel of truth-loving, honest worship.

Initially I wanted to spend time tearing the above image apart, responding to every bad argument, every misunderstanding and bad exegetical claim, but after spending time doing that I felt like it wasn't making the point any better than I could make it by simply saying this: if a person is studying the Word, sitting in prayer, and putting himself under authority of godly leadership that is doing the same, he is going to look at something like this (or Republican Jesus, or Democrat Jesus, or Homeless Jesus, or Is Okay With My Personal Sin Jesus, or...) and say, "That's not right."  And our society is full of this sort of thing.  Normally this is where I'd quote Romans 1, but instead since it's been rolling around a lot of the discussions I've been reading/listening to online, I'm gonna go to John 6:

On the next day the crowd that remained on the other side of the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone. Other boats from Tiberias came near the place where they had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum, seeking Jesus.

When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 

They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”--John 6:22-44

This entire scene speaks clearly to me about the friction between how Jesus is made known in the whole of Scripture, and how people tend to actually want to view Him.  After all, we have plenty of churches in this world that preach an image of Jesus similar to the ones the people Jesus is speaking with see him: not as our Sustainer and King, but as Giver of Stuff, and the difference is significant.  As Sustainer Jesus is worshiped because He made us out of love and calls us to Himself in that same love; as King, Jesus is worshiped as the one who made us and glorifies Himself through redeeming us and bringing us in line with His will.  As Giver of Stuff, Jesus is a magical fairy that can be manipulated into giving us what we want through behavior.  Jesus sees this in these people who followed Him across the lake from the day before, when He had fed them miraculously.  When they approach Him, He knows what they want: more miracles.  They want the Giver of Stuff to Give up the Stuff already!

Jesus isn't going along with this, and calls them out on it.  They try to ask for what they should be doing in order to get more of what they want, and He does what He is seen doing many other times throughout the gospels: He calls out their hearts for disbelief and lets them know, there is no work that can be done.  Those that will know Him, will come because the Father has given them to Him.  That work is written and will be accomplished perfectly.

And that is something we can take great hope in: Jesus, our Sustainer, will do exactly as He says and bring His people to Himself perfectly!  That, friends, is huge, but if you're coming to Jesus looking for an idol to please in exchange for things, or a political ally, or someone to give a thumbs-up to sinful aspects of your life that have become identity-driving...I'm afraid you're out of luck.  There is no knowing Christ, without turning one's back on all of that as what it is: rubbish.  He will be your Sustainer and King, or He will be your judge.  I continue to do battle with sin in my life, but in carrying those to the foot of the cross and exposing them to the light, by living the life the Holy Spirit has empowered me to live and trusting Jesus as my Savior, Sustainer and King, I am able to know Him fully and joyfully.

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.--Colossians 2:13-15

Theology Matters: Eulogy for a dead man

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.--Matthew 7:15-20

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.--Galatians 5:16-24

I have mentioned it a couple other times here, but I can recall a line in one of C.S. Lewis' books to the effect of people having two equally wrong ways to deal with sin: we either take it too harshly and become legalistic jerks, or we take it far too lightly and begin thinking we can do whatever we wish.  In both cases we cease to recognize both the effect and the gravity of Christ crucified: Jesus died on the cross because our sins are deadly serious, and because He has died and risen again we are able to walk in freedom and grace--away from our sin, into God-glorifying lives of sanctification.

Unless you've lived under a rock for the past decade or so, you have probably seen the antics and nonsense from the so-called "Westboro Baptist Church."  I say "so-called" because they are not a church, and they are certainly not Baptist.  They have done everything from give incredibly foolish and nonsense-filled interviews on TV to protesting funerals, to proclaim that the death being mourned has been brought about by a vengeful God because of America's sins, in particular its tolerance of homosexuality.  There is precisely zero understanding of the Gospel, no desire whatsoever to submit to the full counsel of Scripture, and a complete lack of regeneration evident in their words and deeds.  In short, this is what happens when Category A Self-Righteous Hypocrite goes on steroids: you have someone who can see what's wrong but believes, foolishly, that because they aren't engaged in such and such sin that they are clean.  Believing the Gospel does not produce this wicked fruit.

