Hard to believe a year has passed since I posted anything here. My kids are now older, I am now greyer, and while I am not pushing 40 just yet, it's only a couple of years away now. It has been a really interesting year at church since I last posted about anything church related (July 2009 I think). Well, since then I was voted in as an elder (which was strange given how short of a time I was there) and God seemed to have used me fairly well immediately into the tenure, with some more seasoned elders remarking that I have quickly become a "key member of the board". I would say that some of the more interesting moments came in 2010, when, without going into gruesome details, the Senior Pastor left (something that to this day I should have done more to fight against), and I was called on to address a congregational meeting that very same day. I was asked to give a quick recap of some of the things that the board and the leadership are doing, and to provide some encouragement and I ended up talking for 10 minutes on the stage, answering a congregant's submitted question. I was the only board member who got applause for his answering the question, so hopefully that is a sign that it was well received.
Then perhaps the highlight of my whole church experience came on October 17 of last year (2010) where I was invited to be the featured preacher in front of a large audience of 400 people or so on a Sunday. This wasn't just an announcement, it was the exposition and teaching of God's Word. What a privilege and honour it was. It took me 4-6 weeks to prepare the sermon and in the end, it seemed to have gone really well, judging by the 30+ people who stopped by and gave some words of encouragement. To this day, people ask me if I will ever preach again, and it looks like I will, on May 1 of this year (I haven't given our interim Sr. Pastor the answer yet, but I am leaning towards yes).
But some stuff happened in between and it has been a weird journey to say the least. After my preaching time, I really thought that it was an indication to me that deciding to step out in faith and accept the elder role was the right choice. I would have never thought that a little over a month after that fantastic experience, I would decide to tender my resignation in as a board member and an elder at my church. This came as a shock to many people who I guess valued and yearned for the plain and unfiltered and unflashy teaching of God's Word. All the reasons I resigned I will keep to myself, but suffice it to say, some of it was due to an almost exact same experience in serving on an elders nominating committee and seeing how elders were selected and not really vetted. But in the end, there were other reasons and I just chalked it up to personal reasons and just indicated that. In all this I emphasized repeatedly my commitment to staying at the church and serving in other capacities. Which, I suppose, surprised some people, since I guess it is standard fare for people who have a bad experience to just leave the church. I remember having dinner with one of the elders and his wife and she said that she is so glad that I am staying and I said, "why would you think I would leave?" Guess that's the pattern people are used to.
All that being said, I can provide some feedback on my second kick at the can as part of church leadership, and while it would have been nice to be able to give a comprehensive assessment after fulfilling an entire term, I just couldn't do it anymore, despite the overwhelming advice and counsel from other mature believers to stick it out. I had a couple of congregants who I trust, who also pleaded with me to stay. But in the end, I couldn't deal with the church politics anymore, and decided to step down, which I honestly believed is what God had led me to do (for a variety of reasons). This definitely ensured that I did not experience a repeat performance of my last eldership experience, where I simply stuck out the term, but admittedly my heart wasn't in it anymore.
It can be argued that I should have never been placed in such a position of leadership in the first place at my new church, given how short of a time I was at the church at that time. I think there is merit in this argument, and wouldn't disagree with it. All that being said, it was strange that the opportunity came up, and while I was on the board, I had unwavering support from both the congregation and the board members (I often got thanked for my service, even though it was a short one). I really did try my best and yield to God's direction in my time on the board - it made me much more effective in my short time as an elder, than it would have otherwise been, if I had tried to do it on my own efforts.
All this being said, I am am really glad that I am out of official church leadership right now. The biggest reason being: no expectations. I am not saying that I am now free to go out and drink myself into a stupor or smoke pot until the cows come home or go cheat on my wife or whatever, but what I mean is that I no longer feel the pressure to live up to a "standard" to which church leaders are held, either fairly or unfairly. I don't feel the need to attend every single church function because I am on the board (I still attend them now anyway, as a much relaxed congregant). Church leaders, unfortunately, are put on a pedestal and expected, rightly or wrongly, to "perform" to these expectations, most of which are unrealistic and unbiblical. The problem occurs, when the leaders forget to realize their own sinful mortality (Rom 3:23) and instead, decide to put on their best front while they are having difficulty doing this behind the scenes. I honestly don't envy their position, but I also realize how important it is to pray for your church leaders, even when you may not agree with them. It's a tough enough job as it is, and it is a volunteer job, when it comes down to it, so we really should give our church leaders the benefit of the doubt whenever possible, but more importantly, encourage and lift them up in prayer at all times. I am pretty sure one of the reasons why I had a fairly productive year as an elder was due to many people specifically praying for me. Now that I am on the other side of the coin, I do my best to ensure that the leaders have my prayer support. It is a tough job and one, which I dare say is between a rock and a hard place.
Showing posts with label church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label church. Show all posts
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Monday, October 19, 2009
Scofield ScofieldRG III ESV Study Bible from Oxford University Press - First Impressions
Our new church (been attending for about eight months), in which I am also now a newly minted elder, has been using the English Standard Version (ESV) for many years (the ESV was released as a translation in 2001). As a new guy, and one who has little familiarity with the ESV, it was a bit of an adjustment. And while I know firsthand that many folks at the church continue to use whatever version they used previously, I thought that I would officially adopt the ESV as my translation for study and Scripture memorization, after using the NIV exclusively, since I became a believer in 1991. This, of course, is not an easy task, with almost all of my Scripture memorization coming from the NIV. Furthermore, I was just FINALLY getting used to the layout of my trusty Zondervan NIV slimline Bible. I have since retired it, and have been using the very nice hardcover ESV wide-margin Bible that I received when I became a member of our new church in June. However, while I like that hardcover Bible, it is not a study Bible, and I've always wanted to own a study Bible (IMHO, the Life Application Bible is not a study Bible).
A couple of other things to note...I find that with my ESV hardcover, that the margin notes are in the middle and very, very, very small - like, impossible to read small. I was doing some reading and saw that a new thinline ESV leatherbound Bible was coming out in January 2010, and originally had a order placed on Amazon for it, but I've obviously since changed my mind, after reading about the less-than-stellar quality of the binding of Crossway Bibles, not to mention issues with font sizes that people have reported. Crossway, as you may know, essentially "owns" the rights to the ESV. I was hoping to find the ESV from another publisher, but from what I understand, Crossway has an essential monopoly on ESV Bibles.
Enter the well-regarded and long-established Oxford University Press, which happens to be licenced to publish the ESV Bible, but only as a "Scofield Study Bible". I had no idea who this Scofield fellow was, so I did some digging and found out that he was quite the avid dispensationalist. I have also read a few folks who advise others to stay away from Scofield as he was a divorced man (who later remarried) and also he fought for the Confederate army, and he had a drinking problem - but again, if you read his WHOLE story, and not just the parts, you'll see that all of that was before he became saved, and after he was saved, he was quite the different man (sort of like a fellow who wrote 13 or so of the NT books?)
I am nowhere close to be a dispensationalist, but rather than less theological bias cloud my judgment, I figured I can always ignore the notes that have to do with that area of theology. Boy, I am glad I made that decision.
So I ordered the ScofieldRG III ESV Study Bible in hardcover from Amazon, back in June. It apparently was on backorder, so I literally wanted through the whole summer and early fall, and a deep price cut they gave me (after I complained about such long waiting times), only to find out 3 weeks ago that they are unable to get it from the publisher. I found that hard to believe, but what's done is done and they already cancelled my order (it is the only item that I have never been able to get from Amazon.ca, but it was also the most desired item in all my orders. Oh well...so I, still being an avid eBay buyer (not so much a seller anymore due to fees and such), checked eBay, and I found the ScofieldRG III ESV Study Bible in bright blue leatherbound (turns out to be bonded leather, which essentially the particleboard of leather construction). The price was OK, the shipping was high, but it would have still come out to less than what I'd pay in the store or through Amazon.ca (and no retail taxes if I buy from the U.S.), I placed my order. I was relieved to find out it was brand new, still sealed, and that the blue was actually a navy blue, rather than the smurf blue that was on the stock photo.
My trusty new ScofieldRG III leather Bible in navy blue from Oxford Press, showed up today and since I was home with a bad cough and sore throat (and staying up all night due to the cough), it was a welcome addition to my bedside as I was in bed resting anyway... Obviously, I haven't read through it all yet, but I can provide some initial impressions on the Bible.
Obviously, the first thing that anyone experiences with a new Bible is the look and feel. This Bible has about 1890 pages or so and you could feel the weight of the Bible - it was not as heavy as a hardcover, but it was no thinline either. It was also much bigger in size. However, the Bible feels good in the hands, the bonded leather does not look and feel like bonded leather at all (I have many bonded leather Bibles in other translations). There is a thumb indexing system and on this Bible, the tabs are silver and the writing is in black. The overall Bible pages is coated with a layer of silver glitter (or whatever it's called in the industry - I think you know what I'm talking about - collectively the pages are sprayed or treated with a silver looking material).
When I open the Bible, it feels stiff, but not too much so that it stay open properly. The pages are sewn together, not glued, which make for a more long-lasting lifespan (unlike my glued NIV thinline, which has several pages falling out after 13 years).
What impressed me the most was the font size - very readable, even for people with bad eyesight like me. Yet the font is not overly large to make the reader think it is a large-print Bible. In my edition, words of Christ are in red and while I've read some reviews where people have said that it's way too bright read, I didn't find that to be the case. The red text is a neither-here-or-there issue for me, so it really doesn't matter to me either way. The study notes and chain references (on the outer margins) are easy to read and there are tables and charts throughout the Bible. Yes, the dispensationalist theology is there, but it is not rampant like someone would have you believe (I've sampled several chapters already from the Old and New Testaments). Again, if you don't subscribe to dispensationalism, just ignore the notes on it. It is still worthy study Bible otherwise. My one observation for improvement is in the area of balance of notes. By this I mean that at some points in my initial perusal, some books and chapters were heavy with notes, while other books and chapters barely had any. I would have liked to see some balance here, and while I know it's more exciting to talk about more theologically engaging things, even for some of the lesser-known books of the Bible or lesser-read passages (and sometimes there are sparse notes on even well-known passages), some more contextual information would go a long way.
The Bible includes several very colourful maps at the back, made out of thinner pages, so that they don't start falling out like in my NIV Bible. The front of the Bible has a few additional pages which you can record births, deaths, marriages, etc., and this section is done on high quality paper with texturing, so it really does have a old-world, historical feel. Very classy and well done.
The pages are thin, and the accompanying product card said not to use highlighters and such, as they would leak through or bleed through the pages. I can relate, as my NIV did that...however, in using my highlighter already on the Bible, I can tell you firsthand that the pages don't allow for bleeding (that much) and you can highlight to your heart's content - you may see a slight trace of it, but when you turn the page over, you won't see the entire highlighted section bleed through - trust me on this one - of course, it may just be the highlighter I used).
Each book has an introduction and a blurb about key themes and a layout of the book. The Scofield system does pride itself on helping the reader understand Scripture as a whole, and as a result, I really like how the notes and summaries really aid to this end.
The Bible also comes with the standard strip cloth bookmark (in matching blue). There is also a concordance in the back that, while it is not comprehensive, is better than nothing. Included in the back as well is a summary of the chain references, a Bible dictionary and topical index.
Overall, I am impressed with this Bible greatly. The quality of construction does seem very top notch and the readability of the font and typeset shows favour with this reader. I look forward to using this Bible for many more years to come. My wife opened the package and after inspecting it herself, she wanted one as well. If Amazon did start stocking the hardcover version again, I'll probably pick up one those as well. I would give this ScofieldRG III ESV Study Bible from Oxford Press top marks.
A couple of other things to note...I find that with my ESV hardcover, that the margin notes are in the middle and very, very, very small - like, impossible to read small. I was doing some reading and saw that a new thinline ESV leatherbound Bible was coming out in January 2010, and originally had a order placed on Amazon for it, but I've obviously since changed my mind, after reading about the less-than-stellar quality of the binding of Crossway Bibles, not to mention issues with font sizes that people have reported. Crossway, as you may know, essentially "owns" the rights to the ESV. I was hoping to find the ESV from another publisher, but from what I understand, Crossway has an essential monopoly on ESV Bibles.
Enter the well-regarded and long-established Oxford University Press, which happens to be licenced to publish the ESV Bible, but only as a "Scofield Study Bible". I had no idea who this Scofield fellow was, so I did some digging and found out that he was quite the avid dispensationalist. I have also read a few folks who advise others to stay away from Scofield as he was a divorced man (who later remarried) and also he fought for the Confederate army, and he had a drinking problem - but again, if you read his WHOLE story, and not just the parts, you'll see that all of that was before he became saved, and after he was saved, he was quite the different man (sort of like a fellow who wrote 13 or so of the NT books?)
I am nowhere close to be a dispensationalist, but rather than less theological bias cloud my judgment, I figured I can always ignore the notes that have to do with that area of theology. Boy, I am glad I made that decision.
So I ordered the ScofieldRG III ESV Study Bible in hardcover from Amazon, back in June. It apparently was on backorder, so I literally wanted through the whole summer and early fall, and a deep price cut they gave me (after I complained about such long waiting times), only to find out 3 weeks ago that they are unable to get it from the publisher. I found that hard to believe, but what's done is done and they already cancelled my order (it is the only item that I have never been able to get from Amazon.ca, but it was also the most desired item in all my orders. Oh well...so I, still being an avid eBay buyer (not so much a seller anymore due to fees and such), checked eBay, and I found the ScofieldRG III ESV Study Bible in bright blue leatherbound (turns out to be bonded leather, which essentially the particleboard of leather construction). The price was OK, the shipping was high, but it would have still come out to less than what I'd pay in the store or through Amazon.ca (and no retail taxes if I buy from the U.S.), I placed my order. I was relieved to find out it was brand new, still sealed, and that the blue was actually a navy blue, rather than the smurf blue that was on the stock photo.
My trusty new ScofieldRG III leather Bible in navy blue from Oxford Press, showed up today and since I was home with a bad cough and sore throat (and staying up all night due to the cough), it was a welcome addition to my bedside as I was in bed resting anyway... Obviously, I haven't read through it all yet, but I can provide some initial impressions on the Bible.
Obviously, the first thing that anyone experiences with a new Bible is the look and feel. This Bible has about 1890 pages or so and you could feel the weight of the Bible - it was not as heavy as a hardcover, but it was no thinline either. It was also much bigger in size. However, the Bible feels good in the hands, the bonded leather does not look and feel like bonded leather at all (I have many bonded leather Bibles in other translations). There is a thumb indexing system and on this Bible, the tabs are silver and the writing is in black. The overall Bible pages is coated with a layer of silver glitter (or whatever it's called in the industry - I think you know what I'm talking about - collectively the pages are sprayed or treated with a silver looking material).
