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.
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Monday, May 25, 2009
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Situational Ethics Revisited
Years ago, I read a book by well known ethicist Joseph Fletcher, entitled "Situation Ethics" (or is it "Situational Ethics"? I don't remember). In it, he suggests that ethics systems can and will be influenced by their sitaution. To simplify, your ethics system will adjust depending on circumstances. What you may do in one instance, you may not do in another. In essence, any moral response is contingent on environmental factors.
At the time of the reading, I thought it was the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. I guess at the time, as a new Christian, I had an idealized version of how things can and should be. I thought it ridiculous that an ethics system can have, as its foundation, a worldview that does not show tangible consistency. It was, in my view at the time, a flawed system, one which really turns decisions into a truly subjective exercise and is devoid of any consistent belief system. Ultimately, I saw it cross with my theological understanding which espouses moral and ethical absolutes.
Fast forward to 2008, and my viewpoint hasn't changed...much. I still think an ethics system that can be easily swayed can show a lack of moral integrity and personal conviction in the adherent. I mean, essentially, this relegates ethical dilemmas to the realm of fashion, where one week something is "in" and the next week it is "out". Plus, moreover, I'm not entirely sure that having an ever-changing ethic system is in line with Scriptural principles. I know, I am over-simplifying, but hopefully you see my point, even a little bit.
Here's where I started to break away from my previous hard-wired stance on this topic. I think there is some truth to the old adage, "unless you have been in someone's shoes..." What really prompted me to look into this further was an article I read in the newspaper a while back, about a guy who lost his job and in trying to make ends meet for his kids, he decided to start robbing banks. Not sure if it was an armed robbery or the traditional "stick 'em up" types, complete with pantyhose on the head and a Brooklyn accent. Regardless, when I first read this, my first emotional response was that I felt sorry for this guy - not sorry as in patronizing sorry, but sorry in terms of empathetic sorry. Then I thought, "should I be feeling this way?" I mean, there are many people down on their luck who don't resort to robbing banks. Do I think this guy is a bad guy? I don't know - I would have thought that he was a scumbag 15 years ago, but now I am a father of two and I put myself in that position. What would I do? I can tell you that I don't think that I would not rob a bank, but would I be tempted to perhaps do other things which may not be so extreme in terms of criminality? Would I break away from my long-held conviction and practice of not offering cash to a merchant to save on tax? I don't know. Would I not report all my side income? I don't know. It's hard to say. Now, here's the rub: is any of this right? My response would be, "probably not."
Why the change in heart, as minor as it may be? Well, I think I am starting to look at things from a more wider spectrum. That is, I try not do judge a word or action in a vacuum. So in the wider scheme of things, I consider the following: why is the person doing or saying what he/she is doing or saying? In other words, I examine motive, something which I dismissed before. I think it is a factor in play. Now, here's where I can speak definitively for myself. Some actions or behaviour in nature, is inherently wrong. For instance, lying is wrong. However, would you fault a person who lies to a criminal in order to save the life of their family? Probably not. I wouldn't think twice. Does that mean that I demonstrated a coveted virtue? Probably not, but consider the following example in the Bible: Rahab deliberately lies in order to save the Israelites. Nowhere do I see that action condemned in the Bible - in fact, isn't Rahab mentioned in the Hebrews 11 "Hall of Fame" of the faith? Does that make lying OK? Of course not, but it certainly doesn't make it a cut and dry issue as I thought it once was.
Do I believe in white lies? No. I don't believe there are such a thing as an innocent lie. Now, this is based on my understanding of what sin is, and while I have never really read a truly good explanation of what sin is (usually, people will outline the effects or outcroppings of sin, not sin itself), I think that in reading the Bible all these years, I have come up with a fairly concise explanation: sin is separation from God, sure, but I would classify sin as any instance, whether in thought or speech or deed, where one puts the focus on themselves rather than God. Guess you can say it is driven out of selfish motive. That definition, I think, works given the fact that if you look at any sin, there is a commonality in the preservation or satisfaction of self. Look at lust, look at covetousness, look at lying, look at idolatry, murder, stealing, etc.
However, where I think motive comes into play is in an action which may historically have a self-driven motive, but in the situational cases they do not. A parent who has decided that without the ability to procure the proper legal means to pay for food for their kids, decides to do a Robin Hood approach (and even then, how many people have historically vilified Robin Hood?) and steal from the rich. The intention is not self-focussed. The action is still wrong, but are there degrees of wrong now?