But likewise, the answer is not "You can do anything you want to do, because God made you and therefore anything you want is okay!"  And those are the two sides we find engaged in a battle of "who can be more wrong," amplified by the recent death of Westboro's founder, Fred Phelps.  The fruit of his life is on display for all to see, and one can argue he has been one of the biggest allies of the pro-homosexuality movement: his behavior and words have provoked such a dramatic response that it's hard for anyone with even an ounce of compassion for another human to find a way to make an argument against the normalization of homosexuality.  And so the diseased, thistley, dried-up fruit of his tree is seen before the whole world, many of whom turn and...eat the diseased, thistley, dried-up fruit of unashamed sinfulness.

Phelps was a man dead in his heart reading from a book that could not possibly have any meaning to him.  "How can you say that?" you ask.  "I thought Christians weren't supposed to judge."  Oh, but I can--by what the man produces.  And we know what the life of a man transformed by the power of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit looks like; read it again:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

 So why write all this?  I'm sure that few would begrudge this if I said I simply was in a mood and wanted to kick the man while he was (literally) down, but that could not be farther from the truth.  On the contrary, I'm writing this as a follow-up to my last post, as a demonstration of why, exactly, theology does matter.  When we view the God of the Bible as nothing more than pure, unadulterated judgment of God and do not preach the Gospel, do not believe in God's power to save (in spite of their claimed "Calvinist" position) and do not believe in God's ultimate goal of restoring His creation but rather simply see Him showing up on the scene at some point to damn everyone except...well, them.  When we do not seek to line theology up with what the Bible actually says--the whole Bible--there is almost no end to the foolishness that can result.  Fred Phelps was perhaps one of the most obvious and blatant examples of it, but the danger always exists and we must be vigilant to sit in the Word, to sit in prayer and to celebrate with gratitude and great joy the mercy God has shown us in the person and work of Jesus--for if we don't, we tread very dangerous ground.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.--Galatians 1:6-9

Theology matters

Play on words title!  The best kind.  Theology matters, like "issues of theology," and "theology is relevant and important and you should care about it."  Let's go!

The saying, of course, is thieved with apologies from Dr. White.  I've wanted to write something about this for a while, but I feel like I finally found some more coherence to what I wanted to say after seeing an article on a friend's Facebook wall, and after Sunday's sermon.  The Holy Spirit really used the sermon to convict me and teach me about critical issues of theology, which I want to raise here.  I've talked about the doctrines of grace, and how I believe they are not the objectionable things many people believe them to be, but are instead a message of hope that all Christians should embrace joyfully and rely on in knowing that God has made promises to His people that He will fulfill.  First, though, to the article.

It's from the TED Blog, on "10 facts about infidelity" from Helen Fisher.  I have not gone out and studied her work in detail, but it's evident that she has done quite a bit of study on relationships.  It's not my intent to dissect her work on any level other than that presented in the blog post, with the perspective of a believer.  Those who love to dig into this topic will note that there are quite a few books on the subject linked from the article for further reading.  While there are points made that most anyone could agree with, it is clear that what we have here is what happens when you look at relationships with a presupposition that simultaneously tries to deny God as having any role or say over us, yet still maintain some semblance of purpose to sex and relationships.  The result is...well, we'll see below:

1. Pairbonding is a hallmark of humanity. Data from the Demographic Yearbooks of the United Nations on 97 societies between 1947 and 1992 indicate that approximately 93.1% of women and 91.8% of men marry by age 49. More recent data indicates that some 85% of Americans will eventually marry.

2. However, monogamy is only part of the human reproductive strategy. Infidelity is also widespread. Current studies of American couples indicate that 20 to 40% of heterosexual married men and 20 to 25% of heterosexual married women will also have an extramarital affair during their lifetime.

And let's back up to the introduction:

Love isn’t so much an emotion, says Helen Fisher in her TED Talk. No, love is a brain system — one of three that that’s related to mating and reproduction.  It’s those other two systems that explain why human beings are capable of infidelity even as we so highly value love.

 And the third point from the post:

3. Brain architecture may contribute to infidelity. Human beings have three primary brain systems related to love. 1) The sex drive evolved to motivate individuals to seek copulation with a range of partners; 2) romantic love evolved to motivate individuals to focus their mating energy on specific partners, thereby conserving courtship time and metabolic energy; 3) partner attachment evolved to motivate mating individuals to remain together at least long enough to rear a single child through infancy together. These three basic neural systems interact with one another and other brain systems in myriad flexible, combinatorial patterns to provide the range of motivations, emotions and behaviors necessary to orchestrate our complex human reproductive strategy. But this brain architecture makes it biologically possible to express deep feelings of attachment for one partner, while one feels intense romantic love for another individual, while one feels the sex drive for even more extra-dyadic partners.