When I open the Bible, it feels stiff, but not too much so that it stay open properly. The pages are sewn together, not glued, which make for a more long-lasting lifespan (unlike my glued NIV thinline, which has several pages falling out after 13 years).
What impressed me the most was the font size - very readable, even for people with bad eyesight like me. Yet the font is not overly large to make the reader think it is a large-print Bible. In my edition, words of Christ are in red and while I've read some reviews where people have said that it's way too bright read, I didn't find that to be the case. The red text is a neither-here-or-there issue for me, so it really doesn't matter to me either way. The study notes and chain references (on the outer margins) are easy to read and there are tables and charts throughout the Bible. Yes, the dispensationalist theology is there, but it is not rampant like someone would have you believe (I've sampled several chapters already from the Old and New Testaments). Again, if you don't subscribe to dispensationalism, just ignore the notes on it. It is still worthy study Bible otherwise. My one observation for improvement is in the area of balance of notes. By this I mean that at some points in my initial perusal, some books and chapters were heavy with notes, while other books and chapters barely had any. I would have liked to see some balance here, and while I know it's more exciting to talk about more theologically engaging things, even for some of the lesser-known books of the Bible or lesser-read passages (and sometimes there are sparse notes on even well-known passages), some more contextual information would go a long way.
The Bible includes several very colourful maps at the back, made out of thinner pages, so that they don't start falling out like in my NIV Bible. The front of the Bible has a few additional pages which you can record births, deaths, marriages, etc., and this section is done on high quality paper with texturing, so it really does have a old-world, historical feel. Very classy and well done.
The pages are thin, and the accompanying product card said not to use highlighters and such, as they would leak through or bleed through the pages. I can relate, as my NIV did that...however, in using my highlighter already on the Bible, I can tell you firsthand that the pages don't allow for bleeding (that much) and you can highlight to your heart's content - you may see a slight trace of it, but when you turn the page over, you won't see the entire highlighted section bleed through - trust me on this one - of course, it may just be the highlighter I used).
Each book has an introduction and a blurb about key themes and a layout of the book. The Scofield system does pride itself on helping the reader understand Scripture as a whole, and as a result, I really like how the notes and summaries really aid to this end.
The Bible also comes with the standard strip cloth bookmark (in matching blue). There is also a concordance in the back that, while it is not comprehensive, is better than nothing. Included in the back as well is a summary of the chain references, a Bible dictionary and topical index.
Overall, I am impressed with this Bible greatly. The quality of construction does seem very top notch and the readability of the font and typeset shows favour with this reader. I look forward to using this Bible for many more years to come. My wife opened the package and after inspecting it herself, she wanted one as well. If Amazon did start stocking the hardcover version again, I'll probably pick up one those as well. I would give this ScofieldRG III ESV Study Bible from Oxford Press top marks.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Eldership...Revisted?
My family and I have been attending our new church for 4 1/2 months now, and we are loving it! It's so encouraging to be attending an authentic Bible believing church, which not only teaches sound doctrine, has exceptional expository preaching, and interweaves the Bible into everything from the children's program to upcoming mid-week doctrine and church history classes. It has been more than a decade since I heard a sermon about Hell, man's sinfulness, integrity and moral living, and Biblical study excellence. My wife and I, after a couple of months, quickly realized that this is where God wants us to be and we are being spiritually fed more than any other time in our lives, it was a no-brainer for us to take membership classes and become official members last month. We couldn't be happier - we have entered into some very meaningful friendships with folks in our new community, some of them very deep friendships. We count it joy to entertain, feed, and be hospitable towards our new church family. Our kids have integrated very well - my son just finished an enjoyable fourth day of vacation Bible school / day camp, and for the first time, he is memorizing Bible verses. My walk with the Lord has improved dramatically in that I am spending more and more time in Bible study daily, something that was missing for years (and I have to bear a lot of responsibility for that, in part). My wife's and my marriage is stronger, our kids are getting solid Bible teaching at church and making Christian friends, and through the sheer grace of God, we have discovered fellow church members who are parents in my son's class, fellow parents we have known for years now, yet had no clue that we had a common faith. What really is the icing on the cake are our neighbours and very good friends, whom we met on the first day we attended our new church. It's strange - these neighbours live less than 100 feet away from us, but for the past six years, they didn't know us and we didn't know them and like most people in the bigger city, we all just sort of kept to ourselves. Now, either they are over here daily or we are over there. They just had dinner at our place on Monday, we ate at their place on Tuesday and they were over last night. We watch their kids and they watch ours. They are a solid, solid Christian family and we are just so blessed to have met them and have formed a very, very deep friendship with them even though we've really only known them for 4 1/2 months, but it feels like years. We are vacationing with them in August and are really looking forward to it.
Aside from that, our family has also semi-joined a small fellowship group, where we were made to feel both welcome and accepted. It is so refreshing to not have to deal with drama, pretense, and put on masks. We are part of a community of believers who not only struggle and have good and bad days, but collectively, strive towards understanding the Bible more and practically living out Biblical truths. Now, you may suggest that all churches should be doing this, but that is not the case. Many churches nowadays have become a glorified quasi-spiritual social club, where anything goes. Gossip is not only tolerated, but encouraged, and dependence on God through faith is replaced by self-reliance and pragmatism based on cultural and societal trends. I've been to a number of churches in the past 5 years, either visited or attended, which have personnified the churchy trend to focus on growth and be "contemporary and relevant". It's interesting to read about that behemothic, though misdirected Willow Creek church in the U.S. One of the first mega churches, it prided itself on being bigger, faster, and supposedly better than any other church. Only recently has it published a book detailing what a mistake it was to go in that direction and they are slowly moving back towards a more Biblically-sound model.
Our new church is a considerably more conservative church than any previous church I've attended, and I'm glad for that, since we need back-to-basics teaching. For the first time int he 18 years I've been a Christian, I will be switching Bible versions. Our new church uses the ESV (more conservative, literal version, along the lines of RSV, but not as badly translated as the KJV). When we became members, the church presented my wife and I EACH with a brand spanking new higher-end study Bible (they don't give pew Bibles there, since they want the Bible gift to stand out and as a reminder to the new owner that it was given on a special occasion). I'm OK with moving to ESV, and my Scofield ESV is on its way from amazon.ca (I don't want to use the gift Bible, since I'd rather keep it for home use so that I don't lose it).
I am grateful that I did not attend our new church 5 years ago, as it was embroiled in the same kind of seeker-friendly wishy-washy, lovey-dovey no-meat-on-the-bones "teaching". Doctrine was unwelcome and considered too divisive, but thankfully the denomination sensed the problem, installed a very solid, mature preacher from the outside into the church, and as a result, 400 people left and formed their own liberal-theologically based "church" about 15 mintues away, which cater to "contemporary" thinking by incorporating Nietzsche (sp.), John Lennon, etc. along with Jesus, and considers its worship services "entertainment" (it says that right on their website. Sad, sad, sad. Anyway, our new church is awesome and while we could have moved churches years ago (trust me, we were thinking of it, even back in 2006), I'm glad we didn't - God's timing for us was just right.
Why am I writing all this? In a way, this blog serves in part as a venting point, but at other times, I write here as a means to formulate thoughts and correlate feelings and such, very much like a diary, even though I never kept one growing up (it was always such a girlie thing to do, and in a sense, still is). This is one of the times when I am doing the diary thing.
I outlined the above experiences in a way to really demonstrate to me that not only are there good churches out there, there are excellent churches out there. There is no doubt in my mind that I eventually would have liked to get my feet wet again in serving in the church, but that was the farthest thing on my mind when I received a phone call at work today from the church. I saw it was the church calling on my call display at work, and instantly I thought, "oh man, what happened to my son?", since he was attending a Vacation Bible School or day camp there. Why else would they be calling?
It was the senior pastor's executive assistant. Now, I have gotten to know her fairly well and she is such a friendly lady and has a good sense of humour. I had thought that maybe there was something that got mixed up in a recent tithing cheque, or that perhaps I had left something at the church, for which I had to retrieve from the church office. Maybe she wanted to call and see how I was enjoying membership. Perhaps she wanted to invite our family over for a meet and greet or for a meal.
Little did I expect that I would be hearing these words...I am paraphrasing a bit here as to not use names or identifying information.
"On behalf of the Senior Pastor, I'd like to inform you that he has chosen to nominate you for the office of elder at our church."
First thing I did was grip the phone tighter. Did I just hear what I thought I heard? I asked her to repeat what she just said. She said it again - the Pastor is putting my name in as a candidate to be an elder, and would like to see if I am interested.
Second thing I did was take a breath. And then I reflexively responded, "wow, that's really nice that he is considering me, but I just became a member last month and I've only been coming here for 4 1/2 months..." She paused and said that the Senior Pastor put my name forth.
Now, I should provide some context here. The Senior Pastor is well aware that I was previously an elder at my old church. I don't think I ever shared with him about my experience. But I also did some leadership responsibilities at the church previous to that, running a missions committee and leading a college/career group. Both times I experienced ministry burnout. I think she could sense some trepidation in my voice. I honestly told her that well, I am really honoured that I am even considered, and really, this is totally unexpected, so I'm going to have to pray about it, look to the Scriptures to get some sense of God's direction, and seek Godly counsel from trusted mature Christians.
As I am sitting here typing all this out, I am still hashing these questions in my mind. The first thing I did today was call my wife and told to sit down while I told her about the call. To my surprise, she seemed fairly ecstatic and encouraged me to go for it, and really encouraging me that way - she's really good at that. The next thing I did was email my parents - I know my Mom's a believer, not so sure about my Dad, but I thought I'd include him). They shared some thoughts with me. I then emailed my old boss, and a dear friend and Christian brother who knows the Bible as good as anyone I know - he also shared some thoughts with me. I think that the next order of business is to meet up with another elder at the church (I already know with whom I am going to discuss this) and get his perspective as well as get some insight as to what goes on behind the scenes. And finally, I'm going to arrange a meeting with the Senior Pastor to find out the process that ended with my name being suggested, either by him or someone else.
This is so interesting, because I have a preaching series on eldership that I was planning on starting soon, since I listen to preaching on the way to work every morning.
I am finally, and most importantly, going to spend some time alone with God to seek his voice - I have a really nice place at a local conservation area that I go to to just sit in stillness...it's kind of weird, but really clears out distractions and I can get a better sense of God's direction if I sit quietly. I'll do that next week. And I'll be reading the 1 Timothy and Titus passages on eldership again.
My last foray into the eldership thing left a really bad taste in my mouth. To be quite frank, I had doubts as to my ability to be an effective last time. But I sensed God's calling and proceeded. It was an interesting experience for sure, but what really soured me was two years ago when I led a nominations team and we rejected the name of a prospective candidate. Apparently, it was only the second time in 20+ years that a candidate was rejected, and I was heading the committee that rejected the candidate. In looking back, the right decision was made - the candidate was totally unqualified and showed very little spiritual maturity and fruit. I thought it was a done deal until a couple of other elders and some other meddlers decided to try to reverse the decision and then talk with the people on my committee. Not only was this contrary to our mandate, but it totally undermined our committee. But moreover, it showed the lack of spiritual maturity in these other elders, and while I am not going to start comparing Christian credentials, if an elder is not willing to yield to Biblical standards and qualifications for prospective elders, they probably shouldn't be one in the first place. I saw enough during that process to know that I no longer wanted to be on that board, but since I made a commitment, I tried my best to serve out the rest of the term. Since then, I've seen other things occur at our old church and amongst some of the people there, to unequivocally conclude that there is a serious lack of spiritual maturity at our old church - of course, I am not including everyone in that, since there were some very solid Christians at our old church, but I'd say in retrospect that they were in the minority.
So when I got the call today asking if I'd be willing to stand as a candidate for elder for a church of 820+ people, I hesitated a bit. Did I really want to go through this again? But then again, I know enough about how our new church operates by its fruit that I know that behind the scenes, there are good leaders there. I've actually tested this theory in an unconspicuous way with a couple of elders, asking them some casual Bible questions. I don't expect any elder to be able to answer all Bible questions, but at the very least, you should be able to consider them someone you can ask, knowing that their interest is there. Thankfully, the elders I've talked with showed a very keen interest and understanding of God's Word. You can tell these men take Bible study seriously.
Several people who have provided initial counsel for me so far have commonly re-iterated the obvious point that our new church is a far different church than our old church. In fact, with our old church, it took my wife and I literally years to integrate ourselves into the life of the church: four years to become a member, eight years to actually start forming meaningful friendships, and all in between, we considered trying out another church. With our new church, we became a member in 3 1/2 months, we get to church early every week, have already formed meaningful relationships and are both being fed regularly. I know churches are different, and our new and old church are night and day, but that bad eldership experience really grinds at me to this day. I saw that decisions were oftentimes arrived at discussion only and without really serious prayer - one time, during a congregational meeting, a former elder stood up and suggested that they vote to leave their denomination then and there, that night, due to some denominational authority squabbles. I remember thinking, if a former elder would make a snap decision like that by thinking with his emotions in the heat of the moment rather than logically and objectively, that is not a good sign. I am sure things are done a lot differently at our new church, but to a small degree, I am afraid, since that previous bad experience caused me to leave our old church. I don't want this to happen again.
Then again, I recognize that God is in control and He will place us where He wants us. And that I really shouldn't be thinking of how I feel, but rather whether this is God's will. I also have to keep in mind that just because I'm nominated doesn't mean I'll pass what I am sure will be a much more rigorous selection and interview process. Remember, our new church has about 9 elders for 820+ people (I would potentially be number 10).
I also think about my hang-ups - I have a lot of them. I have some personality quirks and sometimes can be impatient or even a bear. I am very opinionated, as you can tell by my postings here, and sometimes have difficulty in coming across diplomatically. But my wife, who knows me best and has seen me at my worse, is encouraging me to let my name stand, or at least that's the way she's leaning...
You may say, what's the big deal? This is a volunteer position, so don't take it too seriously. Well, I do take it seriously since I think the church's leaders will more often than not influence how the church moves forward. I also see this as also a tremendous potential opportunity to serve God in a capacity that I though I could not handle. I take it seriously because the Bible takes it seriously (see 1 Timothy and Titus).
I really do have to pray about this and dig into God's Word to get some direction.