I know, this is a slippery slope argument. In the above example, can you say that the stealing was justified if there were other means or avenues of options available that the individual just was not aware of? And what is considered a need compared to a want - there's a fine line sometimes. What if the parental thief goes from stealing food to stealing clothes and then starts to differentiate between basic clothes and brand name clothes. Is it the same thing to judge a person who steals bread and milk to feed their kids, as opposed to a parent who steals lobster and filet mignon?
(STOPPING THIS POST IN ORDER TO WATCH PALIN/BIDEN DEBATE...WILL RESUME LATER)
At the time of the reading, I thought it was the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. I guess at the time, as a new Christian, I had an idealized version of how things can and should be. I thought it ridiculous that an ethics system can have, as its foundation, a worldview that does not show tangible consistency. It was, in my view at the time, a flawed system, one which really turns decisions into a truly subjective exercise and is devoid of any consistent belief system. Ultimately, I saw it cross with my theological understanding which espouses moral and ethical absolutes.
Fast forward to 2008, and my viewpoint hasn't changed...much. I still think an ethics system that can be easily swayed can show a lack of moral integrity and personal conviction in the adherent. I mean, essentially, this relegates ethical dilemmas to the realm of fashion, where one week something is "in" and the next week it is "out". Plus, moreover, I'm not entirely sure that having an ever-changing ethic system is in line with Scriptural principles. I know, I am over-simplifying, but hopefully you see my point, even a little bit.
Here's where I started to break away from my previous hard-wired stance on this topic. I think there is some truth to the old adage, "unless you have been in someone's shoes..." What really prompted me to look into this further was an article I read in the newspaper a while back, about a guy who lost his job and in trying to make ends meet for his kids, he decided to start robbing banks. Not sure if it was an armed robbery or the traditional "stick 'em up" types, complete with pantyhose on the head and a Brooklyn accent. Regardless, when I first read this, my first emotional response was that I felt sorry for this guy - not sorry as in patronizing sorry, but sorry in terms of empathetic sorry. Then I thought, "should I be feeling this way?" I mean, there are many people down on their luck who don't resort to robbing banks. Do I think this guy is a bad guy? I don't know - I would have thought that he was a scumbag 15 years ago, but now I am a father of two and I put myself in that position. What would I do? I can tell you that I don't think that I would not rob a bank, but would I be tempted to perhaps do other things which may not be so extreme in terms of criminality? Would I break away from my long-held conviction and practice of not offering cash to a merchant to save on tax? I don't know. Would I not report all my side income? I don't know. It's hard to say. Now, here's the rub: is any of this right? My response would be, "probably not."
Why the change in heart, as minor as it may be? Well, I think I am starting to look at things from a more wider spectrum. That is, I try not do judge a word or action in a vacuum. So in the wider scheme of things, I consider the following: why is the person doing or saying what he/she is doing or saying? In other words, I examine motive, something which I dismissed before. I think it is a factor in play. Now, here's where I can speak definitively for myself. Some actions or behaviour in nature, is inherently wrong. For instance, lying is wrong. However, would you fault a person who lies to a criminal in order to save the life of their family? Probably not. I wouldn't think twice. Does that mean that I demonstrated a coveted virtue? Probably not, but consider the following example in the Bible: Rahab deliberately lies in order to save the Israelites. Nowhere do I see that action condemned in the Bible - in fact, isn't Rahab mentioned in the Hebrews 11 "Hall of Fame" of the faith? Does that make lying OK? Of course not, but it certainly doesn't make it a cut and dry issue as I thought it once was.
Do I believe in white lies? No. I don't believe there are such a thing as an innocent lie. Now, this is based on my understanding of what sin is, and while I have never really read a truly good explanation of what sin is (usually, people will outline the effects or outcroppings of sin, not sin itself), I think that in reading the Bible all these years, I have come up with a fairly concise explanation: sin is separation from God, sure, but I would classify sin as any instance, whether in thought or speech or deed, where one puts the focus on themselves rather than God. Guess you can say it is driven out of selfish motive. That definition, I think, works given the fact that if you look at any sin, there is a commonality in the preservation or satisfaction of self. Look at lust, look at covetousness, look at lying, look at idolatry, murder, stealing, etc.
However, where I think motive comes into play is in an action which may historically have a self-driven motive, but in the situational cases they do not. A parent who has decided that without the ability to procure the proper legal means to pay for food for their kids, decides to do a Robin Hood approach (and even then, how many people have historically vilified Robin Hood?) and steal from the rich. The intention is not self-focussed. The action is still wrong, but are there degrees of wrong now?
