Since I feel a bit in a theological mood today, I am going to discuss some theological topics. One that has always been one of my favourites to discuss is: what is sin?
It's very interesting, because if you ask any group of people, Christian or not, chances are they will define sin in terms of its tangible outcroppings, or its manifestations - they will say stuff like sin is lying, cheating, murdering, etc. The problem with this is that defining it by the symptoms is not entirely accurate. The other problem is that Hollywood and such has made so many movies in which they have not really consulted anyone with half a theological brain to find out whether what they are portraying is accurate. So people think sin is bad stuff that you do. That is not correct, according to the Bible.
In that vein, in framing my comments here, I do want to state that a lot of people view TV and movies and think that the Christian church = The Roman Catholic Church. As a result, they will see the church being a bunch of dos and don'ts, of ritualism and rules-based (I have some major issues with Roman Catholic theology - that will be another discussion for another time). If you look at how the early church was set up in the New Testament, as well as Jesus' teaching for his followers, you will see a different structure. True, some Protestant denominations are just as rote and ritualistic, but I know that many aren't, so I'd ask you to qualify how you define "Christian theology" and "Christian church". I'd go even as far as to say that, despite the fact that most Americans call themselves Christians, I think the number of born-again Christians who have accepted Jesus Christ as Saviour and following Him every day is considerably smaller. Anyway...
While sin is not defined per se (ie. you will never see Jesus say, "this is what sin means", in the context of the rest of Scripture, I propose that sin can essentially be seen as anything which people do which they put their own selfish desires first. Essentially, I would see it as going your way instead of what God would like (or at the very least, not seeking God's will). Now, I realize that I'm not speaking to a predominantly Christian audience here, so I'm sure I may get a cold reception, but this is how I see it, as per my understanding of the Bible, and I have seen consistency in how this plays out in real life.
Some will argue that the Christian sees the world as a horrible and bad place, and as a result, has this worldview of sin in order to buttress their bleak outlook on life. However, I would generally agree with this outlook - however, I would define horrible and bad in the context of sin - it's all through Scripture since the Fall, that humans have that separation from God due to their decision to go their own way. As a result, humanity, until its very end, will bear the consequences of sin. Some people have asked about why God allows suffering of people who never deserved it. I can't answer that question, but I would say that in some cases, it has to not do with their own sin, but other people's sin. Someone drinks too much, drives a car, hits my car and kills my wife and child. Did I deserve to lose my wife and child? I can't figure out why this happened, but I do realize that if I'm ever in such a situation, I'll just have to yield to the fact that actions have consequences and sometimes those consequences affect those beyond us. That is the nature of sin - it's never really in a vacuum.
I'm sure a follow-up question would be: are people inherently good or bad? Again, this answer will not make me popular, but I strongly believe and am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that people are inherently bad, even if they have the propensity and potential for good. This is consistent with my understanding of sin built-into people when they are born till they die. Here's a personal example I can share: when my son was born, he was born into a pretty loving household. We did not teach him any aggressive behaviour or to be selfish. Yet when he turns 1 or 2, what happens: he starts grabbing stuff from other kids, he starts wanting his own way, he starts pushing others that are in his way - in other words, he is very self-centered. How did he become like that? We never taught him that, nor did we model that for him. It is only by constant discipline and correction that he is able to either keep those selfish desires in check, etc. I've seen this with every single infant/toddler that I meet, regardless of who the parents are. People are generally selfish. And that is just not babies and toddlers.
The good news of the Gospel is that Jesus has overcome sin, and as a result, has bridged the gap between God and humanity. Unfortunately, many churches do not teach this central truth, but instead focus on a list of dos and don't, which is not only not taught by Jesus, but based on Scripture has been shown to be ineffective, since people are selfish by nature and will want to go their own way at some point, rather than yielding to a higher authority. This is no different than the Pharisees who accosted Jesus in his day, who basically were the same people who thought that faith was just "doing the right things" and "looking the right way", etc. That was a false notion of following God, and it was rebuked in Jesus' day by the Man Himself, and it should be rebuked today.