Now, it's not my intention to dissect this or necessarily respond to this in depth; the problem, of course, is not that I am some science-ig'nant fundie--the problem is the fundamentally different worldviews that we are bringing to the table here.  I don't deny the possibility that what the article says is factual: that there are brain architectures that relate to love, faithfulness or lack thereof, and all related issues.  What I say, however, is that this is not proof of the accidental nature of our creation or the impersonal nature of our existence--rather, that it points to a very personal Creator who makes us in His image.  We will come back to this another day as it relates to the question of "does that mean God made us to be unfaithful" (the answer is no), but only because I want to get to the next point:

God has made us in His image and loves us.  Because He made us He despises the things that destroy that image and distract us from being that.  It's why the dual nature of God as being both infinite and personal is crucial to understand, and why Jesus coming as a human and living the life of poverty that He did is such an immense display of God's love, for so many reasons; indeed, there are good reasons why discussions of that subject fills untold volumes and I suspect I will be able to write here for years to come as I examine the many facets of that particular gem of truth and beauty.

But when we abandon the theology of a Creator God who made us for a purpose, whose purposes are definite and involve the ultimate good for His children, and who uses all circumstances for His glory and our ultimate benefit, we end up viewing things like sex, marriage and fidelity in such a way where it is simply the byproduct of chemicals mixing, genes creating tendencies and all of it is...well, the only real descriptive word is "purposeless."  It exists for the sake of us, it terminates on our desires of the moment, and if that philosophy becomes dominant, why is anyone surprised that a culture becomes obsessed with self and death?  But the alternative is just as vexing:

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
    and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”--1 Corinthians 1:18-31

The point is that it matters how we view God.  This is a difficult thing to discuss in America especially, because of our idea of the "separation" of church and state and the way that most people operate their lives, with everything in its neat little box and ultimately there to serve our desires rather than everything existing in the single box of "this belongs to God and serves His glory."  In all honesty I have a huge struggle with this, and I have to spend time praying about things like my attitude at work and the way I interact with others.  I know where I'm strong, but my weaknesses sometimes seem overwhelming.  But I have been blessed with people around me who encourage me, pray for me and remind me to keep praying in turn, and God has shown the fruits of submitting all my life to him.

So this is the fundamental split between where I was, and where I am, and it comes down to the name of this blog and its inspiration: the purpose of a man's life is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.  Glorifying God is not drudgery--it is joy, and it's a joy we are able to partake in because we are made by a loving God!  Because He is a loving God, He has seen fit not to leave man purely to his own devices and ultimate demise into death, but to secure a people for Himself, to pay the ransom for them, and to move perfectly to set them from bondage to the slavery of sin and adopt them as His own.  


But if we view God as nonexistent, irrelevant, or something that goes "over there, between 9 and 11am on Sunday," rather than our Creator, Sustainer, Father, and King, then why is anyone surprised when we find our lives out of wack, imbalanced, and broken?  We try to sustain ourselves with spoiled food, to drink water from broken cups. 

And this is why I am unashamed to use the word "reformed" about myself and why I was glad to hear Ross' message Sunday: God made me in His image, but even as the rebellious, self-centered image-tarnisher I was, God loved me and let me see the glory and the mercy of Christ on the cross, let me be indwelt by the Spirit and know Him as my Father, who cleans me up and keeps on pushing, loving, and encouraging.  Not because I have done or ever will do anything to deserve it, but because it is His good pleasure to do so--He knows better than anyone that I certainly do not deserve it.  And that is why seeing an article that discusses sex and infidelity in such empty concepts as "pair bonding" just struck me as bizarre: sex was created and given as a gift, marriage given as a mysterious and beautiful image of the relationship between Christ and the church, and my wife given as a gift to me by a gracious God who uses both of us to sharpen and sanctify the other.

This has been somewhat rambling, but in the end this has been an opportunity to reflect with deep gratitude to God for who He is and for His incredible mercy and grace in my life.  It's not reflected by things or finances or anything except a heart that longs for Him and a family that seeks to grow closer to Him daily.  I pray for more and more of that, that He would increase in my life, and that I would decrease.