Aside from that, our family has also semi-joined a small fellowship group, where we were made to feel both welcome and accepted. It is so refreshing to not have to deal with drama, pretense, and put on masks. We are part of a community of believers who not only struggle and have good and bad days, but collectively, strive towards understanding the Bible more and practically living out Biblical truths. Now, you may suggest that all churches should be doing this, but that is not the case. Many churches nowadays have become a glorified quasi-spiritual social club, where anything goes. Gossip is not only tolerated, but encouraged, and dependence on God through faith is replaced by self-reliance and pragmatism based on cultural and societal trends. I've been to a number of churches in the past 5 years, either visited or attended, which have personnified the churchy trend to focus on growth and be "contemporary and relevant". It's interesting to read about that behemothic, though misdirected Willow Creek church in the U.S. One of the first mega churches, it prided itself on being bigger, faster, and supposedly better than any other church. Only recently has it published a book detailing what a mistake it was to go in that direction and they are slowly moving back towards a more Biblically-sound model.
Our new church is a considerably more conservative church than any previous church I've attended, and I'm glad for that, since we need back-to-basics teaching. For the first time int he 18 years I've been a Christian, I will be switching Bible versions. Our new church uses the ESV (more conservative, literal version, along the lines of RSV, but not as badly translated as the KJV). When we became members, the church presented my wife and I EACH with a brand spanking new higher-end study Bible (they don't give pew Bibles there, since they want the Bible gift to stand out and as a reminder to the new owner that it was given on a special occasion). I'm OK with moving to ESV, and my Scofield ESV is on its way from amazon.ca (I don't want to use the gift Bible, since I'd rather keep it for home use so that I don't lose it).
I am grateful that I did not attend our new church 5 years ago, as it was embroiled in the same kind of seeker-friendly wishy-washy, lovey-dovey no-meat-on-the-bones "teaching". Doctrine was unwelcome and considered too divisive, but thankfully the denomination sensed the problem, installed a very solid, mature preacher from the outside into the church, and as a result, 400 people left and formed their own liberal-theologically based "church" about 15 mintues away, which cater to "contemporary" thinking by incorporating Nietzsche (sp.), John Lennon, etc. along with Jesus, and considers its worship services "entertainment" (it says that right on their website. Sad, sad, sad. Anyway, our new church is awesome and while we could have moved churches years ago (trust me, we were thinking of it, even back in 2006), I'm glad we didn't - God's timing for us was just right.
Why am I writing all this? In a way, this blog serves in part as a venting point, but at other times, I write here as a means to formulate thoughts and correlate feelings and such, very much like a diary, even though I never kept one growing up (it was always such a girlie thing to do, and in a sense, still is). This is one of the times when I am doing the diary thing.
I outlined the above experiences in a way to really demonstrate to me that not only are there good churches out there, there are excellent churches out there. There is no doubt in my mind that I eventually would have liked to get my feet wet again in serving in the church, but that was the farthest thing on my mind when I received a phone call at work today from the church. I saw it was the church calling on my call display at work, and instantly I thought, "oh man, what happened to my son?", since he was attending a Vacation Bible School or day camp there. Why else would they be calling?
It was the senior pastor's executive assistant. Now, I have gotten to know her fairly well and she is such a friendly lady and has a good sense of humour. I had thought that maybe there was something that got mixed up in a recent tithing cheque, or that perhaps I had left something at the church, for which I had to retrieve from the church office. Maybe she wanted to call and see how I was enjoying membership. Perhaps she wanted to invite our family over for a meet and greet or for a meal.
Little did I expect that I would be hearing these words...I am paraphrasing a bit here as to not use names or identifying information.
"On behalf of the Senior Pastor, I'd like to inform you that he has chosen to nominate you for the office of elder at our church."
First thing I did was grip the phone tighter. Did I just hear what I thought I heard? I asked her to repeat what she just said. She said it again - the Pastor is putting my name in as a candidate to be an elder, and would like to see if I am interested.
Second thing I did was take a breath. And then I reflexively responded, "wow, that's really nice that he is considering me, but I just became a member last month and I've only been coming here for 4 1/2 months..." She paused and said that the Senior Pastor put my name forth.
Now, I should provide some context here. The Senior Pastor is well aware that I was previously an elder at my old church. I don't think I ever shared with him about my experience. But I also did some leadership responsibilities at the church previous to that, running a missions committee and leading a college/career group. Both times I experienced ministry burnout. I think she could sense some trepidation in my voice. I honestly told her that well, I am really honoured that I am even considered, and really, this is totally unexpected, so I'm going to have to pray about it, look to the Scriptures to get some sense of God's direction, and seek Godly counsel from trusted mature Christians.
As I am sitting here typing all this out, I am still hashing these questions in my mind. The first thing I did today was call my wife and told to sit down while I told her about the call. To my surprise, she seemed fairly ecstatic and encouraged me to go for it, and really encouraging me that way - she's really good at that. The next thing I did was email my parents - I know my Mom's a believer, not so sure about my Dad, but I thought I'd include him). They shared some thoughts with me. I then emailed my old boss, and a dear friend and Christian brother who knows the Bible as good as anyone I know - he also shared some thoughts with me. I think that the next order of business is to meet up with another elder at the church (I already know with whom I am going to discuss this) and get his perspective as well as get some insight as to what goes on behind the scenes. And finally, I'm going to arrange a meeting with the Senior Pastor to find out the process that ended with my name being suggested, either by him or someone else.
This is so interesting, because I have a preaching series on eldership that I was planning on starting soon, since I listen to preaching on the way to work every morning.
I am finally, and most importantly, going to spend some time alone with God to seek his voice - I have a really nice place at a local conservation area that I go to to just sit in stillness...it's kind of weird, but really clears out distractions and I can get a better sense of God's direction if I sit quietly. I'll do that next week. And I'll be reading the 1 Timothy and Titus passages on eldership again.
My last foray into the eldership thing left a really bad taste in my mouth. To be quite frank, I had doubts as to my ability to be an effective last time. But I sensed God's calling and proceeded. It was an interesting experience for sure, but what really soured me was two years ago when I led a nominations team and we rejected the name of a prospective candidate. Apparently, it was only the second time in 20+ years that a candidate was rejected, and I was heading the committee that rejected the candidate. In looking back, the right decision was made - the candidate was totally unqualified and showed very little spiritual maturity and fruit. I thought it was a done deal until a couple of other elders and some other meddlers decided to try to reverse the decision and then talk with the people on my committee. Not only was this contrary to our mandate, but it totally undermined our committee. But moreover, it showed the lack of spiritual maturity in these other elders, and while I am not going to start comparing Christian credentials, if an elder is not willing to yield to Biblical standards and qualifications for prospective elders, they probably shouldn't be one in the first place. I saw enough during that process to know that I no longer wanted to be on that board, but since I made a commitment, I tried my best to serve out the rest of the term. Since then, I've seen other things occur at our old church and amongst some of the people there, to unequivocally conclude that there is a serious lack of spiritual maturity at our old church - of course, I am not including everyone in that, since there were some very solid Christians at our old church, but I'd say in retrospect that they were in the minority.
So when I got the call today asking if I'd be willing to stand as a candidate for elder for a church of 820+ people, I hesitated a bit. Did I really want to go through this again? But then again, I know enough about how our new church operates by its fruit that I know that behind the scenes, there are good leaders there. I've actually tested this theory in an unconspicuous way with a couple of elders, asking them some casual Bible questions. I don't expect any elder to be able to answer all Bible questions, but at the very least, you should be able to consider them someone you can ask, knowing that their interest is there. Thankfully, the elders I've talked with showed a very keen interest and understanding of God's Word. You can tell these men take Bible study seriously.
Several people who have provided initial counsel for me so far have commonly re-iterated the obvious point that our new church is a far different church than our old church. In fact, with our old church, it took my wife and I literally years to integrate ourselves into the life of the church: four years to become a member, eight years to actually start forming meaningful friendships, and all in between, we considered trying out another church. With our new church, we became a member in 3 1/2 months, we get to church early every week, have already formed meaningful relationships and are both being fed regularly. I know churches are different, and our new and old church are night and day, but that bad eldership experience really grinds at me to this day. I saw that decisions were oftentimes arrived at discussion only and without really serious prayer - one time, during a congregational meeting, a former elder stood up and suggested that they vote to leave their denomination then and there, that night, due to some denominational authority squabbles. I remember thinking, if a former elder would make a snap decision like that by thinking with his emotions in the heat of the moment rather than logically and objectively, that is not a good sign. I am sure things are done a lot differently at our new church, but to a small degree, I am afraid, since that previous bad experience caused me to leave our old church. I don't want this to happen again.
Then again, I recognize that God is in control and He will place us where He wants us. And that I really shouldn't be thinking of how I feel, but rather whether this is God's will. I also have to keep in mind that just because I'm nominated doesn't mean I'll pass what I am sure will be a much more rigorous selection and interview process. Remember, our new church has about 9 elders for 820+ people (I would potentially be number 10).
I also think about my hang-ups - I have a lot of them. I have some personality quirks and sometimes can be impatient or even a bear. I am very opinionated, as you can tell by my postings here, and sometimes have difficulty in coming across diplomatically. But my wife, who knows me best and has seen me at my worse, is encouraging me to let my name stand, or at least that's the way she's leaning...
You may say, what's the big deal? This is a volunteer position, so don't take it too seriously. Well, I do take it seriously since I think the church's leaders will more often than not influence how the church moves forward. I also see this as also a tremendous potential opportunity to serve God in a capacity that I though I could not handle. I take it seriously because the Bible takes it seriously (see 1 Timothy and Titus).
I really do have to pray about this and dig into God's Word to get some direction.
Monday, May 25, 2009
The Dumbing Down of Today's Christians
Just yesterday, at church, our pastor announced that in the Fall, our church will begin an in-depth and comprehensive series, on Christian doctrine and foundational beliefs. I was so pleased to hear this, and it is yet another affirmation that God brought us to the right place, when we changed churches earlier this year (we were at our previous church for 13 years).
This got me thinking last night when I went to bed. I wonder how a typical church nowadays would think of a regular course on doctrine. Though I am not a betting man, I would bet that many churches would not be on board with such a course. You see, when you talk doctrine, you are starting to talk in absolute terms, and I think that the overall church community (at least in North America) has covertly fought against this for years. Even at our new church, as I have become more integrated into it, I found out that it wasn't even five years ago that our church had a major church split, losing 400+ members (who incidentally went and formed their own church). The sticking point? There was a segment of people who did not like the fact that the denomination specifically brought in a sound-doctrine Bible teacher who teaches only from the Word of God (the Bible) and will not compromise on this - this was in response to concerns that the church's former pastor was watering down the teaching of God's Word). Needless to say, this rather large splinter group ended up forming their own church (which like many "contemporary" churches nowadays, don't even use the word "Church" in their name anymore). Now, even before I knew anything about this splinter "church", I suspected that this church had as part of its philosophy one or more (if not all) of the following items:
a) come as you are - no dress code or no expectations of dress
b) this is a non-threatening environment
c) the music here is cool
d) we strive to redefine church - you may be surprised by what you see
e) we have or are open to women in ministry
f) we don't use "stuffy" versions of the Bible, it's Eugene Peterson's "The Message" that is for us, baby!
g) it doesn't matter where you are or what you have done, God loves you
Now, the last point is sticky - it is technically true, but most of these churches don't teach this Biblically; that is, they don't discuss this from a sin and salvation and a forgiveness overall standpoint, but from a "we all have hangups, it's not a big deal and God cares more about you coming to Him than what you are doing"). More on this later.
Now, I took an opportunity to actually visit the splinter church's website and lo and behold, everything on it confirmed my suspicions. I happen to have had some spare time that day, so I thought I'd give them a call and chat with one of the pastors there just to ask some curiosity questions. I asked them some hypothetical questions that if I was looking for a new church, why would I feel welcome there. His answers confirmed all the above criteria of the standard "seeker-friendly" type of church. So there ya go.
Now, what is my problem with all this? Well, I see that such churches are in large part, contributing to a "dumbing down" of Christianity and by extension, of Christians, in today's world (at least in North America, where this phenomenon of the "seeker friendly" church is rampant. This is a big deal for me, since if, as Christians, we are supposed to bear witness to the world of the gospel of Christ, using God's Word as our sole evidentiary mechanism, it is imperative that we get to know the Word intimately, and by this I mean understanding it properly and in context. Is it no wonder that most Christians would poop their pants at seeing a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness at their door, since their recognize that their lack of familiarity with their Bible would not make them ideal candidates to have a frank discussion about theological differences with these groups.
Years ago, I attended a memorial/funeral for a colleague of mine. It was quite a long drive, but I wanted to show my support for him at this difficult time. It so happened that one of my other colleagues, a Christian gal, tagged along for the ride. Now, she is of a completely different denomination than me, but I don't consider our denominational differences to be major - I know she is saved and she loves the Lord and she is a really strong believer. Anyway, on the car ride, we talked about what was then all the rage in modern Christiandom, Rick Warren's "The Purpose Drive Life." She didn't read it yet, but had some reservations about the book based on the title itself (I don't remember exactly what her objections were, since it was many years ago). She asked me if I had read it and I simply said yes. She asked me to elaborate, and so I did. Now, that book, while most of it may be technically correct, is not theologically sound. Just like my above comment on criteria G, while God loves you, there is still action on our part we must take. If we are in sinful behaviour, we must go to God and repent (a word you never hear anymore in churches) and ask Him for forvigness. In fact, in order to be saved, one has to repent and turn away from their sins and accept Jesus Christ as Saviour. It's our sins that put Christ on the cross in the first place! Yet many churches seem to conveniently sweep that one under the carpet, opting to focus on one side of the equation, which is God's grace and love and forgiveness, while ignoring the other, which is our sin and depravity and our response to God. See what I'm saying here? If you teach half the doctrine, you're going to get some misled and confused people. Check out the latest rage in Christian circles (well at least last year), that book called "The Shack" that is making the rounds. If new Christians are being exposed to this, there is no way on God's green earth that they will ever be exposed to the full gospel message, in this politically-correct, spiritually unoffending, feel-good treastise. This sells in volumes on the Christian and non-Christian market because of its lack of discussion about sin and hell and the righteousness of God. It is again, a one-sided "God is love" approach to things, which, if you examine the Bible in its entirety, is not telling the whole story.
Churches like the splinter church described above don't believe in "rules". That's good, because I don't either, at least when it comes to faith in Christ. However, I think that churches like the one I described above miss the mark when it comes to this - they are pushing away from a works-based understanding of the Christian life, which is good in a sense, since that's what Jesus railed against when he criticized the Pharisees; however, as many of the epistles will show us (Corinthians, Timothy, Ephesians, Philippians, etc.), and especially James, the Christian, in his or her new life, should, by virtue of his/her obedience to the promptings of the Holy Spirit, show fruit from his/her faith. I think this is what James is saying - while what you do will not save you, your actions as a result of living a new life in Christ, should show some evidence of your new life. Now, I am the first to admit that it is easy to ignore the promptings of the Spirit. Sometimes it's just easier to just do what you want to do, according to the flesh. Heck, I've been guilty of that for years. But over the last little while, I've really given my life back to God for Him to repair, and He has really changed my heart to quite a large degree and I am happy for that; I am still far from perfect (just ask my wife!) but doing better now, thanks!