Showing posts with label sin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sin. Show all posts
Monday, September 24, 2007
Friday, June 29, 2007
Homosexuality and the Church
Well, I've been doing this for a few months and have readers in both Canada and the U.S. (and who knows where else). I see that my blogs are not searchable over Google, so I must be getting the word out. I've talked about both current issues and my own experiences, but what I really started this blog for, was to give opinion. I've decided that I'm going to start slapping down my views on several issues that, even in evangelical Christian circles, people generally try not to touch with a 10-foot javelin. One of these issues is the whole issue of homosexuality. Many people in today's left-leaning society would take me to task and tell me that there is no issue, and I'm just fanning the flames of intolerance (one of the favourite catch-all phrases of the liberal left). Worse, I would be labelled the infamous "homophobic" label for my views, which I suppose is supposed to somehow be on par with being called a racist.
Let me deal with this one first. Homophobic, is, by definition to mean that one is afraid of homosexuals. I am not afraid of homosexuals, just like I am not afraid of heterosexuals. So let's state that first. I know people who are gay, and I work with people who are gay, and hell, I found out that my old college roommate was gay - I still talk to him. I am not afraid of homosexuals. The problem these days is that if people somehow disagree with some the beliefs or behaviour of another group, they will get labels placed on them (sort of like people who point out that there is a problem with crime in black communities in urban areas - they then get labelled a racist...I tell you, there is no better way to create future racists than to alienate people to voice valid opinions (and yes, I agree, how they voice it matters). Go ahead, throw your darts at me - I'll be happy to absorb them. I've always called a spade a spade, to the chagrin of others, and that ain't going to change any time soon.
Where I draw the line on this issue is that I absolutely, unequivocally do not support what people call the gay "lifestyle". What does this mean? It means that I do not believe in gay romance, gay marriage, gay adoption - in other words, anything that would start eating away at what God has placed as His model of life-long marriage relationships between a man and a woman. Despite what many folks who choose not to have children will say, the fact of the matter is, married people do have a responsibility (obligation is too strong of a word) to procreate and continue to fill the earth. I think that is why God intended to put a woman and man together in marriage (also to satisfy each other, but as we're not doing a study on Song of Solomon, that will have to wait till another time). That is God's design. Men and men and women and women cannot biologically procreate. Men and women also complement each other in terms of personality, able to meet needs mutually (ie. women crave love, men crave respect). I don't believe such a balance can be achieved in a homosexual relationship.
Notice I did not discuss much in terms of sexuality, but I will now (THE NEXT PARTS ARE A BIT EXPLICIT SO USE DISCRETION)...some people will use the silly smokescreen that they don't believe in gay relationships because of the gay sex part - so let's be quite frank here. Gay sex can only be constituted mainly in two ways: oral sex and anal sex. The problem with using those two sex acts as the determining factor as to why the lifestyle is not acceptable, is that heterosexuals can and do engage in both, yet I don't hear incriminations raining down on straight folks. Now, it is very true that the Bible calls for a man not to lie with a man as with a woman. So basically, men should not be having sexual relations with one another. How it manifests itself is irrelevant, in my opinion. Now, if you want to know my opinion of anal sex, I can tell you - I would probably classify it as not being as "natural" as penile-vaginal intercourse. The anus is not really a naturally lubricated area, and since there is far greater chance of infection and bacteria, it's probably not the greatest place to be (and that is a generalization for men and women).
All that being said, let me generally state that I believe that many churches in North America have not handled this issue properly (with both sides of the coin). I want to focus on this, since much of the opposition to homosexuality is coming out of the evangelical Christian church. I think that churches have not thought this issue through and simply say "it is wrong!" (what is wrong?) and "that is disgusting" (which I can agree with, but I think there's a much more intelligent and logical way to discuss issues rather than name calling and belittling. Conversely, some churches have approached the issue in an effort to not offend and be compassionate and inclusive. I think this is more catering to today's "accept everyone and don't offend anyone" climate. These churches, I believe, are not looking at what Scripture is teaching.