I know, this is a slippery slope argument. In the above example, can you say that the stealing was justified if there were other means or avenues of options available that the individual just was not aware of? And what is considered a need compared to a want - there's a fine line sometimes. What if the parental thief goes from stealing food to stealing clothes and then starts to differentiate between basic clothes and brand name clothes. Is it the same thing to judge a person who steals bread and milk to feed their kids, as opposed to a parent who steals lobster and filet mignon?
(STOPPING THIS POST IN ORDER TO WATCH PALIN/BIDEN DEBATE...WILL RESUME LATER)
Friday, November 16, 2007
Good and Not So Good Bible Devotionals
For many years, I have been looking for a good Bible devotional for daily reading. Aside from the fact that my own lack of discipline and my absolutely atrocious time management techniques has led to my not really having a consistent devotional life for a year or two now, my other problem is in the fact that I have not found a truly useful daily devotional tool. Now, if you're a regular Bible reader, I know what you're thinking - just read the Scriptures from start to finish, or for those who are really sponteneous, just flip the Bible to a different page per day and read from it. Or read a bit from beginning to end. The problem with this approach, for me anyway, is the fact that I just can't do readings of any sort without some structure or parameters. It would be nice to know when to quit, so that way you are not stopping in the middle of a passage and are left scratching your head. Or you read too much and your mind wanders. Or you read too little and do not feel engaged with the text. Besides, there are some books of the Bible that, although I acknowledge to be part of the Word of God, it is not on the top of my to-do reading list. The book of Psalms is one, and the book of Job is another. But more on those another time.
A couple of years ago, my wife and I tried (and I said tried, because we were not sucessful at completing the task) to use John MacArthur's study Bible (I am a reasonably keen fan of Pastor MacArthur's preaching and teaching, though I don't agree with some of his positions on certain issues). It was an aggressive endeavour, as we had planned to read the entire Bible from start to finish in one calendar year. This was also very ambitious of us, seeing as we had a relative newborn baby at the time who usurped much of our daily attention So in January of that year, we started our nightly Bible study time by reading a bit of Genesis, a bit of Matthew, and a bit of the Psalms/Proverbs, as the suggested study timeline indicated. Not only that, but we ended up reading MacArthur's notes and such. If you've ever tried to do one of these "read the Bible in a year" things, you'll know that you need to read a LOT per day in order to achieve this. The problem was, we ended up going through some pretty confusing passages in the enormous chunk we read every night, and the Psalms parts were difficult to digest, as they always are for me.
For me, a devotional guide not only provides a logical structure of what to read when, but it also follows a theme that provides you an overall picture of the Scriptures. A tremendous asset or selling point would be if the devotional included aspects of a commentary, providing important contextual, historic and language/culture input that people otherwise may not know. Let's face it - few few Bible readers are theologians, so any help is much appreciated. Besides, having commentary value enhances the passage in question, making it more alive and providing a thorough contexual examination of the passage's location in the book as well as in Scripture itself. Think about it: if I were just to look at a simple passage through the lens of normal reading, I would obviously (and perhaps unconsciously) read the passage through the filters of 2oth or 21st century images and word definitions. A commentary would help to unravel some of this and provide some linguistic help.
My point in writing this post is not to necessarily review a bunch of common devotional guides and critique them; rather, I'd like to share the fact that I have been looking for a good Bible devotional and it just so happened that a good friend of mine recently suggested that I consider the Tom Wright "Everyone" series. The "Everyone" series seems to be, at first glance, a Bible commentary. Each book more or less corresponds in a one-to-one fashion with the associated Scripture book. Thus "Matthew For Everyone" would be dedicated just to the book of Matthew (though in the "Everyone" series, Matthew is split up into two guides). The book of Luke is covered in "Luke For Everyone" and so forth. Anyhow, I managed to read through a good chunk of the book that my friend lent me to consider, and I think I will be buying the rest of the set. This is exactly what I'm looking for.
Tom Wright, if you don't know, is N.T. Wright, an Anglican dude from the U.K., and a theologian which the Christianity Today publication (on which my feelings are lukewarm) considers one of the top five contemporary Biblical theologians in the world today. Now, I've read a couple of Wright's books, including "Who Was Jesus?", in which I had some serious reservations, but when my friend, for whom I have a deep level of respect, encouraged me to consider perhaps using Wright's Bible study set as a daily devotional, I put my personal bias aside and decide to check it out.