Let's try this again

Well, the last post certainly brought one of the more heated responses this blog has ever gotten.  Not on the post itself, but on Twitter it certainly brought on some discussions as well as some rather uncalled-for responses, which I will not get into here.  The author of the piece I was responding to, Micah J. Murray, did in fact reply to me on Twitter.  In the process we learned several things:

1. Micah does, in fact, believe that one can be walking in something the Bible calls sin unrepentantly and still be saved. 
2. He was unwilling to directly answer the question of who, exactly, was saying that gay people were worse sinners than other sinners; his first response was a vague comment about "conservative churches," when pressed for specifics he did not reply. 
3. Those who agreed with him continued to argue a point I specifically disagreed with, preferring to set up a "hater" straw man to actually engaging my arguments.  They operated on the assumption that I was setting gay people apart from others, rather than insisting that they be counted as part of the population that makes up the world: rebel sinners in need of God's grace.
4. Where Micah did attempt to engage my actual arguments, his position was Scripturally deficient, rooted in his opinion rather than anything biblical.  Where Scripture did enter into it, issues of definition abound. 

Now, let me say that I believe I understand the driving force behind where he is right now.  I've walked with many men and women who have felt burned by the church, felt like they came into a body of believers with struggles and pain and needing someone to listen and help them, and came away feeling rejected and lost.  And this is a compassion that I share, and that ought to be shared by every believer; like him, I want people to know Jesus not as a condemner but as a savior, one who sets people free from their slavery to sin.  I want people to rejoice at the name of Christ, to have the ability to trust him wholly and freely.

But the problem, and the place where we are going to part ways, is that I cannot see biblically how any argument can be made that one can be unrepentantly in any sin and still be saved.  Furthermore, the modern cultural redefinition of sin to "if it doesn't hurt anyone else, it's okay" is not an allowance Scripture provides for.  Not that Jesus cannot save anyone the Father gives to Him, because we know that He will do so.  But with he and his followers unwilling to even acquiesce to the idea that homosexuality is a sin, the struggle here is with presuppositions.  So let's start from the foundation, from the beginning of understanding our relationship with God and why Christ came.

The uncensored Gospel: Responding to Micah J. Murray

This is a long one, folks.  Stay with me.

I have struggled over how exactly to approach this subject; I've probably started and deleted at least three previous posts on this over the last couple weeks.  I think, perhaps, that it's a good thing that I typically don't get around to writing about current event type stuff until it's somewhat settled and done, because it means I've had time to consider and digest information, to see how things have shaken out a bit.  There was a time, after all, where rushing to be the first to respond to and report on an event was not the primary goal, but rather, thoughtful discourse was the word of the day.  It is my hope to provide that, here, on the subject of homosexuality as it is working itself out as an issue in our country today and in the public sphere.

Of course, this is not a new topic, but the latest fire set on this issue came when Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame gave an interview to GQ.  Robertson is a believer and a long-time member of the Church of Christ, and while there are some soteriological issues such as baptismal regeneration that we would disagree over, from his words and actions I have no doubt that he is a brother in Christ.  I wouldn't want him to be my lead pastor, but I'll pray with and for the man with no fear of rebuke.  If you aren't familiar with his story, you should check it out.

However, I'm not wanting to talk about reality TV, the Robertson clan, or freedom of speech issues as they relate to employment, but rather the visceral reaction that came as a result of his quoting scripture that names, among other sins, homosexuality explicitly as sinful and rejected by God.  We've had posts saying that it is "morally irresponsible" to speak to the issue of sin as it relates to homosexuality, but what I want to respond to here is a post from the HuffPo called, "Why I Can't Say 'Love the Sinner/Hate the Sin' Anymore," by Micah J. Murray.  It's been a while since I've done what's known in the blogosphere as a "fisking," and I don't feel like that's exactly what I'm doing; my desire is to discuss, in love and rooted in Scripture, why I disagree with this author and believe his argument to be based, not in truth, but in emotionalism and a desire to avoid confronting others in their sin.  But I want to break this down and examine his argument; if Christians are going to truly understand why God rejects sin and why He sent His Son to die to atone for it, if we are going to understand the magnificent gift that He has given and be able to preach the Gospel to everyone, not just the people who will hear it without anger, then his position demands refutation.

Picking tulips

It was my occasion today to engage in conversation with some fellow believers on Facebook, over the subject of limited atonement. My brothers and sisters were incensed at the idea and, like many people brought up in our tradition-bound churches, believed that it was opposed to the message of salvation as being a message of hope for all people.