You know, it's amazing, one of the things which will always elicit a reaction as asking Christians about John MacArthur, who is considered one of the top Bible teachers in the world today and is Pastor and Bible teacher for Grace Community Church in California. Do I agree with everything he says? No. But I think that for one to argue against him, it is necessary to exercise the same amount (or more) of Biblical literacy that he has. Which means that Christians need to go into their Bibles more if you want to counter a point of contention - it's not good enough to just say, "well, I just don't feel...". For the past two months, I've been listening to a Bible Questions and Answers series, which features Pastor MacArthur answering Bible and Chrsitianity-related questions posed from MacArthur's congregation of about 10,000. The Bible Q&A sessions are unscripted and are based over 37 years (there's 55 CDs and counting of pure Bible questions and answers). I love listening to these, not because I like hearing MacArthur's voice, but because he always answers his questions with Biblical support and I learn something new. It also points me back to Scripture and gets me into the Word more than I've been for years. None of his questions are responded with "I think..." unless there is no clear Biblical reference to it. MacArthur has 40+ years of sermons available for download and study and has written 70+ books. To me, this is the kind of love and interest in God's Word that I'd like to have in my own life. Yet, you know, there are a lot of people who don't like MacArthur, which is fine, since I don't expect everyone to agree on everything, but it's always for one of the following reasons: a) he's boring. b) it's too indepth and c) not much contemporary application.
You see what I'm saying here? Today's Christians will find expository preaching boring, you know why? As the Bible says, they are infant Christians in their understanding, and infants drink, what? Infant milk! If these Christians go to a church in which in-depth expository and contextual Bible study is hardly contemplated, much less practiced, they are going to turn out to be not very well grounded on their doctrinal foundations, if at all.
Based on the complaints noted above regarding MacArthur, I have found the reverse to be true when it comes to in-depth Bible study recently in my life. If the study is done properly in understanding the historical context and cultural context and religious context, it really can and does bring the passage to life in that we better understand why it was said the way it was said and why it was said. People nowadays can take any verse out of context from the Bible. Of course, when this is done, no one has any clue as to why this archaic Bible verse is quoted, but their motivation to find out is stymied by their culturally-taught desire not to question anything - so they blindly recite verses without any passion and understanding behind it. A quick example - 1 Corinthians 3:16 is often used on me to tell me that I should have never gotten my tattoos. It says that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and if one destroys the body, God will destroy him. There are two problems with this: a) this verse is not saying this (even though for years I thought it did). If you look at the context of this passage (ie. the chapter before and after as well as the historical context of the Corintian church at the time), you'll see that Paul was writing to the Corinthian church (the body of believers as referenced) about divisions in the church and how some in that church at that time was thinking that Paul was the head of the church or Apollos was, etc.) The church is what is referenced to by the word "body" (and this is confirmed by examining the Greek word's origins and meaning). Based on what the topic was before and after that passage, it makes absolutely not sense why Paul would all of the sudden stop what he is saying and talk about the physical body, when in the context of that passage, body mean "the church". b) I did my tattoos before I was a Christian, so it's not like I knew any better. But regardless, my personal opinion of tattoos is neither here nor there since I don't see it as a paramount theological issue, but I would question Christians who get tattoos of things that are obviously not pleasing to God (such as evil symbols, witchcraft things, sexual things, etc.).
While it is getting a bit off topic, my point about is to demonstrate that most Christians don't even bother (or know how) to look at a passage contextually. And churches nowadays are not teaching this, unfortunately. And I've visted more than a few churches to be able to make this comment with some confidence.
That being said, one of the best sermons I heard at my previous church was preached by the, at the time 30-year-old or so pastoral intern who taught on the passage about the Good Samaritan. I've heard and read that passage many times, but this time, he spent time looking at the context of that passage. At face value, we often read contemporary things into Scirptural text. For me, I always envisioned a straight country road where the guy was attacked. And I just saw that the guys who passed him (except for the Samaritan) were simply arrogant, snobby guys who didn't want to help him. It was until it was told the type of winding angled road and that it was dangerous because of the hiding spots in the areas the road that I started realizing that this was no stroll in the park. And also the relationships that the Jews and Samaritans had was not simply that they didn't associate with one another, but when you discovered why and the societial stigmas that will result, etc., it helps you to appreciate the account better, as well as understand the setting from which our Biblical stories come.
But most churches don't teach this, and if they do they will teach it once in a blue moon. Instead, we get, as I witnessed in 2006 in a church in Alberta, a quick sermon (and these churches always have quick sermons since they seem to think that people have more important things to do rather than study God's Word - if nothing else, they are making their real intentions known) about some lovey-dovey topic that will not cause any offense and uncomfortableness with the congregants. The topic was something like "What If Jesus Had a Blackberry?" What an utterly stupid topic it was, and I remember telling my cousin, who asked me about what I thought of the sermon, that "to be honest, it wasn't very good." Honestly, if you have to start reading your 21st century viewpoint back into the Biblical text, you are in a world of hurt.
The pursuit of a holy life is not taught in most churches today. This is true. I am seeing more and more instances of non married Christian couples vacationing together by themselves. That seems to be OK with other Christians, few of whom speak up. When was the last time you heard of a church talking about waiting until marriage to have sex? Just yesterday, our new church's pastor preached a challenging sermon about integrity and watching what one watches, and watching what they say (ie. slander, lying, gossip). Are those warnings taught in any churches nowadays, especially in light of the fact that the church has historically been a place where such sins are openly practiced? I have found many Christians nowadays to be much more accepting of other Christians who use foul language and swearing - even I have been known to historically use it without anyone really chastizing me. That is not good. As with anything else in the Christian life, it's better to surround yourself in an environment where you don't get exposed to things that are not good for your spiritual health. If you aren't in a good church that encourages you to pursue a life of Godly living, find one that does.
Many churches nowadays are not teaching doctrine (they say it's divisive, which is true, but that's by design - no one will be convicted of anything if there's no objective standard by which to measure their behaviour). Their challenge is whether they will be obedient and submit to God's authority in the Bible, even if it makes them uncomfortable. Case in point - one of the reasons we left our previous church was their hiring of a female pastor. My wife and I felt that God's Word is clear on this issue and while there were many things which we could tolerate (and even that I reflect, is probably not good as we probably should have gone with our convictions earlier), I think this issue was really what did it for us, though it was one of a few other doctrinal and Biblical issues. To me, I think many people on this issue (and not just at our previous church, but in churches around the country) want to appeal to a worldly sense of equality and not offend the feminists out there. They will always tell you that the passages in Timothy and Titus that deal with pastors are outdated or antiquated, or it doesn't fit their secular, feminist interpretation. For us, even when we ultimately did not agree, I think it was more important for us to maintain peaceful relations with our old church and not rail on them but simply say that we disagree and move on and wish them the best. Personally, it has been almost 3 months now and I am glad we made the switch, for our spiritual health's sake.
Going forward, I don't expect churches across Canada and especially across the USA, to change to a Biblically focussed, expository preaching-based system, where God's Word is studied vigorously and properly. But if there is some encouragement to glean, it can be seen in how the once seeker-friendly Willow Creek church, in the past few years, recognized in a published paper, that they were trying to "run church" all the wrong ways, opting to lure people in by marketing gimmacks and a watered-down gospel, rather than preach the Gospel with all of its challenges to the status quo and its call for changing how one thinks and behaves. People nowadays often cite the situation where a woman who was caught in adultery was brought before Jesus and how Jesus said, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." What these same people conveniently leave out is Jesus' charge to the woman near the end of the discourse, to "Go and sin no more". Jesus challenges our works-based mentality but also indicates that action is required on our part and the first step is to humbly come before God and admit our shortcomings and our sinful actions and attitudes.
This got me thinking last night when I went to bed. I wonder how a typical church nowadays would think of a regular course on doctrine. Though I am not a betting man, I would bet that many churches would not be on board with such a course. You see, when you talk doctrine, you are starting to talk in absolute terms, and I think that the overall church community (at least in North America) has covertly fought against this for years. Even at our new church, as I have become more integrated into it, I found out that it wasn't even five years ago that our church had a major church split, losing 400+ members (who incidentally went and formed their own church). The sticking point? There was a segment of people who did not like the fact that the denomination specifically brought in a sound-doctrine Bible teacher who teaches only from the Word of God (the Bible) and will not compromise on this - this was in response to concerns that the church's former pastor was watering down the teaching of God's Word). Needless to say, this rather large splinter group ended up forming their own church (which like many "contemporary" churches nowadays, don't even use the word "Church" in their name anymore). Now, even before I knew anything about this splinter "church", I suspected that this church had as part of its philosophy one or more (if not all) of the following items:
a) come as you are - no dress code or no expectations of dress
b) this is a non-threatening environment
c) the music here is cool
d) we strive to redefine church - you may be surprised by what you see
e) we have or are open to women in ministry
f) we don't use "stuffy" versions of the Bible, it's Eugene Peterson's "The Message" that is for us, baby!
g) it doesn't matter where you are or what you have done, God loves you
Now, the last point is sticky - it is technically true, but most of these churches don't teach this Biblically; that is, they don't discuss this from a sin and salvation and a forgiveness overall standpoint, but from a "we all have hangups, it's not a big deal and God cares more about you coming to Him than what you are doing"). More on this later.
Now, I took an opportunity to actually visit the splinter church's website and lo and behold, everything on it confirmed my suspicions. I happen to have had some spare time that day, so I thought I'd give them a call and chat with one of the pastors there just to ask some curiosity questions. I asked them some hypothetical questions that if I was looking for a new church, why would I feel welcome there. His answers confirmed all the above criteria of the standard "seeker-friendly" type of church. So there ya go.
Now, what is my problem with all this? Well, I see that such churches are in large part, contributing to a "dumbing down" of Christianity and by extension, of Christians, in today's world (at least in North America, where this phenomenon of the "seeker friendly" church is rampant. This is a big deal for me, since if, as Christians, we are supposed to bear witness to the world of the gospel of Christ, using God's Word as our sole evidentiary mechanism, it is imperative that we get to know the Word intimately, and by this I mean understanding it properly and in context. Is it no wonder that most Christians would poop their pants at seeing a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness at their door, since their recognize that their lack of familiarity with their Bible would not make them ideal candidates to have a frank discussion about theological differences with these groups.
Years ago, I attended a memorial/funeral for a colleague of mine. It was quite a long drive, but I wanted to show my support for him at this difficult time. It so happened that one of my other colleagues, a Christian gal, tagged along for the ride. Now, she is of a completely different denomination than me, but I don't consider our denominational differences to be major - I know she is saved and she loves the Lord and she is a really strong believer. Anyway, on the car ride, we talked about what was then all the rage in modern Christiandom, Rick Warren's "The Purpose Drive Life." She didn't read it yet, but had some reservations about the book based on the title itself (I don't remember exactly what her objections were, since it was many years ago). She asked me if I had read it and I simply said yes. She asked me to elaborate, and so I did. Now, that book, while most of it may be technically correct, is not theologically sound. Just like my above comment on criteria G, while God loves you, there is still action on our part we must take. If we are in sinful behaviour, we must go to God and repent (a word you never hear anymore in churches) and ask Him for forvigness. In fact, in order to be saved, one has to repent and turn away from their sins and accept Jesus Christ as Saviour. It's our sins that put Christ on the cross in the first place! Yet many churches seem to conveniently sweep that one under the carpet, opting to focus on one side of the equation, which is God's grace and love and forgiveness, while ignoring the other, which is our sin and depravity and our response to God. See what I'm saying here? If you teach half the doctrine, you're going to get some misled and confused people. Check out the latest rage in Christian circles (well at least last year), that book called "The Shack" that is making the rounds. If new Christians are being exposed to this, there is no way on God's green earth that they will ever be exposed to the full gospel message, in this politically-correct, spiritually unoffending, feel-good treastise. This sells in volumes on the Christian and non-Christian market because of its lack of discussion about sin and hell and the righteousness of God. It is again, a one-sided "God is love" approach to things, which, if you examine the Bible in its entirety, is not telling the whole story.
Churches like the splinter church described above don't believe in "rules". That's good, because I don't either, at least when it comes to faith in Christ. However, I think that churches like the one I described above miss the mark when it comes to this - they are pushing away from a works-based understanding of the Christian life, which is good in a sense, since that's what Jesus railed against when he criticized the Pharisees; however, as many of the epistles will show us (Corinthians, Timothy, Ephesians, Philippians, etc.), and especially James, the Christian, in his or her new life, should, by virtue of his/her obedience to the promptings of the Holy Spirit, show fruit from his/her faith. I think this is what James is saying - while what you do will not save you, your actions as a result of living a new life in Christ, should show some evidence of your new life. Now, I am the first to admit that it is easy to ignore the promptings of the Spirit. Sometimes it's just easier to just do what you want to do, according to the flesh. Heck, I've been guilty of that for years. But over the last little while, I've really given my life back to God for Him to repair, and He has really changed my heart to quite a large degree and I am happy for that; I am still far from perfect (just ask my wife!) but doing better now, thanks!
You know, it's amazing, one of the things which will always elicit a reaction as asking Christians about John MacArthur, who is considered one of the top Bible teachers in the world today and is Pastor and Bible teacher for Grace Community Church in California. Do I agree with everything he says? No. But I think that for one to argue against him, it is necessary to exercise the same amount (or more) of Biblical literacy that he has. Which means that Christians need to go into their Bibles more if you want to counter a point of contention - it's not good enough to just say, "well, I just don't feel...". For the past two months, I've been listening to a Bible Questions and Answers series, which features Pastor MacArthur answering Bible and Chrsitianity-related questions posed from MacArthur's congregation of about 10,000. The Bible Q&A sessions are unscripted and are based over 37 years (there's 55 CDs and counting of pure Bible questions and answers). I love listening to these, not because I like hearing MacArthur's voice, but because he always answers his questions with Biblical support and I learn something new. It also points me back to Scripture and gets me into the Word more than I've been for years. None of his questions are responded with "I think..." unless there is no clear Biblical reference to it. MacArthur has 40+ years of sermons available for download and study and has written 70+ books. To me, this is the kind of love and interest in God's Word that I'd like to have in my own life. Yet, you know, there are a lot of people who don't like MacArthur, which is fine, since I don't expect everyone to agree on everything, but it's always for one of the following reasons: a) he's boring. b) it's too indepth and c) not much contemporary application.