Well, I am impressed. I can see how these books can be used as devotionals. For one, it has everything that I expected of a good devotional, and more. The entire book is broken down into much smaller sections, the text of which are included in the book (so you don't need to car a Bible and a devotional around - it's great for the traveller or the person who has limited desk space). In between each section of quoted text are the commentary sections - it discusses historical context, word meanings, and then proposes some application. This is very much like the Life Application Bible (which I really like) style of Bible reading, but instead of constantly flipping back and forth between the text and the small footnotes, the commentary part follows each text section. This way, after you read the passage section all the way through, it is fresh in your mind when it comes to dissecting it. And each reading is maybe 10-15 minutes or so, if not less, so there is no chance your attention span will wane.
The "Everyone" series is meant for exactly that: everyone. It is written from a non-academic, non-technical perspective - much of the theological nomenclature can be found in a supplemental glossary, so as a result, a well versed theological person does not have to wade through elementary definitions in order to continue reading, but the new Bible reader will similarly not have to worry about deciphering endless amounts of technical academic theological language. This makes the book more engaging, and your get right into the Biblical text. If it is for these reasons that I'd recommend that you consider this series if you are looking for a well-rounded Bible daily devotional tool. I don't think it's meant as a daily devotion per se, since it's not split up by days, but I think it's better this way since you aren't focusing so much tracking days rather than immersing yourself into the Word.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Theological Discussions...Discussed
Back in my Bible college days about 12-15 years ago, I remember many late nights sipping coffee with a bunch of guys in dorm, as we sat in a lounge debating the merits and shortcomings of a number of theological topics. At the time, I was an eager participant, since I've only been a Christian for about 2-4 years at that point, so any discussion which would either cement or strengthen my faith was welcome. Of course, I have the propensity to be opinionated and I love debating/arguing (I'll let you distinguish), so it was a perfect vehicle for me to learn and engage the mind, at the same time forming friendships and fostering Christian fellowship.
More than a decade later, I still enjoy a good theological debate and have a few friends with whom I can probably spend an entire afternoon outside in lawnchairs, while sipping beers or other beverages of choice, talking about pre or post tribulation, Calvinism or Arminism, whether to dunk or splash or spray (we're talking baptism here, in case you are thinking something else). However, my views on theological discussions and debates have shifted noticeably since those days when I was a relatively new Christian.
I'll come right out and state it succinctly that I think that Billy Graham has it right (I can't comment on his son or his grandson, though they seem to be doing ok in carrying the torch). I have watched Billy Graham on TV many times (and had the opportunity to see him live only once), but if you watch Mr. Graham, you'll notice that he preaches the same gospel day in and day out, nothing added, nothing taken away. You go back to a tape or a reel of film from the 60s, compare it to the 80s and you'll see it's the same message. He is obediently following Jesus' final commission for this followers. And people today are responding in making decisions for Christ. Mr. Graham seldom is seen bogged down discussing sectarian theology or denominational distinctives - I personally think he has it right, and my shift in thinking over the years has been because I believe that Christians everywhere spend too much time debating useless theology (not useless per se, but ultimately useless in the whole scheme of things). Let me quickly explain.
There are things absolutely worth debating. I think that how a Christian views hot-potato social issues like abortion, homosexuality, war and peace, capital punishment, euthanasia, legalizing drugs, feminism, the environment, etc. has a place, particularly in that one's actions generally will be a product of one's worldview. For instance, I would never support (read: financially and otherwise) a political candidate who is a proponent of abortion (this topic will be coming up shortly in my blog here, but for now I'll just state that). I would never support (read: financially or otherwise) a church who has a practising homosexual minister or whose constitution allows openly practising homosexual members. As a result, if someone were to convince me otherwise or wanted my viewpoint, I am not shy (now, some people may think of me as a bit of a prick for being so opinionated and not as "tolerant" and "understanding", but I was not put on this earth to win popularity contests nor please everyone, so if I piss people off or they don't like me, I have learned that it goes with the territory of speaking one's mind openly). How I view things has a direct impact on what I do / not do, so if someone asks for my views on something that matters to them because it may potentially impact their own actions, I certainly take that seriously and will be happy to discuss/debate issues, and do so with respect and compassion to the other person (since they are struggling with coming to grips with issues as well, just like I am).