I have seen a lot of different reactions from people in these sorts of conversations: in a couple instances I had people who just switched to full emotional outburst mode, not wanting to even discuss the topic and calling the idea of Calvinism "satanic." In such cases while I often press them to explain more, typically it's something ingrained deeply and it's beyond my purview to dislodge such thoughts. In other cases it's just because they have certain understandings about what the Bible says, and while we have had respectful conversations it's simply a matter of disagreement. And in some instances people have applied terms such as "four point Calvinist" to themselves, meaning that they believe in some of the less controversial doctrines that descend from the famous TULIP acronym, but limited atonement or unconditional election are sticking points for them, usually for the same reason as the second group but with less reticence over the term "Calvinist."

My desire here is to expound on why I believe in the doctrines of grace, and to explain my contention that, as Charles Spurgeon put it, "Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else." I want to say first and foremost that I'm not here to defend John Calvin as a perfect man, and if your response to this involves wrongs committed by Calvin then quite frankly I'm not interested. John Calvin was just a man, and like myself, a sinner. But he provided a thorough, deep, and accurate understanding of what the Bible teaches about God, about us, and about God's role in bringing about salvation for our sakes.

Advent: Why has He come?

You might not have noticed yet, but it's the Christmas season.  I know, I know..."Really?  I didn't notice.  I mean, aside from the EVERYTHING CHRISTMAS IS EVERYTHING FOR THE LOVE OF GOD I CAN'T TAKE IT" sorry...I think I was channeling a retail employee for a moment there.  My point is, it's Christmas, and that also means that it's time for one essay and discussion after another about "the real meaning of Christmas" or "what Christmas is all about."

Well, let's start simple:


 But more specifically: why did Christ come?  Why did God move to effect salvation of man by sending His Son to Earth to become human, to live the life he did, to die, and to rise again?  To examine all the implications of and answers to that question, would require a book and perhaps someday I'll be given the chance to write that.  But I want to speak to the presuppositions underlying the issue, as well as share some of the more thought-provoking reading I've been blessed to engage in lately, thanks to the new house which gives me my own "study" to do said reading.

One of the remarkable things about Christianity is the nature of God as He reveals Himself in His Word.  I am going to turn over a not-small portion of this post to Francis Schaeffer, because I don't feel I can explain it better without simply plagiarizing him:

The historic Christian answer concerning verifiable facts and knowing turns on who God is, on who is there.  The God who is there according to the Scriptures is the personal-infinite God.  There is no other god like this God.  It is ridiculous to say that all religions teach the same things when they disagree at the fundamental point as to what God is like.  The gods of the East are infinite by definition--the definition being "god is all that is."  This is the pan-everything-ism god.  The gods of the West have tended to be personal but limited; such were the gods of the Greeks, Romans and Germans.  But the God of the Bible, Old and New Testaments alike, is the infinite-personal God.

[...]

How then is God's creation related to Himself and to itself?  On the side of God's infinity there is a break between God and the whole of His creation.  I am as separated from God in the area of His being the Creator and infinite and I being the creature and finite, as is the atom or energy particle.  I am no closer to God on this side than the machine.

However on the side of God's personality, the break comes between man and the rest of creation.  In terms of modern thought this is a dynamic conception of which modern man and modern theology know nothing.  So Schweitzer identified himself with the hippopotamus, for he did not understand that man's relationship is upward; and therefore he looked downward to a creature which does many of the same things as himself.  But on the side of personality, if our relationship is upward, then everything concerning man's "mannishness" is in place.

 So what does this have to do with the question above?  What relevance does this have to do with the season of Advent, when we celebrate the coming of God in Jesus Christ?  It's relevant because Jesus came not as an impersonal force, not as a new faceless edict from a prophet...He came as a man.  Jesus came as a man who then built personal, deep relationships with other people.  He preached for certain, but reading the Bible we see that His biggest, most transformative work was done in the lives of the men and women He was closest to: He healed many, but His disciples He worked with beyond physical pains down to their hearts, loving them gently and leading them to become the men who would boldly proclaim His name to the world. 

God is infinite and His infinite nature is something that leads many to say things like "We can't really ever understand God" in the sense that trying is a fool's errand.  But no one has been asked to express the inexpressible: it is God's good purpose to give us Himself personally just as much as to awe us with His infinity.  "The heavens proclaim the glory of God," wrote the psalmist, and gazing into the sky and seeing the vastness of the universe, knowing as we do now how much more vast and great it is than they could have dreamed those thousands of years ago both in a macro and micro sense, we wonder exactly how much greater our God is if this universe is just a speck compared to His majesty.  But we are edified, and humbled, by the man Jesus Christ who came to Earth to live the life we can never live, die the death we deserve to die, and to look broken, rebellious sinners in the face and bring restoration, healing and love to them.  Praise God, those words came to me through His Word and His Spirit, and changed a heart once buried in sin.