You see what I'm saying here? Today's Christians will find expository preaching boring, you know why? As the Bible says, they are infant Christians in their understanding, and infants drink, what? Infant milk! If these Christians go to a church in which in-depth expository and contextual Bible study is hardly contemplated, much less practiced, they are going to turn out to be not very well grounded on their doctrinal foundations, if at all.
Based on the complaints noted above regarding MacArthur, I have found the reverse to be true when it comes to in-depth Bible study recently in my life. If the study is done properly in understanding the historical context and cultural context and religious context, it really can and does bring the passage to life in that we better understand why it was said the way it was said and why it was said. People nowadays can take any verse out of context from the Bible. Of course, when this is done, no one has any clue as to why this archaic Bible verse is quoted, but their motivation to find out is stymied by their culturally-taught desire not to question anything - so they blindly recite verses without any passion and understanding behind it. A quick example - 1 Corinthians 3:16 is often used on me to tell me that I should have never gotten my tattoos. It says that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and if one destroys the body, God will destroy him. There are two problems with this: a) this verse is not saying this (even though for years I thought it did). If you look at the context of this passage (ie. the chapter before and after as well as the historical context of the Corintian church at the time), you'll see that Paul was writing to the Corinthian church (the body of believers as referenced) about divisions in the church and how some in that church at that time was thinking that Paul was the head of the church or Apollos was, etc.) The church is what is referenced to by the word "body" (and this is confirmed by examining the Greek word's origins and meaning). Based on what the topic was before and after that passage, it makes absolutely not sense why Paul would all of the sudden stop what he is saying and talk about the physical body, when in the context of that passage, body mean "the church". b) I did my tattoos before I was a Christian, so it's not like I knew any better. But regardless, my personal opinion of tattoos is neither here nor there since I don't see it as a paramount theological issue, but I would question Christians who get tattoos of things that are obviously not pleasing to God (such as evil symbols, witchcraft things, sexual things, etc.).
While it is getting a bit off topic, my point about is to demonstrate that most Christians don't even bother (or know how) to look at a passage contextually. And churches nowadays are not teaching this, unfortunately. And I've visted more than a few churches to be able to make this comment with some confidence.
That being said, one of the best sermons I heard at my previous church was preached by the, at the time 30-year-old or so pastoral intern who taught on the passage about the Good Samaritan. I've heard and read that passage many times, but this time, he spent time looking at the context of that passage. At face value, we often read contemporary things into Scirptural text. For me, I always envisioned a straight country road where the guy was attacked. And I just saw that the guys who passed him (except for the Samaritan) were simply arrogant, snobby guys who didn't want to help him. It was until it was told the type of winding angled road and that it was dangerous because of the hiding spots in the areas the road that I started realizing that this was no stroll in the park. And also the relationships that the Jews and Samaritans had was not simply that they didn't associate with one another, but when you discovered why and the societial stigmas that will result, etc., it helps you to appreciate the account better, as well as understand the setting from which our Biblical stories come.
But most churches don't teach this, and if they do they will teach it once in a blue moon. Instead, we get, as I witnessed in 2006 in a church in Alberta, a quick sermon (and these churches always have quick sermons since they seem to think that people have more important things to do rather than study God's Word - if nothing else, they are making their real intentions known) about some lovey-dovey topic that will not cause any offense and uncomfortableness with the congregants. The topic was something like "What If Jesus Had a Blackberry?" What an utterly stupid topic it was, and I remember telling my cousin, who asked me about what I thought of the sermon, that "to be honest, it wasn't very good." Honestly, if you have to start reading your 21st century viewpoint back into the Biblical text, you are in a world of hurt.
The pursuit of a holy life is not taught in most churches today. This is true. I am seeing more and more instances of non married Christian couples vacationing together by themselves. That seems to be OK with other Christians, few of whom speak up. When was the last time you heard of a church talking about waiting until marriage to have sex? Just yesterday, our new church's pastor preached a challenging sermon about integrity and watching what one watches, and watching what they say (ie. slander, lying, gossip). Are those warnings taught in any churches nowadays, especially in light of the fact that the church has historically been a place where such sins are openly practiced? I have found many Christians nowadays to be much more accepting of other Christians who use foul language and swearing - even I have been known to historically use it without anyone really chastizing me. That is not good. As with anything else in the Christian life, it's better to surround yourself in an environment where you don't get exposed to things that are not good for your spiritual health. If you aren't in a good church that encourages you to pursue a life of Godly living, find one that does.
Many churches nowadays are not teaching doctrine (they say it's divisive, which is true, but that's by design - no one will be convicted of anything if there's no objective standard by which to measure their behaviour). Their challenge is whether they will be obedient and submit to God's authority in the Bible, even if it makes them uncomfortable. Case in point - one of the reasons we left our previous church was their hiring of a female pastor. My wife and I felt that God's Word is clear on this issue and while there were many things which we could tolerate (and even that I reflect, is probably not good as we probably should have gone with our convictions earlier), I think this issue was really what did it for us, though it was one of a few other doctrinal and Biblical issues. To me, I think many people on this issue (and not just at our previous church, but in churches around the country) want to appeal to a worldly sense of equality and not offend the feminists out there. They will always tell you that the passages in Timothy and Titus that deal with pastors are outdated or antiquated, or it doesn't fit their secular, feminist interpretation. For us, even when we ultimately did not agree, I think it was more important for us to maintain peaceful relations with our old church and not rail on them but simply say that we disagree and move on and wish them the best. Personally, it has been almost 3 months now and I am glad we made the switch, for our spiritual health's sake.
Going forward, I don't expect churches across Canada and especially across the USA, to change to a Biblically focussed, expository preaching-based system, where God's Word is studied vigorously and properly. But if there is some encouragement to glean, it can be seen in how the once seeker-friendly Willow Creek church, in the past few years, recognized in a published paper, that they were trying to "run church" all the wrong ways, opting to lure people in by marketing gimmacks and a watered-down gospel, rather than preach the Gospel with all of its challenges to the status quo and its call for changing how one thinks and behaves. People nowadays often cite the situation where a woman who was caught in adultery was brought before Jesus and how Jesus said, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." What these same people conveniently leave out is Jesus' charge to the woman near the end of the discourse, to "Go and sin no more". Jesus challenges our works-based mentality but also indicates that action is required on our part and the first step is to humbly come before God and admit our shortcomings and our sinful actions and attitudes.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Reflections on Being a Christian in 2009 And My Journey To Here
This fall, I celebrate a milestone of sorts in my personal life. It will have been 18 years since I accepted Christ as Lord and Saviour and while 18 years seems like a bit of an arbitrary number, it is significant when you take into the account than I am 36. I have been a born again believer for half of my life, and I guess I can further say that I have been a Christian for most of my conscious life (unlike some people, I don't remember anything from when I was 2 or 4 years old).
Much has changed since I made that original profession in 1991. You know, at the time, I was going through a period of my life which would have probably put me on a head-on collision with death or being arrested. I was a porn dealer, a drug user, had violent tendencies and just was a miserable person. So it is not lost on me that I could have been in much different circumstances had I not have experienced the love of Christ in my life.
The journey of faith in being a follower of Jesus is not without challenges. Of course, little would I have suspected the degree of hardship which I would have experienced over the years. Just like people who think erroneously that once you are married and have kids, everything is a big old fairy tale, being a Christian carries not guarantee that your life will go well (at least your remaining life on this earth). In fact, I'd hazard to say that the guarantee goes the other way - that you will experience much difficulty in your Christian life. Most Sunday schools and churches try to avoid teaching this, since it can be a bit on the depressing side, but that is really the Biblical pattern, if you look at how God's people weren't exactly popular with the world or its standards of happiness. The good news is that this is all very temporary in the whole scheme of God's plan.
So at this juncture of my life, I thought it would be both interesting and somewhat fun to reflect on the past 18 years of my Christian life. I doubt that this would become as popular of a post as the one I wrote about Toronto protests by the Tamils (about 30 responses as of last count - that has been the most popular blog entry here by far), but this is more for me than anyone else - if you get something out of reading this, then great.
I was driving into work this morning, thinking about all this, and thought about the early years. Recently, at our new church (we started attending March 1, after 13 years at our previous church), our family attended a really nice new visitors luncheon. We happened to end up sitting at a table with one of the church's elders, and he was interested in hearing my testimony, so I gave it to him (actually, I'll write about that very shortly in another post). He noted something which I have never thought about; that is, that he found it interesting (not sure in what way) that I ended up enrolling in Bible school (and was accepted) less than a year after becoming a Christian. Yeah, that was kind of weird, considering the fact that I was on a journalism track, but I have absolutely no regrets whatsoever. At the time, I was deeply immersed in the Word, reading my Bible more than a few times a day and just soaking up Christian literature. It's interesting how this sort of comes full circle, since I'm sort of back in that mindset again (thankfully!) after all these years.
I had no idea what to expect in Bible school, and my Dad didn't expect much, so you can imagine both his shock (and mine too) at the fact that I made Dean's list almost every year that I was there, including 1994-95, when I had the highest GPA in residence. Theological school was very rewarding for me as a new Christian, and while I struggle to answer the question that the occasional person poses to me as to why I am not using the theological degree (I really don't have an answer) but instead worked in the IT industry for the past 12 years), I know that no one - including myself - knows God's purposes, so I'll just leave the planning and life direction up to Him).
Back then, like most new Christians, I was fairly legalistic, not in a Jewish sense, not really in a works-based salvation sense, but more in the "I must produce tangible and visible fruit" sense. In other words, I was petrified when I wasn't visibly manifesting my faith. To a degree, it was almost like a holy show, but my intentions were not really Pharissaical, but more wanting to live a life which was different than my non-Christian counterparts. And such was my first fallacy in understanding the Christian life.
It was only a few years ago that I fully understood that Christians aren't all that different than non-Christians, when it comes to succeptibility to temptation, anger, frustration, relationship problems, and so forth. BUT, Christians stand in stark contrast to non-Christians in that we have hope and we can lean on our Heavenly Father, who will help us in our troubles. That is not to say that Christians don't get depressed - it happens - there were a number of people at the Bible school who had psychological and psychiatric problems. I remember one of the first people I met (like, this is within days of showing up in residence), I accompanied to the hospital as he needed to get treated for an STD that he contracted from his girlfriend. Then there was the friend (a youth pastor major) who told me about his sexual activities with his girlfriend - I later caught him looking at porn one day when I went to visit his room - that was awkward and disappointing). I met another guy who told me the places to go in the school's basement / laundry area, where one can get a "quickie" with one's girlfriend - he claimed to have used that location over 300+ times. All this started to depress me - I guess I had expected better, but I also realized that lot of Christians wore masks.
No one was more surprised as me when I discovered (after I graduated) that my first-year roommate came out of the closet as a very open homosexual later. I started wondering about all the times he jumped on me and tried to wrestle me down on my bed as we were practising WWF wrestling moves. He is apparently now in the U.S. and somehow has gotten "married" to his subsequent boyfriend. I did keep in touch with him for a while and he told me that he was gay, which was a huge shock to me. Things that make you go "hmmmm...."
Unfortunately, five to seven years after becoming a Christian, I started to get a bit depressed in my faith - I realized that it wasn't a works-based faith, but it seemed like no one I knew really gave a hoot about the pursuit of holiness. Christian living seemed to be overshadowed by Christian liberty. At that point, I had switched from my Mom and Dad's church to a new church which was pastored by my theology professor. That was very different at first, since this church was influenced and had split from a United Church. I started to see Christians practise their faith differently, and things like liturgies and such I never saw before. It was interesting.
I remember applying for a job at a Christian school in 1997 to teach computers. I got through the interview with flying colours and they were ready to hire me until they found out that I did not know how to program. I told them that I was clear on this at the outset and that I knew hardware and some operating system stuff. They admitted they assumed that everyone who knew "computers" knew all facets. Bad assumption - guess they weren't IT-savvy. That would have been fun doing that job, but you know, years later that school closed down, so I am glad I didn't take that job.
It is really in the working world that I saw God's hand heavily in my life, and thank goodness for that since that proved to be a huge calming influence in the later years. I ended up with my job in IT (that I do to this day) as a result of not getting that Christian teaching job - so I tell people that even if God may not grant you where you may think you want to go - He has other purposes, and sometimes, you won't know these purposes till a lot later). Anyway, one of my friends in my Bible school recommended me to her boss' boss (a VP) at a large Canadian IT firm. Happens that that VP was a very strong, mature Christian. I was interviewed and got the job and it was a huge learning curve for me, since everything I know at that point was self-taught. But to the company's credit, they sent me on numerous (and very expensive) courses to get me up to speed. Then I met other Christians at the workplace...this was great, since obviously in a non-Christian company, it's nice to know you have people both watching your back and encouraging you. And I saw God's hand at work again when that company folded, and surprisingly, I was the only remnant which survived the eventual dissolution of our group. I was offered a position that made much more money (almost double my current salary at that time) but God had given me a sense not to take it. Turns out that other company went out of business a year later. I was moved to my current job and location where I knew no one and upon starting back in 2000, I remember it was such a nasty, backstabbing environment. Yet, within a year, myself and another Christian from another division of my old company were moved to this account and we really saw God working in us to change both the environment and attitude of our colleagues. Turns out that years later, we found a number of other Christians on our account, and to this day, while due to economic realities, our account staff has been decimated, a number of us Christians remain gainfully employed, despite many cutbacks that we have survived.
Getting married and having kids has obviously changed me - I would think for the better. While it was a steep adjustment for me to have had to learn to live with another person who is not like me at all, my wife has really encouraged me throughout the years, and especially during the last few years, when we have experienced a number of very challenging personal difficulties, to just continue to trust in God. My kids (my son in particular - my daughter's too young to talk) have really been a firm reason for me to try to pursue a life of consistent holiness - that being said, I will be the first to admit that I often come short of the standard which I set for myself, and I'm sure I disappoint God often). I think it was only just this year that we started getting over the hump from all of our financial and medication problems and now I am really glad that we persevered.