Let me publicly state that I do agree with some homosexuals and lesbians who said that Christians oftentimes are guilty of having a double-standard for themselves and others. They say that homosexuality is wrong, yet they don't condemn gambling (yes, lottery tickets or being in the office lottery pool counts as gambling, folks!), don't condemn as strongly pre-marital sex, don't condemn relationships/marriage between Christians and non-Christians (which Scripture clearly warns against), don't condemn drunkenness, foul language amongst Christians, or even not showing compassion to the less fortunate, as Jesus taught). The same churches which would elevate homosexuality to the gravest of sins will have no problem raising their kids not to marry black people or using the "n" word freely in their social circles. All are great points, and I would absolutely agree that it is hard to take a Christian seriously who condemns homosexuality, yet has their own sins that they seem to place on a different sliding scale.
Here's how I believe churches need to handle the issue: 1) since Scripture clearly indicates that homosexual sexual relations is wrong, churches need to ensure that those who are in such relationships are rebuked (just as they should rebuke common-law relationships between men and women or pre-marital sexual relationships between men and women). 2) Churches need to distinguish that there is a difference between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity. What am I talking about here? I do not believe it is wrong to be tempted or struggle with certain things, including homosexual thoughts. Either acting on them or entertaining them is where it becomes sinful. In this vein, 3) I would have no problems welcoming a person who struggles with homosexual thoughts as a member of my church, so long as they remain chaste (ie. do not engage in homosexual relations or sexual relations), and they recognize that Scripture teaches that homosexual behaviour is sinful). It's no different than welcoming a straight person who struggles with lust, but has it under control). Ordaining a minister who is has leanings toward homosexuality, yet chaste and recognizes that homosexual sex is sinful, is another issue, one on which I haven't come to exact conclusions, but of course, I should let you know that I do not support women in minister positions and I generally believe that senior ministers for churches should ideally be married, so I guess I probably would not support a single man who has struggled with homosexuality, as a church leader, for the same reason that I would not support a married man who struggles with undressing women with his eyes).
Some other items. One, is that the argument is made that so many heterosexual marriages end in divorce, and there are so many heterosexual relationships where the woman is being abused or beaten - surely give homosexual relationships a chance. I can, of course, never conclusively say that it is not better for a woman who is in a relationship where she gets the shit kicked out of her every night, to be in a loving relationship with another woman who doesn't abuse her. But I think we are comparing apples to oranges here. No one in their right mind would support a marriage where the husband constantly physically beats the wife (unless you are from the part of the world known for suicide bombers). But I find the problem in using this argument is you are using emotions in favour of the argument, rather than thinking things through. Agree, the woman should get out of the physically abusive relationship. She can always find another man. But let's say she wants kids and as a father, I know how important it is for my son to have both a mother AND a father. My wife brings stuff to my son which I cannot bring, and I bring stuff to my son that my wife cannot bring. That is God's design. But if you are a Christian, it is good to consider what the Bible says as well, not just your own feelings. Otherwise, what's to prevent a married man who is not happy with his sex life, to go over to the other lady at church who is having marriage problems and getting it on after Sunday service, at a local hotel? Certainly, he is feeling better and is getting his sexual needs met, but is what he is doing RIGHT? Unfortunately, that is the question many Christians are not asking themselves.
There is another argument regarding monogamy, that I find is easier to address. The adherents of this argument claim that it is better to have a monogamous homosexual relationship rather than a promiscuous heterosexual one. I don't accept the premise that this has to be an either/or scenario, since I believe the Bible is clear on the fact that homosexual sexual relations is wrong - and yes, I am assuming that there is homosexual sex involved in my above example - otherwise, it can be constituted as two roommates, nothing more). I agree that being in any monogamous relationship greatly reduces chance of contracting an STD or infectious disease, but again, because I believe that homosexual sexual relations is condemned in the Bible, and I also believe that sexual promiscuity (in any form) is condemned in the Bible - the question for me is akin to asking a police officer, "what is better, me driving 160KM in a 50KM zone, or shooting my pellet rifle at pedestrians from a bell tower?" Both are wrong under the standard by which the police officer enforces, so it's a sham argument, in my opinion.