All that being said, I feel that many theological discussions have no overarching value, as much as I believe that many non-theological discussions have no overarching value (ie. talking about celebrity gossip or what Paris Hilton is up to - who really gives a rat's ass, honestly? If you do, I'd reassess your grasp of reality if I were you - I recently went to a friend's BBQ at their place and the husband was eager to talk about Paris Hilton in jail and he asked me what I thought and I said, although not as tactfully as I should have, "I don't care - let's talk about something else."). On the top of the theological discussions that have no value are discussing things which we clearly do not know and will not know, followed by discussing issues that perpetuate denominationalism. Again, I'll explain.
I have never been entirely comfortable with eschatological theology; that is, theology that deals with the end times. It was great to discuss this as a new Christian with a bunch of guys equally interested with picking each other's brains, but from a pragmatic perspective, how this plays out is out of our control. Same with the elected vs. free will debate. I think it's more important for Christians to preach the gospel to as many people out there as possible, rather than bicker about whether God has already chosen those and set them aside, or people choose Him through their free will. Neither argument can be perfectly supported, even using Scripture, and if you look at Jesus' example, He spends very little time, if any, debating the theological issues of the time. He went out and met with people and ministered to their needs and offered His free gift of salvation (the book of John is filled with Jesus meeting common people - notice how he spent very little, if any, time with the religious leaders at the time - the Pharissees and Saduccees). As His followers, we need to take a look in the mirror and realize that there are many things out of our control and rather than trying to find the answers to how the end times will work out, we should be spending our time reaching others with the gospel in our day to day lives. I think this brings more glory to God since it shows that we are yielding to Him for things that we may not understand and have faith in His ultimate will. It does seem easier and safer to debate these things with Christians, but people are dying everyday without knowing Christ, so which is more important?
My other issue with these either/or debates is that it puts you into one camp or the other. I am not a Calvinist, but I am not an Arminist either. But in the end here, my position is that this is a peripheral point. If you made a decision to accept Jesus Christ as your Saviour by asking Him into your heart, you are saved. Whether it was your free will making the decision, or God's predestined work, I don't know. But what is important is that you made the decision and what is even MORE important than that is that someone told you the good news of the gospel message.
There are other peripheral issues in my mind, such as what happens during communion or, as my good friend Greg would call, the Eucharist. Frankly, I don't particularly concern myself with whether trans-substantiation occurs or con-substatiation or no substantiation or trans-fat substantiation, to use a current food term). Jesus commanded his followers to remember Him through partaking in the bread and the cup. I think everyone (I hope everyone) will agree with me that reverence for what the Lord commanded and respecting the elements (ie. not deliberately throwing it around or chewing like a cow with cud) is appreciated, but whether the elements actually become the body and blood is foreign to me, and it doesn't matter anyway since we are remembering Christ through our actions and in humility, spend time confessing our sins and asking forgiveness while we take communion.
The next part of this discussion may get me into some hot water, but I'll lay it out nonetheless. I think that the church today is not living up to the model of the original New Testament church in that it is fractured into all these denominations. Someone (a non-Christian) once asked me about this and said that the church can't even agree on things, so how can they purport to evangelize others? You know what - that's a really valid point and one which I think needs to change for the church to be effective. Let's state at the outset, and I hope that we can agree - these denominations are all built upon subtle (and at times not so subtle) differences in the way they view theology. Take that to its origins and you will see that these denominations were created because people took issue with another's views, etc., and purport that these are all substantiated by Scripture. I can't comment on too much of this, since I am not a theologian or a Biblical scholar, but it would seem to me that many of these things are more preference types of theology - for instance, most evangelical churches today will have something in their constitution or statement of faith about God being triune: God, Son, Holy Spirit, and that the Bible is the only divinely inspired Word of God, that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to be saved, God's gift of salvation is by grace alone (not works), every human being is sinful and in need of redemption, and so forth. However, despite what commonalities these churches have, it is their distinctives in theology which set them apart and which often causes friction and lack of unity. Some of these churches have differences in local church governance structures, the place of women in ministry (which I actually think is a bigger issue than a peripheral one which people would have you believe - I think the Bible is pretty clear in how it views the qualifications of a pastor or elder and yes, I believe they both need to be men and it's not because I'm sexist or misogynist or whatever else label gets applied to people who don't embrace feminism). But ultimately, if I had or were forced to rank what is more important - preaching the gospel or debating women in ministry, I'd work on my gospel presentation. Also, I realize that I don't operate in a vaccuum, so I need to sometimes be active in less-than-ideal conditions and be willing to yield to Christian unity over a denominational disagreement. But because I am not a big fan of denominations anyway, I tend to stay away from the discussions that center on denominational differences. Churches today have much more important things to worry about (such as whether they are doctrinally sound and whether their view of Scripture as the ONLY divinely inspired Word of God is intact - North American churches tend to be shifting more towards a business type of model, to my utter chagrin - I went to a church last year in Edmonton, Alberta - it was a very large, considered "hip" church complete with a bookstore and coffeeshop (it was disconcerting to see commerce done on Sunday IN THE CHURCH) - but you know what? If I were asked for my assessment of that church (and I was - my cousin asked me) - I would say big building, high tech children's drop-off and retrieval program, lots of seating, lots of options of things to do in the church building itself, highly emotionally-based worship singing, lots of use in A/V for presentations and skits and what not, but the sermon/message was not unlike something I would hear in a business meeting. The place was packed and I can see why - why not go to a place where they don't discuss the need for salvation, how we need to seek forgiveness for sins, how Christ's death paid for our sinful break with God? Instead, they have divorce support groups, teen and college support groups, ethnically-centered support groups, etc. Probably a church which held up "The Purpose Driven Life" as canon. Again, they can talk with me about reaching the lost and evangelism numbers and what not, but if their message is so syrupy, I'd say they have more important things to talk about.