Probably to everyone's shock, including mine, I was nominated to be an elder in 2005 at our old church. It was an honour to have been nominated, particularly by another elder, and several others; I was very resistant at first, but with some encouragement from my former pastor, friends and wife, I accepted the nomination and was voted in. After three years of doing it and deciding not to sign up for another term, I knew why I was indecisive at first - I should have listened to my gut and declined the first time - I was not elder material - my spiritual life was not as strong as it should be, and I really think that my expectations were too high (and in retrospect, they should have been based on the 1 Timothy and Titus requirements). While I didn't really contribute a whole lot during my time doing this, I was heavily involved in one situation which turned out really badly, and left a very, very sour taste in my mouth. Church politics, I suppose, but moreover, I think it came down to me seeing that some people really did not care about spiritual maturity. That, I think, was the beginning of the end and when I started thinking that I needed to be elsewhere. In retrospect, I think going through the experience was a good thing, since it showed me that despite my meager contributions during my time as an elder, and my hesitancy in taking on the role, deep down, I still had some Biblical standards that I was trying my best to follow. Anyway, enough of that. The past is the past and that's the last time I'll talk about that.
Moving to a new church this year has really helped me spiritually, as I am now back into regular Bible study and have been challenged to look deeply into the Word, and I am approaching it with excitement in my heart and not grudgingly. My wife has noticed a difference in me and have commented such in the affirmative. It was kind of weird how we ended up at our new church, but it has really been a solid place to worship and a place where God's Word is taught in an expository way. It is incredible what our new church has gone through in the past five years, in that it has experienced a large split of people who want to be more "seeker friendly" (Willow Creek model) and be more marketable and draw numbers of young people, simply leave the church - about 400 of them. That is a good thing, since when I found that out a couple of months back, I immediately realized that this church is for me, if it takes a solid Biblical stand against current watered-down church trends, even if it means the decimation of its numbers. I remember once visiting their website and it was slick - like really corporate-looking. Now, with those seeker-friendly types gone, I guess the webmaster went too, so the church website is pretty basic now, but who really cares when you know that the people behind it are solid believers who love the Word and not the world. Our new church has recovered nicely and due to a pastor that refuses to compromise on God's Word (he did not have an easy go of it since there was much resistance to his Bible-centered teaching), God has blessed the church in the past few years. I am not one for a making commitments in a short timeframe, but my wife and I have felt so much at home at our new church that later this month, we are starting to take membership classes there. You know how sometimes, you just know that you're in the right place at the right time? We are there. What has been an interesting blessing is how God has affirmed our decision to move churches (long story), as tough as that was - we had some dear, old friends at our old church which had a huge impact on us, so moving away was not easy, but thankfully we keep in touch). We met, on our first week at our new church, a family that lives within a football toss of our house - they've been there for years, we've been here for years, yet we never knew them. But we met them at church and have really clicked with this young family. My wife and I have now, for the first time, in years, started praying together again and discussing Bible topics - she has listened to preaching sermons which I have, in the past two months, been downloading and putting on CD to listen to on the car ride to and from work every single day. I just have that spiritual fervour that I admit was lost for quite some time. My son and I have very meaningful Bible discussions and I really feel that responsibility on my shoulders to not only model a consistently decent father for him, but also to model a (hopefully somewhat decent) Christian. Again, I often fall short and make many mistakes, but it has been years since I have felt this fervour to immerse myself in the reading of God's Word, and it has been a good 5 years or so since I have felt the excitement and anticipation of going to church on Sunday mornings. Heck, I even get there early, which is unheard of for me, since I generally am very disorganized and am late for everything (that is to my shame and no one else's). I really feel, to a degree, that it's back to 1991-1992 again when I had that zest for my new-found faith. That is not to say that I am like I was back then - I am certainly not. I am hardly as naive as I was back then, and am paranoially cautious about my social relationships as well as about personal safety issues (I must have gotten that from my Mom). I recognize that even though we are Christians in this world, the world is not a friendly place, despite what well-meaning people will want to tell you. I make no illusions about the fact that I can never fully feel at peace, at home, and content in this world. Of course, very few understand this and look at me funny and ask how can I be a Christian, yet own guns. It's not an easy one to explain, so I don't get into those conversations if I can help it.
There is, of course, much more that I can say, and I'm sure I can edit this so it doesn't sound so structurally disjointed, but I'm naturally lazy so I will forego that. I do want to say that my final comments are for those who have just become saved for the first time in 2009. What should one expect? What is the Christian life like? Well, as one who has been there, I can tell you this truth - God is always in control, whether we think so or not, whether we believe it or not. I have seen more evidence of God working in situations and scenarios that will stump even the most ardent of critics of the Christian faith. Despite my own personal hangups, I know that God is a God of forgiveness and second chances.
I also know that God is One who keeps His promises. When He says that, for instance that we can lay our burdens on Him, He means that. To experience God shouldering the load of life's troubles is very satisfying. I can speak firsthand of this, from personal experience (unfortunately, it took many years and many situations before I finally got this one). The question is, whether we choose to dump our load onto His trusty shoulders.
Third, there is no better way of knowing God than to read His Word. I have neglected it for years, despite my theological education. It's amazing, really, how we can read the Bible many times over, and learn new truths and applications for life each time. Sure, some parts are challenging (like reading genealogies or books like Job, which I think can be easily condensed) - but even then, there are passages which will come out and speak to you at a particular time and place - it's weird, but true.
Also, for the Christian in 2009, stand firm. Don't compromise with the world. Even churches will tend to get muddled in worldly theology and practices - resist the urge to conform to the world, but as Romans says, instead be transformed by the renewing of your mind. To that end, I'd suggest a good way for any Christian (especially a guy) to work on their faith is to watch what they take into their mind. Guys like me who have a history of struggling with porn know that there are things that are not wise for me to watch or situations where it is not wise for me to be in. For years, I didn't work as well to guard my mind, but I think that I could have saved myself much trouble if I had developed this sense of discretionary intake of information, in the first place.
I may add more to this posting once I get a chance to re-read it.
Much has changed since I made that original profession in 1991. You know, at the time, I was going through a period of my life which would have probably put me on a head-on collision with death or being arrested. I was a porn dealer, a drug user, had violent tendencies and just was a miserable person. So it is not lost on me that I could have been in much different circumstances had I not have experienced the love of Christ in my life.
The journey of faith in being a follower of Jesus is not without challenges. Of course, little would I have suspected the degree of hardship which I would have experienced over the years. Just like people who think erroneously that once you are married and have kids, everything is a big old fairy tale, being a Christian carries not guarantee that your life will go well (at least your remaining life on this earth). In fact, I'd hazard to say that the guarantee goes the other way - that you will experience much difficulty in your Christian life. Most Sunday schools and churches try to avoid teaching this, since it can be a bit on the depressing side, but that is really the Biblical pattern, if you look at how God's people weren't exactly popular with the world or its standards of happiness. The good news is that this is all very temporary in the whole scheme of God's plan.
So at this juncture of my life, I thought it would be both interesting and somewhat fun to reflect on the past 18 years of my Christian life. I doubt that this would become as popular of a post as the one I wrote about Toronto protests by the Tamils (about 30 responses as of last count - that has been the most popular blog entry here by far), but this is more for me than anyone else - if you get something out of reading this, then great.
I was driving into work this morning, thinking about all this, and thought about the early years. Recently, at our new church (we started attending March 1, after 13 years at our previous church), our family attended a really nice new visitors luncheon. We happened to end up sitting at a table with one of the church's elders, and he was interested in hearing my testimony, so I gave it to him (actually, I'll write about that very shortly in another post). He noted something which I have never thought about; that is, that he found it interesting (not sure in what way) that I ended up enrolling in Bible school (and was accepted) less than a year after becoming a Christian. Yeah, that was kind of weird, considering the fact that I was on a journalism track, but I have absolutely no regrets whatsoever. At the time, I was deeply immersed in the Word, reading my Bible more than a few times a day and just soaking up Christian literature. It's interesting how this sort of comes full circle, since I'm sort of back in that mindset again (thankfully!) after all these years.
I had no idea what to expect in Bible school, and my Dad didn't expect much, so you can imagine both his shock (and mine too) at the fact that I made Dean's list almost every year that I was there, including 1994-95, when I had the highest GPA in residence. Theological school was very rewarding for me as a new Christian, and while I struggle to answer the question that the occasional person poses to me as to why I am not using the theological degree (I really don't have an answer) but instead worked in the IT industry for the past 12 years), I know that no one - including myself - knows God's purposes, so I'll just leave the planning and life direction up to Him).
Back then, like most new Christians, I was fairly legalistic, not in a Jewish sense, not really in a works-based salvation sense, but more in the "I must produce tangible and visible fruit" sense. In other words, I was petrified when I wasn't visibly manifesting my faith. To a degree, it was almost like a holy show, but my intentions were not really Pharissaical, but more wanting to live a life which was different than my non-Christian counterparts. And such was my first fallacy in understanding the Christian life.
It was only a few years ago that I fully understood that Christians aren't all that different than non-Christians, when it comes to succeptibility to temptation, anger, frustration, relationship problems, and so forth. BUT, Christians stand in stark contrast to non-Christians in that we have hope and we can lean on our Heavenly Father, who will help us in our troubles. That is not to say that Christians don't get depressed - it happens - there were a number of people at the Bible school who had psychological and psychiatric problems. I remember one of the first people I met (like, this is within days of showing up in residence), I accompanied to the hospital as he needed to get treated for an STD that he contracted from his girlfriend. Then there was the friend (a youth pastor major) who told me about his sexual activities with his girlfriend - I later caught him looking at porn one day when I went to visit his room - that was awkward and disappointing). I met another guy who told me the places to go in the school's basement / laundry area, where one can get a "quickie" with one's girlfriend - he claimed to have used that location over 300+ times. All this started to depress me - I guess I had expected better, but I also realized that lot of Christians wore masks.
No one was more surprised as me when I discovered (after I graduated) that my first-year roommate came out of the closet as a very open homosexual later. I started wondering about all the times he jumped on me and tried to wrestle me down on my bed as we were practising WWF wrestling moves. He is apparently now in the U.S. and somehow has gotten "married" to his subsequent boyfriend. I did keep in touch with him for a while and he told me that he was gay, which was a huge shock to me. Things that make you go "hmmmm...."
Unfortunately, five to seven years after becoming a Christian, I started to get a bit depressed in my faith - I realized that it wasn't a works-based faith, but it seemed like no one I knew really gave a hoot about the pursuit of holiness. Christian living seemed to be overshadowed by Christian liberty. At that point, I had switched from my Mom and Dad's church to a new church which was pastored by my theology professor. That was very different at first, since this church was influenced and had split from a United Church. I started to see Christians practise their faith differently, and things like liturgies and such I never saw before. It was interesting.
I remember applying for a job at a Christian school in 1997 to teach computers. I got through the interview with flying colours and they were ready to hire me until they found out that I did not know how to program. I told them that I was clear on this at the outset and that I knew hardware and some operating system stuff. They admitted they assumed that everyone who knew "computers" knew all facets. Bad assumption - guess they weren't IT-savvy. That would have been fun doing that job, but you know, years later that school closed down, so I am glad I didn't take that job.
It is really in the working world that I saw God's hand heavily in my life, and thank goodness for that since that proved to be a huge calming influence in the later years. I ended up with my job in IT (that I do to this day) as a result of not getting that Christian teaching job - so I tell people that even if God may not grant you where you may think you want to go - He has other purposes, and sometimes, you won't know these purposes till a lot later). Anyway, one of my friends in my Bible school recommended me to her boss' boss (a VP) at a large Canadian IT firm. Happens that that VP was a very strong, mature Christian. I was interviewed and got the job and it was a huge learning curve for me, since everything I know at that point was self-taught. But to the company's credit, they sent me on numerous (and very expensive) courses to get me up to speed. Then I met other Christians at the workplace...this was great, since obviously in a non-Christian company, it's nice to know you have people both watching your back and encouraging you. And I saw God's hand at work again when that company folded, and surprisingly, I was the only remnant which survived the eventual dissolution of our group. I was offered a position that made much more money (almost double my current salary at that time) but God had given me a sense not to take it. Turns out that other company went out of business a year later. I was moved to my current job and location where I knew no one and upon starting back in 2000, I remember it was such a nasty, backstabbing environment. Yet, within a year, myself and another Christian from another division of my old company were moved to this account and we really saw God working in us to change both the environment and attitude of our colleagues. Turns out that years later, we found a number of other Christians on our account, and to this day, while due to economic realities, our account staff has been decimated, a number of us Christians remain gainfully employed, despite many cutbacks that we have survived.
Getting married and having kids has obviously changed me - I would think for the better. While it was a steep adjustment for me to have had to learn to live with another person who is not like me at all, my wife has really encouraged me throughout the years, and especially during the last few years, when we have experienced a number of very challenging personal difficulties, to just continue to trust in God. My kids (my son in particular - my daughter's too young to talk) have really been a firm reason for me to try to pursue a life of consistent holiness - that being said, I will be the first to admit that I often come short of the standard which I set for myself, and I'm sure I disappoint God often). I think it was only just this year that we started getting over the hump from all of our financial and medication problems and now I am really glad that we persevered.
Probably to everyone's shock, including mine, I was nominated to be an elder in 2005 at our old church. It was an honour to have been nominated, particularly by another elder, and several others; I was very resistant at first, but with some encouragement from my former pastor, friends and wife, I accepted the nomination and was voted in. After three years of doing it and deciding not to sign up for another term, I knew why I was indecisive at first - I should have listened to my gut and declined the first time - I was not elder material - my spiritual life was not as strong as it should be, and I really think that my expectations were too high (and in retrospect, they should have been based on the 1 Timothy and Titus requirements). While I didn't really contribute a whole lot during my time doing this, I was heavily involved in one situation which turned out really badly, and left a very, very sour taste in my mouth. Church politics, I suppose, but moreover, I think it came down to me seeing that some people really did not care about spiritual maturity. That, I think, was the beginning of the end and when I started thinking that I needed to be elsewhere. In retrospect, I think going through the experience was a good thing, since it showed me that despite my meager contributions during my time as an elder, and my hesitancy in taking on the role, deep down, I still had some Biblical standards that I was trying my best to follow. Anyway, enough of that. The past is the past and that's the last time I'll talk about that.