Another question that people ask that is just a set-you-up-and-knock-you-down question is whether gays or homosexuals can be saved (the questions usually comes out like "can gays go to heaven." Here's my answer on this one, and it applies to anyone in the world - and this is right from the Bible - anyone who confesses Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour, repents of their sins, and commits to live their life from that point forward as a follower of Jesus Christ, will be saved. End of discussion.
Just last week, there was the Pride Parade in Toronto (and around the world). I notice that they have since dropped the "Gay" part out of the equation. Anyway, if you watched coverage of it (I didn't choose to, but it's in the paper nonetheless, even in the more conservative ones), you would have seen many people flaunting sexuality. For anyone to say that there is no sexual focus in the gay and lesbian community is blowing smoke in my face. If it were a heterosexual parade, there wouldn't be as crazy of a display of people in various states of undress and flaunting certain body parts. The straight community do not have bath houses and cottages where men can meet for sex very casually. Yes, there are brothels and what not, but even those are under wraps. I was downtown in the gay district years ago (passing through while doing some shopping) and I went into some bookstore to use their washroom. I'm not kidding you - there was this hole in between stalls and I was like, "what the heck is that"? Thought it was something like some toilet paper dispenser that fell out of the wall. I was mentioning this in a casual conversation with someone a few months later and they said that it was blowjob hole, and I'm sitting there thinking, "you've got to be kidding!" Whether it was or not, I haven't seen one of those anywhere else. Anyway, if you don't think that sex is paramount to the gay community, just check out gay discussion online forums - it is loaded with more sexual stuff than many straight discussion forums. I am mentioning all this to emphasize that it is this whole gay sexualization that I find abhorrent and it is this that I believe the Bible condemns. I work with a gay man, who is one of the nicest guys I know, a very gentle person who I'd be happy to hire to work on my team anyday. He is not one of those "flaunt my sexuality" gay people. It's sad to see that Christians in the past have tossed him aside since he's gay. I am angered by the self-righteousness of certain Christians who seem to think that gays are less-human than anyone else. I think it's important to note how Jesus treats people, and I will leave you with this example, which is often used, but used incompletely.
Jesus found a woman who was caught in an adulterous situation. The crowds, no doubt comprised of a fair amount of "religious" people at the time, wanted her to be stoned, as it said in the law. Jesus simply indicated that the persons who are without their own sin in their lives should cast the first stone. People dropped their stones, realizing that they have their own sinful hangups. Now, don't stop reading here!!! Oftentimes, people will use the above example to cite that we should never judge people and that we should always be compassionate, etc. The story is not done yet! Jesus then turns to the woman and his final words are important, "Go, and sin no more!" Notice that? Jesus did not turn a blind eye to her sin, even though he made the crowds realize they can't simply condemn her. Jesus command her to stop sinning. So I think this is important in how we as Christians minister to our homosexual neighbours, colleagues, friends and family. People oftentimes will say, "love the sinner, hate the sin." (which is a Biblical principle). Let's not forget that there are two parts of that equation.
Let me deal with this one first. Homophobic, is, by definition to mean that one is afraid of homosexuals. I am not afraid of homosexuals, just like I am not afraid of heterosexuals. So let's state that first. I know people who are gay, and I work with people who are gay, and hell, I found out that my old college roommate was gay - I still talk to him. I am not afraid of homosexuals. The problem these days is that if people somehow disagree with some the beliefs or behaviour of another group, they will get labels placed on them (sort of like people who point out that there is a problem with crime in black communities in urban areas - they then get labelled a racist...I tell you, there is no better way to create future racists than to alienate people to voice valid opinions (and yes, I agree, how they voice it matters). Go ahead, throw your darts at me - I'll be happy to absorb them. I've always called a spade a spade, to the chagrin of others, and that ain't going to change any time soon.