Oh...what was I talking about. Oh yeah. There are some very good theological discussions that can be had, and these days, I generally gravitate towards those (or introduce those) whenever possible. I've already discussed that I generally try to refrain from participating in theological discussions that perpetuate denominational distinctives, discussions or over which we, as human beings, have no control. I'd add to that things such as speculative conjecturing, such as "what was that thorn in Paul's flesh and what was the nature of it?" or "what was that, that Jesus wrote on the sand in the account of the adulterous woman being brought out by the religious leaders?" Similarly, there are things (miraculous occurrences) that I cannot explain, but I simply have to accept on faith. As per one of my earlier postings, I believe the central issue for Biblical apologetics is whether the Bible is true or not. I wholeheartedly believe and know that the Bible is God's Word, so I will have to take the parts which I don't quite understand along with the many more parts that I do understand.
I mentioned already some of what I consider are "good discussions" - those which have value in that it can and does prompt us towards action in our lives, in order to be the salt and light of this earth and, whenever possible, advancing the Kingdom. I would probably add to that two other aspects which I find to be of good value in discussing and that is simple Bible study and also Biblical apologetics (or faith defence, as some term). Discussing the Bible is something which has inherit intrinsic value - being better versed with the manual to which believers live their lives is never a bad thing - discussing the Bible in all its facets in order to gain a better understanding of Scripture is a good thing. As a natural extension, in my view, every Christian should have a good, solid understanding of Biblical apologetics, being able to provide an answer when people ask us about our faith. Unfortunately, it's been too often that I hear of Bible-believing Christians not answering their door to Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons. I get encountered by Mormons very often in the intersection where I work and while I have to confess, it's not always the most comfortable to place to be in, I welcome the opportunity to discuss my faith (some times it has gone well, some times it has not, but whatever the case, I tend to read my Bible more that afternoon or that evening as a result, and that's always a good thing). More Christians need to be acquainted with their Bibles for those very reasons - so when someone comes and asks you about something, or challenges you on a topic, that you can at the very least use that as a potential witnessing opportunity. Those, I would suggest, are perhaps the best theological discussions you can have.
More than a decade later, I still enjoy a good theological debate and have a few friends with whom I can probably spend an entire afternoon outside in lawnchairs, while sipping beers or other beverages of choice, talking about pre or post tribulation, Calvinism or Arminism, whether to dunk or splash or spray (we're talking baptism here, in case you are thinking something else). However, my views on theological discussions and debates have shifted noticeably since those days when I was a relatively new Christian.
I'll come right out and state it succinctly that I think that Billy Graham has it right (I can't comment on his son or his grandson, though they seem to be doing ok in carrying the torch). I have watched Billy Graham on TV many times (and had the opportunity to see him live only once), but if you watch Mr. Graham, you'll notice that he preaches the same gospel day in and day out, nothing added, nothing taken away. You go back to a tape or a reel of film from the 60s, compare it to the 80s and you'll see it's the same message. He is obediently following Jesus' final commission for this followers. And people today are responding in making decisions for Christ. Mr. Graham seldom is seen bogged down discussing sectarian theology or denominational distinctives - I personally think he has it right, and my shift in thinking over the years has been because I believe that Christians everywhere spend too much time debating useless theology (not useless per se, but ultimately useless in the whole scheme of things). Let me quickly explain.