And so this advent season, we look back to His first coming, and ahead, to His second.  May that day come soon, to give rest to the weary and to complete the work begun on the cross and at the grave.

Book review: What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qu'ran

Let me preface this by saying that I don't consider myself to have any sort of authority to really "review" this or any other book as...well, as an authority.  I am writing about it purely from the perspective of, I would say, the sort of person this book is intended for: a Christian desiring to have knowledge that can aid in the preaching of the Gospel to those who need to hear it most (that would be everyone).  And to that end, the book I want to discuss is exceedingly useful.

The book I refer to is What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qu'ran, by James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries.  Dr. White is an incredibly intelligent and well-spoken teacher and preacher of the Word, and while there are a couple of minor points we may disagree over*, by and large I have found his work to be invaluable in expanding my understanding, maturity and confidence.  He has a prolific body of work, and is known for his unflinching engagement of apologetic issues ranging from second and third tier issue discussions (issues like spiritual giftings and the various "isms" of Christianity, like new perspectivism, Calvinism vs. Arminianism, etc.), cultic offshoots of Christianity (such as King James Onlyists) and other religions such as Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses, atheism, and of course, Islam.

There are many things to appreciate about all of Dr. White's works, but three primary ones shine through that make this work helpful and edifying for the believer:

1. It is detailed and utilizes good scholarship while still being readable and clear.  So much writing is just hard to wade through because it's so thick, either with dry, boring prose or the author's own overwrought attempts to sound "casual" that generally result in them sounding confused and unclear.  Dr. White is a heavy user of footnotes, and every statement is backed up with thorough documentation so that, should the reader so desire, one can verify if his statements are true and reflective of what he is discussing.  In addition to this, he is completely transparent both as to his motivations and his sources, and such transparency only serves to make his work more credible in the eyes of someone who may otherwise be skeptical of a Christian writing about Islam.
2. This is not an anti-Muslim screed, or a book about the encroaching dangers of Islamofascism/sharia law in the West.  Dr. White desires to see transformed hearts in the Muslim world, and approaches them not as enemies needing to be beaten back, but as brothers and sisters that are astray and in need of Christ's love.  As a result, this book is written in love and in a spirit of gentle correction and discussion that, one hopes, would be accompanied by the Spirit's movement in the hearts of readers to unlock chains of deception.  That in and of itself makes it incredibly unique.
3. Dr. White is devoted to the idea that a text should be able to speak for itself, and therefore the book has extensive quotations from both the Qu'ran and the hadith literature that forms the body of understanding and commentary on the Qu'ran.  By doing so he is able to open the minds of Christians seeking to understand their Muslim neighbors, to talk about their worldview without attacking and to give an apologetic basis for engaging in the areas that typically are sticking points between Christians and Muslims.  In one section, he writes about the claims of the Qu'ran that "people of the book" (a.k.a., Jews and Christians) should look to their own writings (the Torah and the Gospel) for evidence that Mohammed is Allah's final prophet and that the Qu'ran is Allah's true and final word, while also demonstrating that the Qu'ran's author clearly did not know what was contained in either of those writings.**  While anyone who has engaged with someone from another faith can well attest, simply demonstrating this will not generally cause them to make an about-face into Christianity.  It can, however, open doors of dialogue, and demonstrate that we as believers do take them seriously and desire to understand them. 

The spirit of love and the earnest desire to see Muslim lives transformed by the power of the Gospel is infectious and clear.  This is a book that anyone who wishes to understand their neighbors, their mission field or just to understand the true thoughts and desires of the people we see portrayed on the news as everything from savage monsters to innocent victims of Western colonialism.  Muslims, like all others, need to know that Jesus is not simply a teacher or prophet, not simply someone who said good things and carries a title of Messiah, but that Jesus lives and that He gave His life to redeem theirs.  They need to know that their good works do not hold value before a holy and just God, but that in Christ they are seen as justified, sanctified and glorified, adopted children of the living God.

I encourage everyone to read this book.  I read it on my Kindle phone app, which was very useful in hopping back and forth easily between the main part of the book and the footnotes.  While it won't make you an expert on Islam (a title even Dr. White does not claim), it together with a knowledge of the Bible will give you a foothold in understanding it and its adherents, and in being able to have loving, fruitful conversations that, God willing, will lead to lives transformed by the power of the Gospel.

Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.--1 Peter 3:14-16