Where I draw the line on this issue is that I absolutely, unequivocally do not support what people call the gay "lifestyle". What does this mean? It means that I do not believe in gay romance, gay marriage, gay adoption - in other words, anything that would start eating away at what God has placed as His model of life-long marriage relationships between a man and a woman. Despite what many folks who choose not to have children will say, the fact of the matter is, married people do have a responsibility (obligation is too strong of a word) to procreate and continue to fill the earth. I think that is why God intended to put a woman and man together in marriage (also to satisfy each other, but as we're not doing a study on Song of Solomon, that will have to wait till another time). That is God's design. Men and men and women and women cannot biologically procreate. Men and women also complement each other in terms of personality, able to meet needs mutually (ie. women crave love, men crave respect). I don't believe such a balance can be achieved in a homosexual relationship.
Notice I did not discuss much in terms of sexuality, but I will now (THE NEXT PARTS ARE A BIT EXPLICIT SO USE DISCRETION)...some people will use the silly smokescreen that they don't believe in gay relationships because of the gay sex part - so let's be quite frank here. Gay sex can only be constituted mainly in two ways: oral sex and anal sex. The problem with using those two sex acts as the determining factor as to why the lifestyle is not acceptable, is that heterosexuals can and do engage in both, yet I don't hear incriminations raining down on straight folks. Now, it is very true that the Bible calls for a man not to lie with a man as with a woman. So basically, men should not be having sexual relations with one another. How it manifests itself is irrelevant, in my opinion. Now, if you want to know my opinion of anal sex, I can tell you - I would probably classify it as not being as "natural" as penile-vaginal intercourse. The anus is not really a naturally lubricated area, and since there is far greater chance of infection and bacteria, it's probably not the greatest place to be (and that is a generalization for men and women).
All that being said, let me generally state that I believe that many churches in North America have not handled this issue properly (with both sides of the coin). I want to focus on this, since much of the opposition to homosexuality is coming out of the evangelical Christian church. I think that churches have not thought this issue through and simply say "it is wrong!" (what is wrong?) and "that is disgusting" (which I can agree with, but I think there's a much more intelligent and logical way to discuss issues rather than name calling and belittling. Conversely, some churches have approached the issue in an effort to not offend and be compassionate and inclusive. I think this is more catering to today's "accept everyone and don't offend anyone" climate. These churches, I believe, are not looking at what Scripture is teaching.
Let me publicly state that I do agree with some homosexuals and lesbians who said that Christians oftentimes are guilty of having a double-standard for themselves and others. They say that homosexuality is wrong, yet they don't condemn gambling (yes, lottery tickets or being in the office lottery pool counts as gambling, folks!), don't condemn as strongly pre-marital sex, don't condemn relationships/marriage between Christians and non-Christians (which Scripture clearly warns against), don't condemn drunkenness, foul language amongst Christians, or even not showing compassion to the less fortunate, as Jesus taught). The same churches which would elevate homosexuality to the gravest of sins will have no problem raising their kids not to marry black people or using the "n" word freely in their social circles. All are great points, and I would absolutely agree that it is hard to take a Christian seriously who condemns homosexuality, yet has their own sins that they seem to place on a different sliding scale.