There are things absolutely worth debating. I think that how a Christian views hot-potato social issues like abortion, homosexuality, war and peace, capital punishment, euthanasia, legalizing drugs, feminism, the environment, etc. has a place, particularly in that one's actions generally will be a product of one's worldview. For instance, I would never support (read: financially and otherwise) a political candidate who is a proponent of abortion (this topic will be coming up shortly in my blog here, but for now I'll just state that). I would never support (read: financially or otherwise) a church who has a practising homosexual minister or whose constitution allows openly practising homosexual members. As a result, if someone were to convince me otherwise or wanted my viewpoint, I am not shy (now, some people may think of me as a bit of a prick for being so opinionated and not as "tolerant" and "understanding", but I was not put on this earth to win popularity contests nor please everyone, so if I piss people off or they don't like me, I have learned that it goes with the territory of speaking one's mind openly). How I view things has a direct impact on what I do / not do, so if someone asks for my views on something that matters to them because it may potentially impact their own actions, I certainly take that seriously and will be happy to discuss/debate issues, and do so with respect and compassion to the other person (since they are struggling with coming to grips with issues as well, just like I am).
All that being said, I feel that many theological discussions have no overarching value, as much as I believe that many non-theological discussions have no overarching value (ie. talking about celebrity gossip or what Paris Hilton is up to - who really gives a rat's ass, honestly? If you do, I'd reassess your grasp of reality if I were you - I recently went to a friend's BBQ at their place and the husband was eager to talk about Paris Hilton in jail and he asked me what I thought and I said, although not as tactfully as I should have, "I don't care - let's talk about something else."). On the top of the theological discussions that have no value are discussing things which we clearly do not know and will not know, followed by discussing issues that perpetuate denominationalism. Again, I'll explain.
I have never been entirely comfortable with eschatological theology; that is, theology that deals with the end times. It was great to discuss this as a new Christian with a bunch of guys equally interested with picking each other's brains, but from a pragmatic perspective, how this plays out is out of our control. Same with the elected vs. free will debate. I think it's more important for Christians to preach the gospel to as many people out there as possible, rather than bicker about whether God has already chosen those and set them aside, or people choose Him through their free will. Neither argument can be perfectly supported, even using Scripture, and if you look at Jesus' example, He spends very little time, if any, debating the theological issues of the time. He went out and met with people and ministered to their needs and offered His free gift of salvation (the book of John is filled with Jesus meeting common people - notice how he spent very little, if any, time with the religious leaders at the time - the Pharissees and Saduccees). As His followers, we need to take a look in the mirror and realize that there are many things out of our control and rather than trying to find the answers to how the end times will work out, we should be spending our time reaching others with the gospel in our day to day lives. I think this brings more glory to God since it shows that we are yielding to Him for things that we may not understand and have faith in His ultimate will. It does seem easier and safer to debate these things with Christians, but people are dying everyday without knowing Christ, so which is more important?
My other issue with these either/or debates is that it puts you into one camp or the other. I am not a Calvinist, but I am not an Arminist either. But in the end here, my position is that this is a peripheral point. If you made a decision to accept Jesus Christ as your Saviour by asking Him into your heart, you are saved. Whether it was your free will making the decision, or God's predestined work, I don't know. But what is important is that you made the decision and what is even MORE important than that is that someone told you the good news of the gospel message.
There are other peripheral issues in my mind, such as what happens during communion or, as my good friend Greg would call, the Eucharist. Frankly, I don't particularly concern myself with whether trans-substantiation occurs or con-substatiation or no substantiation or trans-fat substantiation, to use a current food term). Jesus commanded his followers to remember Him through partaking in the bread and the cup. I think everyone (I hope everyone) will agree with me that reverence for what the Lord commanded and respecting the elements (ie. not deliberately throwing it around or chewing like a cow with cud) is appreciated, but whether the elements actually become the body and blood is foreign to me, and it doesn't matter anyway since we are remembering Christ through our actions and in humility, spend time confessing our sins and asking forgiveness while we take communion.