Moving to a new church this year has really helped me spiritually, as I am now back into regular Bible study and have been challenged to look deeply into the Word, and I am approaching it with excitement in my heart and not grudgingly. My wife has noticed a difference in me and have commented such in the affirmative. It was kind of weird how we ended up at our new church, but it has really been a solid place to worship and a place where God's Word is taught in an expository way. It is incredible what our new church has gone through in the past five years, in that it has experienced a large split of people who want to be more "seeker friendly" (Willow Creek model) and be more marketable and draw numbers of young people, simply leave the church - about 400 of them. That is a good thing, since when I found that out a couple of months back, I immediately realized that this church is for me, if it takes a solid Biblical stand against current watered-down church trends, even if it means the decimation of its numbers. I remember once visiting their website and it was slick - like really corporate-looking. Now, with those seeker-friendly types gone, I guess the webmaster went too, so the church website is pretty basic now, but who really cares when you know that the people behind it are solid believers who love the Word and not the world. Our new church has recovered nicely and due to a pastor that refuses to compromise on God's Word (he did not have an easy go of it since there was much resistance to his Bible-centered teaching), God has blessed the church in the past few years. I am not one for a making commitments in a short timeframe, but my wife and I have felt so much at home at our new church that later this month, we are starting to take membership classes there. You know how sometimes, you just know that you're in the right place at the right time? We are there. What has been an interesting blessing is how God has affirmed our decision to move churches (long story), as tough as that was - we had some dear, old friends at our old church which had a huge impact on us, so moving away was not easy, but thankfully we keep in touch). We met, on our first week at our new church, a family that lives within a football toss of our house - they've been there for years, we've been here for years, yet we never knew them. But we met them at church and have really clicked with this young family. My wife and I have now, for the first time, in years, started praying together again and discussing Bible topics - she has listened to preaching sermons which I have, in the past two months, been downloading and putting on CD to listen to on the car ride to and from work every single day. I just have that spiritual fervour that I admit was lost for quite some time. My son and I have very meaningful Bible discussions and I really feel that responsibility on my shoulders to not only model a consistently decent father for him, but also to model a (hopefully somewhat decent) Christian. Again, I often fall short and make many mistakes, but it has been years since I have felt this fervour to immerse myself in the reading of God's Word, and it has been a good 5 years or so since I have felt the excitement and anticipation of going to church on Sunday mornings. Heck, I even get there early, which is unheard of for me, since I generally am very disorganized and am late for everything (that is to my shame and no one else's). I really feel, to a degree, that it's back to 1991-1992 again when I had that zest for my new-found faith. That is not to say that I am like I was back then - I am certainly not. I am hardly as naive as I was back then, and am paranoially cautious about my social relationships as well as about personal safety issues (I must have gotten that from my Mom). I recognize that even though we are Christians in this world, the world is not a friendly place, despite what well-meaning people will want to tell you. I make no illusions about the fact that I can never fully feel at peace, at home, and content in this world. Of course, very few understand this and look at me funny and ask how can I be a Christian, yet own guns. It's not an easy one to explain, so I don't get into those conversations if I can help it.
There is, of course, much more that I can say, and I'm sure I can edit this so it doesn't sound so structurally disjointed, but I'm naturally lazy so I will forego that. I do want to say that my final comments are for those who have just become saved for the first time in 2009. What should one expect? What is the Christian life like? Well, as one who has been there, I can tell you this truth - God is always in control, whether we think so or not, whether we believe it or not. I have seen more evidence of God working in situations and scenarios that will stump even the most ardent of critics of the Christian faith. Despite my own personal hangups, I know that God is a God of forgiveness and second chances.
I also know that God is One who keeps His promises. When He says that, for instance that we can lay our burdens on Him, He means that. To experience God shouldering the load of life's troubles is very satisfying. I can speak firsthand of this, from personal experience (unfortunately, it took many years and many situations before I finally got this one). The question is, whether we choose to dump our load onto His trusty shoulders.
Third, there is no better way of knowing God than to read His Word. I have neglected it for years, despite my theological education. It's amazing, really, how we can read the Bible many times over, and learn new truths and applications for life each time. Sure, some parts are challenging (like reading genealogies or books like Job, which I think can be easily condensed) - but even then, there are passages which will come out and speak to you at a particular time and place - it's weird, but true.
Also, for the Christian in 2009, stand firm. Don't compromise with the world. Even churches will tend to get muddled in worldly theology and practices - resist the urge to conform to the world, but as Romans says, instead be transformed by the renewing of your mind. To that end, I'd suggest a good way for any Christian (especially a guy) to work on their faith is to watch what they take into their mind. Guys like me who have a history of struggling with porn know that there are things that are not wise for me to watch or situations where it is not wise for me to be in. For years, I didn't work as well to guard my mind, but I think that I could have saved myself much trouble if I had developed this sense of discretionary intake of information, in the first place.
I may add more to this posting once I get a chance to re-read it.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Changes
In our lifetimes, I am sure we have all been through situations where we have a tough decision to make. It may not be an easy decision. It may not even be a comfortable decision. But make it you must.
I am thankful that in my life, I have only had to make a handful of such decisions. I don't enjoy change, and oftentimes have trouble pulling the trigger on a difficult decision, so sadly, I try to find ways to mitigate such decisions from having to be made in the first place. But sometimes it's inevitable that the decision has to be made.
My wife and I have been pondering such a decision for at least a couple of years now. And it was a very difficult decision to make, as it affects our children, not to mention our own personal spiritual life. We have decided that after 13 years, that we will be leaving our church. Now, for those who don't go to church, you may sit there and say, "who cares? It's just church." Maybe. But I guess you've never experienced the sense of community and belonging that comes with being part of a church. The sense of support and encouragement that a body of believers provides one another. The spiritual cohesion that develops, since let's face it, real born again Christians are in the great minority nowadays. It is indeed like moving to a new city, starting a new job. There's a certain sadness that comes with it, in terms of familiarity but also in terms of relationship.
I won't get into the reasons why we are making the change, but we not only made the decision (and make it collectively - this was not "my" decision, nor "her" decision), but have acted on it and swiftly too. We believe we have found our new church home and it is closer to our house and we've already made some contacts.
But still, there is a certain melancholy that comes with making such a significant change. There are many, many people at our church with whom we are quite fond, with whom we have shared joys and tears, friends who we regard like our own family and people who have helped carry us in difficult times. Sure, we will make new friends, but the fact is, some of the people who we only see on Sundays, we will probably never see again. That is hard for my wife and I to wrap ourselves around. But you know, we recognize that like everything else, there are strengths and areas of improvement. We still want to show that we value our old church's strengths but continue to support programs financially and by our attendance. But I suspect that over time, as we move into programs at our new church, this too will eventually fade out.
13 years. My wife and I were married at this church. Both of our kids were dedicated there. I served there briefly as an elder and my wife as the children's ministry co-ordinator for a while. I think back of our time with fondness and have very few regrets. I recognize that no church is perfect, but just like anything else like a house or car or what food to eat or what music to listen to, there is a sense of personal preference involved, I will admit. But moreso with churches, there's also the added sense of where God wants us to be at this particular time. It is in this vein that my wife and I sensed God's calling us out pretty clearly. And while it is uncomfortable for us, we will continue to trust in His goodness and in His ability to know our spiritual needs and what we have to offer to any church.
I know that it is God who is leading us somewhere else, since we have already experienced some really interesting coincidences at the new church thus far. My wife and I have prayed about it and we both are in agreement that God is moving us elsewhere. My wife and I don't always agree with everything, so for us to have unanimous agreement in how we sense God's direction, that to me says something. I didn't know anyone there until last week when I met some people. With sweaty palms and a nervous smile, I started to shake hands and introduce myself to total strangers, but in essence they weren't strangers but fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who I have just met. It's not like I am going to a business convention where people make connections in order to enhance their careers.
Another affirming sign for us was the fact that our son felt at home in the new church's children's program. My wife sat in on the first week, while I sat in on worship and compared notes afterwards. I told her that the worship and sermon and testimonies were very encouraging and she said the same about the children's program. It's a good start thus far.
I have heard that the number one question for preacher-teacher John McArthur in his 40-years in ministry and preaching, is "I don't have a good church to go to - where do I go?" His answer is "the best available that you can find". We are pleased to have been able to find one fairly quickly and without much searching.
I am thankful that in my life, I have only had to make a handful of such decisions. I don't enjoy change, and oftentimes have trouble pulling the trigger on a difficult decision, so sadly, I try to find ways to mitigate such decisions from having to be made in the first place. But sometimes it's inevitable that the decision has to be made.
My wife and I have been pondering such a decision for at least a couple of years now. And it was a very difficult decision to make, as it affects our children, not to mention our own personal spiritual life. We have decided that after 13 years, that we will be leaving our church. Now, for those who don't go to church, you may sit there and say, "who cares? It's just church." Maybe. But I guess you've never experienced the sense of community and belonging that comes with being part of a church. The sense of support and encouragement that a body of believers provides one another. The spiritual cohesion that develops, since let's face it, real born again Christians are in the great minority nowadays. It is indeed like moving to a new city, starting a new job. There's a certain sadness that comes with it, in terms of familiarity but also in terms of relationship.
I won't get into the reasons why we are making the change, but we not only made the decision (and make it collectively - this was not "my" decision, nor "her" decision), but have acted on it and swiftly too. We believe we have found our new church home and it is closer to our house and we've already made some contacts.
But still, there is a certain melancholy that comes with making such a significant change. There are many, many people at our church with whom we are quite fond, with whom we have shared joys and tears, friends who we regard like our own family and people who have helped carry us in difficult times. Sure, we will make new friends, but the fact is, some of the people who we only see on Sundays, we will probably never see again. That is hard for my wife and I to wrap ourselves around. But you know, we recognize that like everything else, there are strengths and areas of improvement. We still want to show that we value our old church's strengths but continue to support programs financially and by our attendance. But I suspect that over time, as we move into programs at our new church, this too will eventually fade out.
13 years. My wife and I were married at this church. Both of our kids were dedicated there. I served there briefly as an elder and my wife as the children's ministry co-ordinator for a while. I think back of our time with fondness and have very few regrets. I recognize that no church is perfect, but just like anything else like a house or car or what food to eat or what music to listen to, there is a sense of personal preference involved, I will admit. But moreso with churches, there's also the added sense of where God wants us to be at this particular time. It is in this vein that my wife and I sensed God's calling us out pretty clearly. And while it is uncomfortable for us, we will continue to trust in His goodness and in His ability to know our spiritual needs and what we have to offer to any church.
I know that it is God who is leading us somewhere else, since we have already experienced some really interesting coincidences at the new church thus far. My wife and I have prayed about it and we both are in agreement that God is moving us elsewhere. My wife and I don't always agree with everything, so for us to have unanimous agreement in how we sense God's direction, that to me says something. I didn't know anyone there until last week when I met some people. With sweaty palms and a nervous smile, I started to shake hands and introduce myself to total strangers, but in essence they weren't strangers but fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who I have just met. It's not like I am going to a business convention where people make connections in order to enhance their careers.
Another affirming sign for us was the fact that our son felt at home in the new church's children's program. My wife sat in on the first week, while I sat in on worship and compared notes afterwards. I told her that the worship and sermon and testimonies were very encouraging and she said the same about the children's program. It's a good start thus far.
I have heard that the number one question for preacher-teacher John McArthur in his 40-years in ministry and preaching, is "I don't have a good church to go to - where do I go?" His answer is "the best available that you can find". We are pleased to have been able to find one fairly quickly and without much searching.
Monday, September 24, 2007
What Is Sin?
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.
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.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Public Officials Outed For Their Hypocrisy
I heard some news recently and thought, "Good for Larry Flynt!"
Whoa there, you are probably thinking. What on earth are you doing giving an accolade to the founder of the pornographic Hustler Magazine?
Well, let me just say that it's not what you think. I don't support Flynt's pornographic magazine, and his other business pursuits that revolve around smut. However, to show that I can be reasonably objective, I try to call a spade a spade, and when I see Flynt making reward money available to expose the hypocrisy amongst lawmakers, politicians, religious leaders, and other high-profile officials, I have to applaud him on that, since some of these same officials are acting two faced in making laws against pornographic materials, same sex marriage, abortion; meanwhile, their lives behind closed doors reek of hypocrisy.
Take, for instance, the latest on that David Vitters guy. Congressman in Louisiana who is married with four kids. Was recently outed has having been on the list of patrons for some high-end escort service a number of years ago. Strangely, until the story broke, he never admitted this. After the story broke, he started sounding contrite and talked about "serious sin" in his past, etc. I'd think for any politician who has some skeletons in the past, better expose them before starting to champion family values or what not. I have no issues with someone who has had a not-so-delightful past publicly recognize that they have since moved on and have received forgiveness, etc. At least you know that they have some credibility, being able to admit that they were not so perfect, but learned from mistakes. For Vitters to now come clean AFTER he is discovered; well, I don't really feel sorry for this guy, no different from that idiot Bill Clinton (who was not a conservative) who bold-faced lie to the American people on national television.
Of course, Vitters, just like evangelist Ted Haggard, claimed that he got nude massages, but no sex was exchanged (kind of funny, with the amount of registered massage therapists out there, you'd turn to either an escort service or male prostitute for a massage). Yeah, whatever.
Also recent news is the absolutely mind-numbing $660 million settlement between the Roman Catholic church and victims of sexual abuse (in the U.S.). As my wife and I read through numerous headlines, we were shocked by how widespread this abuse was - settlements were reached in various States with various amounts of victims. This just proves to me the whole fallacy behind the requirement of priests remaining celebate. The Bible talks about (in 1 Corinthians, I believe, about the fact that "it is better to marry than burn with passion." As human beings, we all have sexual urges, and unless a person is clearly gifted with the gift of celibacy (I don't consider it a gift, but anyway...), I'd say don't bother getting in a position where you'll get tempted. In my entire life on this earth, I have only met one person who (maybe) has demonstrated that she has this gift, and that's only from conversations and such that I've had with her. I would say that women would more likely have this gift than men, but I am not here to discuss celibacy, so let's move on...
How about "Dr. Laura" Schlessinger. Against birth control (never understood this), but she had her tubes tied, speaks out against adultery even though she committed it, does not believe in divorce, but she got divorced. Again, if it's in your past, but you have changed and you admit your past and move on, that's one thing. But if you are, say, preaching against homosexual relationships, while you are covertly pursing one - that's much more damaging to your credibility than admitting your past, but realizing that some mistakes you did make helped shape a different position on an issue.
This sort of goes back to my blog posting on the "myth of nice guys" (search my blog from last month - June 2006 - and you'll see it). I still maintain that those who seem to have a perfect life and perfect relationship in public likely have the most to hide.
Last year, there was Mark Foley, the Florida congressman who sent sexually explicit messages to his male pages (the text of these are public record, but pretty disturbing considering how bold an elected official will be in using such a traceable medium such as email. This didn't stop one guy (last name was Doyle, I think), who was like 4th in command at the department of Homeland Security in the U.S., who last year was busted on the spot for sexually laced emails to what he thought was a 14-year-old girl (literally - the police showed up at his door while he on his computer). This guy (55) even sent photos of himself wearing his official Department of Homeland Security badge, and passed along his government land line and cell phone numbers to this 14-year-old girl, who was obviously really a police officer. How a guy as dumb as this gets a high level government job with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, I will never understand. No wonder they haven't found Osama Bin Laden yet.