Here's how I believe churches need to handle the issue: 1) since Scripture clearly indicates that homosexual sexual relations is wrong, churches need to ensure that those who are in such relationships are rebuked (just as they should rebuke common-law relationships between men and women or pre-marital sexual relationships between men and women). 2) Churches need to distinguish that there is a difference between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity. What am I talking about here? I do not believe it is wrong to be tempted or struggle with certain things, including homosexual thoughts. Either acting on them or entertaining them is where it becomes sinful. In this vein, 3) I would have no problems welcoming a person who struggles with homosexual thoughts as a member of my church, so long as they remain chaste (ie. do not engage in homosexual relations or sexual relations), and they recognize that Scripture teaches that homosexual behaviour is sinful). It's no different than welcoming a straight person who struggles with lust, but has it under control). Ordaining a minister who is has leanings toward homosexuality, yet chaste and recognizes that homosexual sex is sinful, is another issue, one on which I haven't come to exact conclusions, but of course, I should let you know that I do not support women in minister positions and I generally believe that senior ministers for churches should ideally be married, so I guess I probably would not support a single man who has struggled with homosexuality, as a church leader, for the same reason that I would not support a married man who struggles with undressing women with his eyes).
Some other items. One, is that the argument is made that so many heterosexual marriages end in divorce, and there are so many heterosexual relationships where the woman is being abused or beaten - surely give homosexual relationships a chance. I can, of course, never conclusively say that it is not better for a woman who is in a relationship where she gets the shit kicked out of her every night, to be in a loving relationship with another woman who doesn't abuse her. But I think we are comparing apples to oranges here. No one in their right mind would support a marriage where the husband constantly physically beats the wife (unless you are from the part of the world known for suicide bombers). But I find the problem in using this argument is you are using emotions in favour of the argument, rather than thinking things through. Agree, the woman should get out of the physically abusive relationship. She can always find another man. But let's say she wants kids and as a father, I know how important it is for my son to have both a mother AND a father. My wife brings stuff to my son which I cannot bring, and I bring stuff to my son that my wife cannot bring. That is God's design. But if you are a Christian, it is good to consider what the Bible says as well, not just your own feelings. Otherwise, what's to prevent a married man who is not happy with his sex life, to go over to the other lady at church who is having marriage problems and getting it on after Sunday service, at a local hotel? Certainly, he is feeling better and is getting his sexual needs met, but is what he is doing RIGHT? Unfortunately, that is the question many Christians are not asking themselves.
There is another argument regarding monogamy, that I find is easier to address. The adherents of this argument claim that it is better to have a monogamous homosexual relationship rather than a promiscuous heterosexual one. I don't accept the premise that this has to be an either/or scenario, since I believe the Bible is clear on the fact that homosexual sexual relations is wrong - and yes, I am assuming that there is homosexual sex involved in my above example - otherwise, it can be constituted as two roommates, nothing more). I agree that being in any monogamous relationship greatly reduces chance of contracting an STD or infectious disease, but again, because I believe that homosexual sexual relations is condemned in the Bible, and I also believe that sexual promiscuity (in any form) is condemned in the Bible - the question for me is akin to asking a police officer, "what is better, me driving 160KM in a 50KM zone, or shooting my pellet rifle at pedestrians from a bell tower?" Both are wrong under the standard by which the police officer enforces, so it's a sham argument, in my opinion.
Another question that people ask that is just a set-you-up-and-knock-you-down question is whether gays or homosexuals can be saved (the questions usually comes out like "can gays go to heaven." Here's my answer on this one, and it applies to anyone in the world - and this is right from the Bible - anyone who confesses Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour, repents of their sins, and commits to live their life from that point forward as a follower of Jesus Christ, will be saved. End of discussion.