The next part of this discussion may get me into some hot water, but I'll lay it out nonetheless. I think that the church today is not living up to the model of the original New Testament church in that it is fractured into all these denominations. Someone (a non-Christian) once asked me about this and said that the church can't even agree on things, so how can they purport to evangelize others? You know what - that's a really valid point and one which I think needs to change for the church to be effective. Let's state at the outset, and I hope that we can agree - these denominations are all built upon subtle (and at times not so subtle) differences in the way they view theology. Take that to its origins and you will see that these denominations were created because people took issue with another's views, etc., and purport that these are all substantiated by Scripture. I can't comment on too much of this, since I am not a theologian or a Biblical scholar, but it would seem to me that many of these things are more preference types of theology - for instance, most evangelical churches today will have something in their constitution or statement of faith about God being triune: God, Son, Holy Spirit, and that the Bible is the only divinely inspired Word of God, that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to be saved, God's gift of salvation is by grace alone (not works), every human being is sinful and in need of redemption, and so forth. However, despite what commonalities these churches have, it is their distinctives in theology which set them apart and which often causes friction and lack of unity. Some of these churches have differences in local church governance structures, the place of women in ministry (which I actually think is a bigger issue than a peripheral one which people would have you believe - I think the Bible is pretty clear in how it views the qualifications of a pastor or elder and yes, I believe they both need to be men and it's not because I'm sexist or misogynist or whatever else label gets applied to people who don't embrace feminism). But ultimately, if I had or were forced to rank what is more important - preaching the gospel or debating women in ministry, I'd work on my gospel presentation. Also, I realize that I don't operate in a vaccuum, so I need to sometimes be active in less-than-ideal conditions and be willing to yield to Christian unity over a denominational disagreement. But because I am not a big fan of denominations anyway, I tend to stay away from the discussions that center on denominational differences. Churches today have much more important things to worry about (such as whether they are doctrinally sound and whether their view of Scripture as the ONLY divinely inspired Word of God is intact - North American churches tend to be shifting more towards a business type of model, to my utter chagrin - I went to a church last year in Edmonton, Alberta - it was a very large, considered "hip" church complete with a bookstore and coffeeshop (it was disconcerting to see commerce done on Sunday IN THE CHURCH) - but you know what? If I were asked for my assessment of that church (and I was - my cousin asked me) - I would say big building, high tech children's drop-off and retrieval program, lots of seating, lots of options of things to do in the church building itself, highly emotionally-based worship singing, lots of use in A/V for presentations and skits and what not, but the sermon/message was not unlike something I would hear in a business meeting. The place was packed and I can see why - why not go to a place where they don't discuss the need for salvation, how we need to seek forgiveness for sins, how Christ's death paid for our sinful break with God? Instead, they have divorce support groups, teen and college support groups, ethnically-centered support groups, etc. Probably a church which held up "The Purpose Driven Life" as canon. Again, they can talk with me about reaching the lost and evangelism numbers and what not, but if their message is so syrupy, I'd say they have more important things to talk about.
Oh...what was I talking about. Oh yeah. There are some very good theological discussions that can be had, and these days, I generally gravitate towards those (or introduce those) whenever possible. I've already discussed that I generally try to refrain from participating in theological discussions that perpetuate denominational distinctives, discussions or over which we, as human beings, have no control. I'd add to that things such as speculative conjecturing, such as "what was that thorn in Paul's flesh and what was the nature of it?" or "what was that, that Jesus wrote on the sand in the account of the adulterous woman being brought out by the religious leaders?" Similarly, there are things (miraculous occurrences) that I cannot explain, but I simply have to accept on faith. As per one of my earlier postings, I believe the central issue for Biblical apologetics is whether the Bible is true or not. I wholeheartedly believe and know that the Bible is God's Word, so I will have to take the parts which I don't quite understand along with the many more parts that I do understand.
I mentioned already some of what I consider are "good discussions" - those which have value in that it can and does prompt us towards action in our lives, in order to be the salt and light of this earth and, whenever possible, advancing the Kingdom. I would probably add to that two other aspects which I find to be of good value in discussing and that is simple Bible study and also Biblical apologetics (or faith defence, as some term). Discussing the Bible is something which has inherit intrinsic value - being better versed with the manual to which believers live their lives is never a bad thing - discussing the Bible in all its facets in order to gain a better understanding of Scripture is a good thing. As a natural extension, in my view, every Christian should have a good, solid understanding of Biblical apologetics, being able to provide an answer when people ask us about our faith. Unfortunately, it's been too often that I hear of Bible-believing Christians not answering their door to Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons. I get encountered by Mormons very often in the intersection where I work and while I have to confess, it's not always the most comfortable to place to be in, I welcome the opportunity to discuss my faith (some times it has gone well, some times it has not, but whatever the case, I tend to read my Bible more that afternoon or that evening as a result, and that's always a good thing). More Christians need to be acquainted with their Bibles for those very reasons - so when someone comes and asks you about something, or challenges you on a topic, that you can at the very least use that as a potential witnessing opportunity. Those, I would suggest, are perhaps the best theological discussions you can have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)