See, some scandals I'm not surprised about (like that Minnesota Viking "love boat" scandal). These guys never claimed to be above-the-board moral types, and they are not really in a position to be considered role models anyway. But I think for anyone to step into the public eye on either a political or religious platform based on some subset of moral values, better examine yourself first to make sure that you are consciously able to follow your convictions without some hidden stuff in your closet.
Whoa there, you are probably thinking. What on earth are you doing giving an accolade to the founder of the pornographic Hustler Magazine?
Well, let me just say that it's not what you think. I don't support Flynt's pornographic magazine, and his other business pursuits that revolve around smut. However, to show that I can be reasonably objective, I try to call a spade a spade, and when I see Flynt making reward money available to expose the hypocrisy amongst lawmakers, politicians, religious leaders, and other high-profile officials, I have to applaud him on that, since some of these same officials are acting two faced in making laws against pornographic materials, same sex marriage, abortion; meanwhile, their lives behind closed doors reek of hypocrisy.
Take, for instance, the latest on that David Vitters guy. Congressman in Louisiana who is married with four kids. Was recently outed has having been on the list of patrons for some high-end escort service a number of years ago. Strangely, until the story broke, he never admitted this. After the story broke, he started sounding contrite and talked about "serious sin" in his past, etc. I'd think for any politician who has some skeletons in the past, better expose them before starting to champion family values or what not. I have no issues with someone who has had a not-so-delightful past publicly recognize that they have since moved on and have received forgiveness, etc. At least you know that they have some credibility, being able to admit that they were not so perfect, but learned from mistakes. For Vitters to now come clean AFTER he is discovered; well, I don't really feel sorry for this guy, no different from that idiot Bill Clinton (who was not a conservative) who bold-faced lie to the American people on national television.
Of course, Vitters, just like evangelist Ted Haggard, claimed that he got nude massages, but no sex was exchanged (kind of funny, with the amount of registered massage therapists out there, you'd turn to either an escort service or male prostitute for a massage). Yeah, whatever.
Also recent news is the absolutely mind-numbing $660 million settlement between the Roman Catholic church and victims of sexual abuse (in the U.S.). As my wife and I read through numerous headlines, we were shocked by how widespread this abuse was - settlements were reached in various States with various amounts of victims. This just proves to me the whole fallacy behind the requirement of priests remaining celebate. The Bible talks about (in 1 Corinthians, I believe, about the fact that "it is better to marry than burn with passion." As human beings, we all have sexual urges, and unless a person is clearly gifted with the gift of celibacy (I don't consider it a gift, but anyway...), I'd say don't bother getting in a position where you'll get tempted. In my entire life on this earth, I have only met one person who (maybe) has demonstrated that she has this gift, and that's only from conversations and such that I've had with her. I would say that women would more likely have this gift than men, but I am not here to discuss celibacy, so let's move on...
How about "Dr. Laura" Schlessinger. Against birth control (never understood this), but she had her tubes tied, speaks out against adultery even though she committed it, does not believe in divorce, but she got divorced. Again, if it's in your past, but you have changed and you admit your past and move on, that's one thing. But if you are, say, preaching against homosexual relationships, while you are covertly pursing one - that's much more damaging to your credibility than admitting your past, but realizing that some mistakes you did make helped shape a different position on an issue.
This sort of goes back to my blog posting on the "myth of nice guys" (search my blog from last month - June 2006 - and you'll see it). I still maintain that those who seem to have a perfect life and perfect relationship in public likely have the most to hide.
Last year, there was Mark Foley, the Florida congressman who sent sexually explicit messages to his male pages (the text of these are public record, but pretty disturbing considering how bold an elected official will be in using such a traceable medium such as email. This didn't stop one guy (last name was Doyle, I think), who was like 4th in command at the department of Homeland Security in the U.S., who last year was busted on the spot for sexually laced emails to what he thought was a 14-year-old girl (literally - the police showed up at his door while he on his computer). This guy (55) even sent photos of himself wearing his official Department of Homeland Security badge, and passed along his government land line and cell phone numbers to this 14-year-old girl, who was obviously really a police officer. How a guy as dumb as this gets a high level government job with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, I will never understand. No wonder they haven't found Osama Bin Laden yet.
See, some scandals I'm not surprised about (like that Minnesota Viking "love boat" scandal). These guys never claimed to be above-the-board moral types, and they are not really in a position to be considered role models anyway. But I think for anyone to step into the public eye on either a political or religious platform based on some subset of moral values, better examine yourself first to make sure that you are consciously able to follow your convictions without some hidden stuff in your closet.
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.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Pitfalls & Shortcomings of Forced Multiculturalism
It is often said of Toronto that it is a great world model for showcasing and highlighting cultural diversity, toleration, ethnic co-operation and so forth. You may concur with this statement. Toronto is indeed a city which is comprised of people from various ethnic and cultural backgrounds. There is hardly any doubt about that, as one quick trip to viturally anywhere in the city will show. However, despite all of the liberal rhetoric, the question must be asked, "Does cultural diversity, multiculturalism, and toleration" really foster a greater sense of cohesion among people of different backgrounds, or is it stifling collective growth?" In observing the social climate over the past two decades, along with drawing from personal experience, I would conclude that multiculturalism may not be as beneficial as some people think.
By my surname, you may have correctly concluded that I am of Asian descent. I, like my younger brother and sister were born in Hong Kong, and in 1977, my parents emigrated to Canada along with their three children, and we spent five years in Edmonton, Alberta. In 1982, we moved to Ajax, Ontario where my Mom, Dad, my sister and her husband still live. In both Edmonton and Ajax, I have seen my fair share of racial tensions, and have concluded that prejudice and racial tension stems from an unwillingness to get to know another person, particularly taking the initiative to fight off initial prejudices. However, read closely here: interaction goes both ways.
From grades 4-8, I attended a school in which the student population was overwhelmingly white, with a very small handful of visible minority students. As such, it was not terribly surprising that from time to time, I would hear the occasional oriental joke, names, and what not, and 100% of the time, the person doing the taunting has never met me before (there were exceptions, of course). A funny thing happened though, with many of these kids. Once they got to know me, the jokes and name-calling ceased. But here is the rub and the central point: I did not allow the name-calling (as hurtful as it was, trust me) to force me into a ethnic ghetto community, or to avoid difficult situations and relationships, orto react in a way which re-inforces the prejudice.Once I made friends (some of whom were previously enemies), these new friends of mine would often come to my defence whenever someone else cracked a joke. From an early age, I had realized that people did not necessarily have a problem with me, but that they are making generalizations based on age-old stereotypes, and it was perhaps their way of dealing with something different. The best way, I found, to dispel these stereotypical notions is to get to not let their jokes get the best of me, while at the same time making efforts to try to know the other person, emphasizing commonalities instead of differences. To this day, I take this approach, even in my business relationships, not focussing on a colleague or client's known reputation, but simply taking on relationship and one interaction at a time, finding common ground and building from that point.
In saying all of this, here is where I see the current state of race relations in a melting-pot of a city. First off, advocates of multiculturalism argue that people are co-existing well within what has been called a "mosaic". Is this really true, though? In Toronto, there are numerous ethnic communities located in certain geographical points, which may rightly be argued as being segreational. There is Chinatown, Greektown, the Italian community, the Jewish community, the Black community, Little Portugal, and so forth. All the communites have their own little shops set up, their own restaurants and their own local hangouts. Sure, this may be great for tourist attractions, and I have definitely benefited from the tasty food offered up by these communities, but what about for relationship building? To paraphrase Reginald Bibby, who in his essay, "Is multiculturalism tearing us apart?" observes that although multiculturalism is beneficial in that it allows one to maintain their culture/heritage, the broader benefits of this cultural diversity are not realized unless interaction occurs between people of different cultural backgrounds." This is so true. Think about it. Let's say I enjoy humour. You are a person who also enjoys humour. If both of us do not make an effort to meet and discuss jokes, and what not, are we not robbing ourselves of an opportunity to share our mutual fondness of humour, and make one another laugh?
Of course, one may argue with me that these folks are making a valuable contribution to our collective society as a whole by setting up a business and stimulating the economy. I guess this may be technically true, but just who are the majority of the patrons of these establishments? I have found that many ethnic businesses draw their business mostly from within their own community. How does this benefit Canadian society as a whole, other than the feds getting some more tax money from businesses - at the very least, the feds don't discriminate - they'll suck you dry (monetarily speaking), no matter what your nationality is. My dad told me a while back that I'm an idealist; that I should deal with the stark reality that people are not comfortable with others who are different from them. My concern is not whether this behaviour or mindset exists, or whether it is real, but rather, is it right?
A person who believes that there are no racial problems in North America had better take another look. If the O.J. Simpson verdict more than a decade ago was any indication, racial problems are alive and well. Just recently, it was reported that, in the American South, some white teachers were caught doing hanky panky with black underaged students. The debate on many news sites focussed more on whether this will stir up racial tensions (since if it was a black adult and an underaged white female - the response probably would have been much different, and I tend to concur).
Personally, I see many factors which contribute to current existing racial tensions. For instance, it seems quite chic these days for people to cry racism at the drop of a hat. I have a real problem with people who do this. Of course, at times, this charge is valid, but in some cases, it is not. I am a frequent contributor on RedFlagDeals.com, which is a Canadian bargain-hunter website. Recently, some guy got on and said that he was an Asian guy who was seated at the back of a Swiss Chalet and he felt that he was a victim of racial discrimination. I read that and thought, "give me a break!" I am happy to get any spot after waiting - this person obviously already had something in his head. Thankfully, he was overwhelmingly chastised for taking such a ridiculous view, particularly when it was at a well established franchise restaurant (known to hire many visible minorities) in a large Asian surburban area, and besides...in 2007, almost every company out there has a zero-tolerance policy towards any type of discrimination. One would have to be foolish in order to do something like that.
When people are labelled as racist, when in actuality they are not, it can easily foster a sense of resentment and obvious defensiveness. In more than a few cases in Canada, when a white police officer shoots a black individual, all of the sudden, it becomes a racial issue, and more fuel is added to the fire. Forget the fact that the black person may be actually committing a crime, no different than a white person or anyone else getting shot in commiting the same crime. No doubt, there is policy brutality out there, there is unfair racial profiling going on, and no doubt, there are crooked cops, but one's first reaction should be to find out all the facts, rather than playing the race card on the first round.
I also feel that hiring quotas and associated affirmative action policies may be doing more harm than good. Sure, these practice may have evolved from honourable intentions, but the problem, as I see it, is that it is simply reverse discrimination. My arguments here are nothing new, as countless people have echoed these sentiments. As the old cliche goes, two wrongs do not make a right. I also find it to be a slap in the face of the individual being hired. Who wants to be hired on the basis of their skin colour? I certainly would be tremendously insulted if I found out that I was hired not because of my abilities or my aptitude or my attitude, but rather by what I look like in order to fill a quota. Hiring quotas/affirmative action may completely ignore one's skills and educational background, both of which a person has had to work hard to obtain. Furthermore, what message is this sending to visible minorities, women, and the disabled? That they can't "cut it" unless they need a certain push? That's nonsense. To be quite blunt, people should be hired on the basis of merit and qualifications, not by their colour or what they have between their legs. If I or my wife or my son was in a burning building, you can be pretty sure I'd like a person to rescue me (that is, if I needed to be rescued) who could actually lift me. I wouldn't care what they look like, but if they can save us, hey, that's what counts.
Finally, two trends which trouble me greatly. The first one is criticism which I get saying that I am a cultural traitor, that I am too westernized, etc. All of this criticism comes from, thankfully, only a handful of people. Put quite simply, this is my response: there is no doubt that environment plays a role in one's development. As such, I was essentially brought up in North American culture, like millions of other Asians. I had very little difficulty in adjusting and adapting to Canadian culture. Frankly, I thought it was quite cool that I was able to "get the best of both worlds", as my parents would make efforts to try to ensure that I had some knowledge of my cultural background (and to this day, I am so thankful for this). Since a very early age, I was enrolled in a Chinese heritage program, and for a good seven years in Toronto, went through the program (it was on Saturdays), often scoring high on exams, penmanship contests and what not. All the while I was also attending public school and learning Canadian history, art, gym, and so forth. To this day, I can still carry a conversation in Cantonese as well as English. I really suspect that my critics are not making much of an effort to get to know me first (yet, am I crying discrimination per se?). As well, I suspect that these people have had a harder time adjusting to Canadian culture, and may resent my relative ease of adjusting. I believe that it comes down to one's willingness to accept his/her new country and learn some of its customs. So many minorities complain that they are being misunderstood. The question which I often pose is, "are you making an effort to get to know someone else?"
As a Bible-believing Christian, I have been struggling with the second trend for a number of years. The second trend concerns itself with how culture and ethnicity affects the local church at large, and while I can easily devote an entire article on this topic (I probably will), I will try to keep this short and concise. Over the years, I have been more and more convinced that homogenous churches are nothing more than ethnic social clubs (I'm not just talking all-Asian churches here, but I'm talking about all-white or all-black churches as well - both of these are in abundance in the Toronto area). Of course, I have met a number of people at homogenous churches who put the Word of God first over cultural aspects, and I know of quite a few very Godly men and women who hold leadership positions in ethnic churches. Still, I wonder what the role of the ethnic church is, other than to impart the message of the Bible to those whose mother tongue is not English. The young people at many of these churches are completely fluent in English. There are services which are entirely in English. Yet a number of these young people do not attend camps and church retreats unless they are with other churches of the same ethnic background. Somehow, I don't doubt that parents are to blame here. I am entirely convinced that homogenous churches provide a certain degree of cultural comfort, and feel so strongly about this topic that when a guest speaker came to one of our church and missions courses at the college (many years ago when I was young) and spoke on this topic, I openly debated him about why I do not believe that the homogenous church is fostering that universal bond between the body of Christ (usually, I don't say anything in class). Instead, the body has splintered off, with one part not being terribly sensitive the others.
I used to attend an all-Chinese church, as it was our family church. In 1995, I left that and joined an non-denominational multi-cultural, multi-ethnic church. Our pastor (who has since left) had a great conversation with me once about the fact that even though a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural church grows a lot slower than an ethnically homogenous church, the Biblical model is that there should be no distinctions between believers (Galatians 3:28, I think). As such, I really think our church is doing great things in bucking the megachurch trend (most of the large megachurches in the U.S., with some exceptions, are pretty homogenous).
Well, these are my thoughts on this matter. Please, by all means feel free to share yours. I would be interested to hear what you have to say. Thanks for taking time out to read this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)