Just last week, there was the Pride Parade in Toronto (and around the world). I notice that they have since dropped the "Gay" part out of the equation. Anyway, if you watched coverage of it (I didn't choose to, but it's in the paper nonetheless, even in the more conservative ones), you would have seen many people flaunting sexuality. For anyone to say that there is no sexual focus in the gay and lesbian community is blowing smoke in my face. If it were a heterosexual parade, there wouldn't be as crazy of a display of people in various states of undress and flaunting certain body parts. The straight community do not have bath houses and cottages where men can meet for sex very casually. Yes, there are brothels and what not, but even those are under wraps. I was downtown in the gay district years ago (passing through while doing some shopping) and I went into some bookstore to use their washroom. I'm not kidding you - there was this hole in between stalls and I was like, "what the heck is that"? Thought it was something like some toilet paper dispenser that fell out of the wall. I was mentioning this in a casual conversation with someone a few months later and they said that it was blowjob hole, and I'm sitting there thinking, "you've got to be kidding!" Whether it was or not, I haven't seen one of those anywhere else. Anyway, if you don't think that sex is paramount to the gay community, just check out gay discussion online forums - it is loaded with more sexual stuff than many straight discussion forums. I am mentioning all this to emphasize that it is this whole gay sexualization that I find abhorrent and it is this that I believe the Bible condemns. I work with a gay man, who is one of the nicest guys I know, a very gentle person who I'd be happy to hire to work on my team anyday. He is not one of those "flaunt my sexuality" gay people. It's sad to see that Christians in the past have tossed him aside since he's gay. I am angered by the self-righteousness of certain Christians who seem to think that gays are less-human than anyone else. I think it's important to note how Jesus treats people, and I will leave you with this example, which is often used, but used incompletely.
Jesus found a woman who was caught in an adulterous situation. The crowds, no doubt comprised of a fair amount of "religious" people at the time, wanted her to be stoned, as it said in the law. Jesus simply indicated that the persons who are without their own sin in their lives should cast the first stone. People dropped their stones, realizing that they have their own sinful hangups. Now, don't stop reading here!!! Oftentimes, people will use the above example to cite that we should never judge people and that we should always be compassionate, etc. The story is not done yet! Jesus then turns to the woman and his final words are important, "Go, and sin no more!" Notice that? Jesus did not turn a blind eye to her sin, even though he made the crowds realize they can't simply condemn her. Jesus command her to stop sinning. So I think this is important in how we as Christians minister to our homosexual neighbours, colleagues, friends and family. People oftentimes will say, "love the sinner, hate the sin." (which is a Biblical principle). Let's not forget that there are two parts of that equation.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Easter Musings
I was at work today and I guess several people near the cubicle of a cafeteria that we have were wishing each other well for the long weekend (guess they were going to make it even longer by not being at work tomorrow). While I couldn't help by overhear the conversation (since it was the same gabby middle-aged females that seem to always congregate around the muffin area), I did find it interesting to note that their best wishes for the weekend were accompanied by "hope the Easter Bunny finds you well" and "hope your kids get lots of eggs."
Is it just me, or has everyone forgotten what Easter is really about? You know, I've had conversations with my son and he's told me that he knows Easter is about Jesus, but why people don't ever talk about Him. It's interesting to hear that out of the mouth of a four-year-old. It's hard to tell him that not everyone thinks Easter is about easter eggs when he goes to the store and that's all he sees, or the parents of the daycare drop off eggs and say "Happy Easter".
I think even the Christian retail industry, although they have for the most part, not indulged in the secularization of Easter, has not been entirely immune. And I've been told that the truth of Jesus' death and resurrection is too much for a little child to grasp. Perhaps, but for Petes' sake, don't substitute it with something so far from the truth as the freaking easter bunny. I have no problems telling my son there's no such thing as the easter bunny, the same way that I have no problems telling him there's no satan claus. Some have called me a party pooper, but do I really want to bold-face lie to my son about these things? And since I don't care what people think about my views anyway, I just ignore the criticism. I feel that my job in life as a parent is to get enough knowledge to my son so someday, he can make a decision to accept Jesus as his personal Saviour. If he does that, my job as a parent has been done. So, I do try to expose him as much to the Bible as possible - we're not talking home theology classes, but you know, have him seeing his Mom and Dad pray or reading Bible stories to him at night. The one thing I can probably do better on is modelling to him a proper devotional life, something that I must confess I'm not the greatest at keeping. But I really don't want, for any reason, to give in to the cultural dumbing down of Easter or Christmas.
If you really think about it, it is Jesus that bore the brunt of our sin on the cross at Calvary. The Passion of the Christ movie, as Hollywoodized as it is, is a fantastic reminder to ourselves what our Saviour had to go through. It certainly changes our perspective in terms of how we view His life, death and resurrection. I mean, the fact that I (and everyone else who simply accepts Him as their Saviour) have been given a second chance, despite the fact that I am a sinner and continue to sin, yet He is willing to forgive us over and over again if we come repentant, is something that is amazing to grasp. As humans, we usually lose our patience after a while with anything and give up. God, in His infinite grace, has decided that we were worth it to have his own Son die for us. To wash all of our sins away, make us new beings, bear a torturous execution that was drawn out way more than any civilized country these days would allow. And he had the power to turn back and chicken out, but He didn't. Because He loves us so much.
The least that we can do as His followers is not substitue a damn easter bunny or satan claus for our Lord and Saviour, no matter how culturally pressured we are to do so. Christian parents, especially, should have enough balls to tell their kids the truth about Easter, the truth about who Christ is, the truth about what the Word says about the "Six Hours One Friday", to borrow the title of the excellent book by Max Lucado. When kids see their parents fevertly and reverently worshipping the Lord in everything they do, it is probably the best witness of the Gospel that we can give to the next generation.
Is it just me, or has everyone forgotten what Easter is really about? You know, I've had conversations with my son and he's told me that he knows Easter is about Jesus, but why people don't ever talk about Him. It's interesting to hear that out of the mouth of a four-year-old. It's hard to tell him that not everyone thinks Easter is about easter eggs when he goes to the store and that's all he sees, or the parents of the daycare drop off eggs and say "Happy Easter".
I think even the Christian retail industry, although they have for the most part, not indulged in the secularization of Easter, has not been entirely immune. And I've been told that the truth of Jesus' death and resurrection is too much for a little child to grasp. Perhaps, but for Petes' sake, don't substitute it with something so far from the truth as the freaking easter bunny. I have no problems telling my son there's no such thing as the easter bunny, the same way that I have no problems telling him there's no satan claus. Some have called me a party pooper, but do I really want to bold-face lie to my son about these things? And since I don't care what people think about my views anyway, I just ignore the criticism. I feel that my job in life as a parent is to get enough knowledge to my son so someday, he can make a decision to accept Jesus as his personal Saviour. If he does that, my job as a parent has been done. So, I do try to expose him as much to the Bible as possible - we're not talking home theology classes, but you know, have him seeing his Mom and Dad pray or reading Bible stories to him at night. The one thing I can probably do better on is modelling to him a proper devotional life, something that I must confess I'm not the greatest at keeping. But I really don't want, for any reason, to give in to the cultural dumbing down of Easter or Christmas.
If you really think about it, it is Jesus that bore the brunt of our sin on the cross at Calvary. The Passion of the Christ movie, as Hollywoodized as it is, is a fantastic reminder to ourselves what our Saviour had to go through. It certainly changes our perspective in terms of how we view His life, death and resurrection. I mean, the fact that I (and everyone else who simply accepts Him as their Saviour) have been given a second chance, despite the fact that I am a sinner and continue to sin, yet He is willing to forgive us over and over again if we come repentant, is something that is amazing to grasp. As humans, we usually lose our patience after a while with anything and give up. God, in His infinite grace, has decided that we were worth it to have his own Son die for us. To wash all of our sins away, make us new beings, bear a torturous execution that was drawn out way more than any civilized country these days would allow. And he had the power to turn back and chicken out, but He didn't. Because He loves us so much.
The least that we can do as His followers is not substitue a damn easter bunny or satan claus for our Lord and Saviour, no matter how culturally pressured we are to do so. Christian parents, especially, should have enough balls to tell their kids the truth about Easter, the truth about who Christ is, the truth about what the Word says about the "Six Hours One Friday", to borrow the title of the excellent book by Max Lucado. When kids see their parents fevertly and reverently worshipping the Lord in everything they do, it is probably the best witness of the Gospel that we can give to the next generation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)